MOD PRESENTATI?

ON ON OROP AND LATEST ACTIVITIES - AIEWA Inderjit Singh aiewa Jun 2 (1 day ago) to satbirsm Dear Gen Satbir Sir To begin with I must apologize for not responding to your fascinating mail educa ting me about the definition of OROP You know it is not even funny you guiding the author of OROP about what he has been fighting for for the last 30 years. Ev en if late i will try to salvage the OROP from the damage you people have done t o the very cause of the VETERANS and OROP by your great deeds you have indulged in for achieving your political ambitions. Any way I must congratulate you for a chieving great successes towards your political ambitions. You managed to get Co ngress defeated in Punjab and elected in Utrakhand. If OROP goes to Hell who car es. Now I must tell you it is not me who is messing up the matter, on the contrary i t is your team of worldly wise friends who messed up the matter three years ago, by meddling into OROP without being able to comprehend what it actually is and continue to do so even now. DEFINITION OF OROP I am glad that you have repeated the definition of OROP. The OROP means same pen sion for same rank for same length of service irrespective of date of retirement This also covers the perpetuity aspect which means that any future increases i n pension are automatically passed on to the past pensioners, a matter that you have been misinterpreting as annual increments in Pensions.This is what my defin ition also says with add ons to ensure that the bureaucrats are not in a positio n to have our submissions rejected summarily on account of the bloated figures o f expenditure involved on account of these issues. These add ons have evolved ov er a period of time to respond to every new invention of the bureaucrats in thei r attempts to have our submissions rejected. This however does not cover your desperate desire to get us annual increments o n pensions as per the annual increments of salary given to the serving soldier o f the same rank, Nor does it cover increase in pension of a Maj Gen or for that matter any rank even if the present is getting less than an individual of lower rank. It means that first we achieve the objective of same rank same pension irrespect ive of date of retirement and irrespective of what he is getting. Whether it is less than lower rank or more is not the concern yet. Once OROP is achieved then we see whether what we got is right or it needs a change for the better. Not be fore that. As you well understand, I hope, that the pensions are dependent upon the salary and unless the salaries are increased the pensions can not be increased. Getting the salaries increased does not fall within the domain of Veterans, whosoever i t may be and whatever rank he may have held. This is the prerogative of the Chie fs to take it up and not that of the Veterans. You people have assumed unto your self the duties of a serving Chief under the pretext of OROP. Please leave somet hing for them to do also. The first thing you have gone wrong is that you have exceeded your brief as a Ve teran. Please do course correction expeditiously and before you do any more dama ge. Talk only about same rank same pension and not increase in the pension of a major general because it effects you personally. I do however appreciate your hu rt feelings for getting less pension than a Brigadier. I assure you that we have got tis point on our agenda and will work to sort your problem out too, but af ter we have got you all OROP. OK ? My humble request please do not confuse the m atter for now. Now about the definition itself. I produce the accepted definition below:

