One Pension One Scheme: An Ardent Approach

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

The Government’s announcement to implement the ‘One Rank One Pension’ scheme certainly came as relief to the veterans of the armed forces but there still remain some deliberations which need to be sorted out. The centre fulfilling its major election promise, propounded it to be a matter of distress stating that various governments remained indecisive about OROP, thereby seeking credit for the closure of this four decades of undying protests. The primary purpose to culminate the strike however remains unresolved as the veterans rejected the policy embowering the scheme for the reason that it deviates from the core issues from the accepted notion.

The implication of this scheme is that uniform pension be paid to the personnel of the armed forces retiring in the same rank with same length of service regardless of their date of retirement. This bridges the breach between the rate of pension receivable by both the current and past pensioners and further the future augmentations in the rate of pension be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

The Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar in his statement has enumerated that the Government respects the devotion of those veterans of the armed forces displaying exemplary courage in various challenging circumstances. Further it has been provided that the government held widespread consultations with the experts and the ex-servicemen and despite the huge financial burden considering the economy backlashing, the decision has been taken to implement this scheme. Though certain implementations pertaining to the constitution of judicial committee and reviewing of the policy have been side-tracked for what has been claimed by the veterans but that would soon be itemized in the detailed Government Order as per the Ministry.

The reason for the extensive protests and public appeals was the termination of the OROP during the tenure of the INC led by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi which later witnessed drastic decrease in the Armed forces pension from 70% to 37% based on the last salary drawn. This unending protest led to the setting up of Koshyari Committee, a ten member all party Parliamentary Panel to probe into the situation, which after the enquiry found merit in the scheme and strongly recommended the Government to implement the same at earliest. Regardless of the Committee report and the evident restlessness amongst the veterans, the UPA Government due to reasons unknown was dawdling in the implementation of OROP.

Thereafter, post the elections, the Government at the centre changed but it led to further concern as to the consideration of this scheme as promised in the party manifesto during the election campaigns. Though there arose uncertainties pertaining to the matter but after few divergences, the Government stalledthe enactment of the policy with the expectation of meeting the demands of the veterans. The Governmental offer included the effectiveness of such scheme from July 1, 2014 with the equalisation of pensions at every 5 years and the appointment of the one member judicial commission for submitting his report in six months.

The rolling out of the scheme was reiterated as the Government’s commitment towards the ex-servicemen but the veterans still want more as their contention signifies that the base for the pension should be maximum of the pension scale as compared to the average of pension scale offered by Government. Further their demand for the annual revision of such policy though seems extravagant but the five member committee under the direction of Defence Minister to submit its report however would be acceptable considering the complexities in the governmental policies and the issues in question thereon.

The potential beneficiaries of OROP include 3.2 million combined total of ex-servicemen and war widows for which an estimate of about INR 8400 crores has been sanctioned by the government in order to fulfil the projected demand. Though the estimation is sought to be one-time payment, which will substantially increase with every pay commission thereby extricating the purpose of this scheme, the top position has been made as to the exclusion of those ex-servicemen who had opted for pre-mature retirement from the ambit of OROP, on grounds such as recruitment of the young army and the curtailed career results of those who have provided their best years to the service of the nation and society.

There has been no such explanation for delaying the implementation of this pension scheme except blaming the other political parties for their ambivalent approach. Further, administrative and financial difficulties were projected as roadblocks wherein the cost structure and pre-requisite thorough analysis were not subject to interpretation. Despite of the inadequate structure, the Government was however able to provide a chunk of the economy so that these issues could be resolved substantially but despite this move, the ex-servicemen were dissatisfied with the scheme and continued with the protest, thereby defeating the very purpose of such implementation.

Although, most expectations from the OROP scheme have been met, the rest of the arrangements need to be resolved with deliberations. Efforts must be made by the ex-servicemen to understand the essence of such progressive steps, instead of throttling the efforts by standing firm on their approach. The various amendments though would only enhance the strata of the scheme since the announcement of the one-member judicial committee examining; the issues of retirees would not be a rational approach, provided the intricacies in the process. Further, the review of such scheme annually would be an unrealistic approach since the review panel working on such scale would not be able to submit its report considering the amount of ex-servicemen and veterans claiming the benefit under the scheme.

Thus, the government should be opportunist in this regard for the purpose of closing the unseen gaps between the ex-servicemen army personnel and the bureaucracy regarding the compensation paygrade. Further, it is also  to be noted that the beneficiaries  should lower their improbable expectations from the government as it has  remained determined for the advancement of the pension beneficiaries. and there shall be nothing incorrect in the approach to discourage the demands that may rise from other sectors following such availed benefits. Thus, it is indeed an ardent approach considering the disengagement from the governmental promises by the veterans and the governments’ transcendental acknowledgement of the countrymen where promises aredelayed but not denied.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -