One Rank One Pension – For and Against – Indian Express Article narrates the need for implementing OROP and also the negative effect on the Country’s economy as a result of recurring financial burden
OROP
— or One Rank, One Pension — means that every pension-eligible soldier
retiring in a particular rank gets the same pension, irrespective of his
date of retirement. As of now, soldiers who retired more recently
receive more pension than those who retired earlier. This is because
pensions are dependent on the last salary drawn, and successive pay
commissions have raised salaries.
Thus,
a Colonel who retired after the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations
were accepted in 2006, gets more than a Colonel who retired when his
salary was computed on the basis of the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission.
OROP, though promised by both the
UPA and NDA, is yet to be implemented, triggering emotional, countrywide
protests by ex-soldiers. Sushant Singh explains the arguments for and
against OROP.
OROP – Explained – Interesting Video explaining the concept of One Rank One Pension
Discussions favouring OROP:
Compensation for early retirement, and a national obligation.
The nation needs a young Army, necessitating early recruitments and retirements. Soldiers have short careers — a jawan retires
at age 35, while a civilian can work until he is 60. To make up for
their shorter working lives, without lateral absorption into another
government job of the same grade and status, veterans need compensation
that is comparable to what a soldier of the same rank retiring today
would get from the government.
A curtailed career
results in denial of longer service at higher pay and, therefore,
higher pension. Soldiers are denied the opportunity to earn more
increments and promotions, as well as the benefits offered by more
recent pay commissions, which significantly affects their pensions.
OROP can address all of this. There is also the emotional argument. Defence forces personnel give up their best years
to the service of the nation and society, suffering hardships of
military life — and, at the end of their service, face limited
opportunities for re-employment.
Many defence
personnel, both serving and retired, feel that their contribution to the
nation and society is not adequately recognised or appreciated. Their
terminal benefits bear no resemblance to the realities of life in the
civilian world. A nation cannot allow its soldiers to feel that it does
not care for them. OROP is essentially an obligation of the Indian nation towards its soldiers — and the price it must pay for maintaining a standing Army.
OROP would send a strong emotional signal to soldiers and veterans.
Arguments against One Rank One Pension:
The arguments against OROP are based on administrative, financial and legal complications in implementing the scheme.
In
2011, the Defence Ministry told the Koshiyari Committee that records
going back further than 25 years were no longer available — a major
administrative “difficulty in introducing the concept”. There are cases
where soldiers who retired in the 1940s are still being paid family
pensions, and it will be administrative impossible to reconcile the
nearly 20 lakh cases over such a long period for OROP over any
reasonable timeframe.
The Law Ministry told the
committee that “if today’s pension and emoluments are passed
automatically to somebody who retired 30 years ago, there will be
inherent discrimination against terms and conditions of service which would lead to discrimination under the Constitution”.
A
related aspect: people who retire in the same rank often earn different
pensions because they may have served for longer periods in that rank. A
Colonel who serves for 12 years in that rank will earn more pension
than someone who served for 4 years as Colonel. Equating their pensions
was unlikely to withstand a legal challenge. The financial argument is
about the long-term cost of implementing OROP.
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s estimate of Rs 8,300 crore is only a one-time payout.
This amount will increase substantially every time a new pay commission
makes its recommendations, with all old pensioners being paid at the
new rate. There is also the likelihood of civilian employees, such as
the Central Armed Police Forces and the state police forces, raising the
demand for OROP. Finally, there are fears that civilian employees who
moved to a contributory pension scheme in 2004 might demand a reversion to fixed pensions, thus unravelling the whole system. That, perhaps, is the strongest argument against setting a precedent with OROP.
Source: The Indian Express