DEFINITION OF OROP THE PRE )1 JAN 2006 RETIREES GOT THE SAME PENSIONS AS THE POST 01 JAN 2006 RETIRE ES BY MATCHING UP THE THREE FACTORS THAT GOVERN THE PENSIONS OF EX-SERVICEMEN i. e. THE RANK, THE LENGTH OF SERVICE AND THE TRADE (IN CASE OF ALL RANKS BELOW OFF ICER RANKS ONLY). AFTER THIS WAS EFFECTED ANY FUTURE INCREASES BE AUTOMATICALLY APPLIED TO OLD PENSIONERS. THE FAMILY, DISABILITY AND DEPENDENTS PENSIONS ARE IN CLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DEFINITION. THIS HOWEVER DOES NOT MEAN THE GRANT OF PENSIONERY BENEFITS SUCH AS DCRG AND ADDITIONAL VALUE OF COMMUTATION PENSION , FURTHER IT AT NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION INCLUDES ANNUAL INCREMENT IN PENSIONS AS IS GIVEN TO SERVING SOLDIERS . The last sentence has been added to the accepted definition after it was brought out as a major hurdle for the Govt hesitating to grant of OROP, for the first time ever in the last thirty years of our submission of this problem to the Gov 't in 1982 by a very responsible official. In simple words OROP means full parit y with the latest rates of pension for past pensioners. Once granted there are no increments till another revision by a Central Pay Commission or a Committee.. ' My definition is no different from that of the Koshyary Committee. It caters for OROP in perpetuity. It has some additional information to ensure that the leade rship is not misled by the bureaucracy. It has evolved over the past 30 years af ter seeing the shenanigans and misrepresentation of facts by the bureaucracy to some how mislead the unwary leadership which you have not been witness to. No wo nder you do not understand the logic of such additions. UNITY Now about we speaking in the same voice. In 2010 I had received a lot of mails f or initiating the process of unity amongst us all the ESM Orgs. Moved by these s entiments I invited all the orgs for working out a common agenda on 21 Oct 2010, which all can present to the leadership when they get the opportunity to meet t hem. I had been given time by the RM and I thought if we could work out this com mon agenda we could all go together and present to the RM on 23 Oct 2010. What y ou all did to that initiative is given below in brief just to refresh your memor y. THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 1) MOVED BY THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY YOU ALL I TOOK UP THE INITIATIVE TO INVI TE ALL ORGANIZATIONS FOR WORKING OUT A JOINT MEMO ON 21 OCT. 2) THE IESM PROMPTLY REJECTED THE INVITATION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT NOTICE. I THEN SOUGHT FROM THEM THEIR INPUTS SO THAT THESE COULD BE INCORPORATED..BRIG CHANDER KAMBOJH INFORMED THAT HE WOULD BE ATTENDING IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3) SUDDENLY I GOT A MAIL THAT IESM WOULD COME AND GEN SATBIR, BRIG KAMBOJH AND C OL JOSHIPURA WOULD ATTEND. THEY INCLUDED BRIG KAMBOJH IN THEIR LIST EVEN THOUGH HE SAID THAT HE WOULD ATTEND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 4) MEETING WAS HELD AS SCHEDULED. THE DRAFT MEMO PREPARED BY US WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND LOT OF GOOD SUGGESTIONS WERE GIVEN BY THEM ALL 5) AFTER THE MEETING ALL SUGGESTIONS WERE INCORPORATED AND FRESH DRAFT CIRCULATE D TO ALL FOR APPROVAL SO THAT IT COULD BE GIVEN JOINTLY ON 23 OCT. DURING THE ME ETING COL JOSHIPURA SHOWED KEENNESS TO ACCOMPANY. THE PERMISSION FOR HIM WAS ACC ORDINGLY OBTAINED. 6) ON 22 OCT GOT A MAIL FROM GEN SATBIR THAT THE MEMO SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED YE T. IT WAS THEREFORE HELD BACK. 7) ON 23 OCT WHEN COL JOSHIPURA WAS CONTACTED TO COME HE SAID THAT HE WAS TOLD T HAT THE IESM HAD NOT YET TAKEN THE DECISION SO HE COULD NOT COME. HE DID NOT GET BACK. OBVIOUSLY THEY DECIDED AGAINST GOING TO THE RM WITH US. BRIG KAMBOJH IN H IS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WENT ALONG. 8) THE ENTIRE INFORMATION ALONG WITH THE LETTERS GIVEN TO THE RM WERE PUT ON THE

INTERNET FOR YOU TO KNOW. IN RESPONSE TO THAT MAIL THE IESM SENT A MAIL ASKING EVERY BODY TO COME TO THEM ON 16 NOV FOR WORKING OUT THE COMMON STAND. By this movment you had first stalled the move forward from where we left on 21 Oct and then destroyed the work put in by so many including yourself own and y our other stalwarts. Having destroyed it then in your desperation to take all t he credit you called a meeting for working out a common stand afresh. There was no mention at all of what had already been done on 21 Oct 2010. Had your mail sa id that we meet to finalize the draft already worked out I would have gladly par ticipated. But NO. Why should you, when you have different agenda. That could ha ppen only if your intentions were honest. Tell me who destroyed the unity of Vet erans? You or me? KOSHYARY COMMITTEE Now about you and your Koshyari Committee. Below I give the statement of RM in P arliament on 20 Apr. STATEMENT OF RM ON 20 APRIL 2012 New Delhi: Government today made it clear that it would not be able to meet the 'One Rank-One Pension' demand of ex-servicemen due to administrative, financial and legal implications. Defence Minister A K Antony told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that based on the recommendations of the fourth (1986) and the fifth (1996) central pay commis sions, all of which highlighted the various "administrative, financial and legal implications", it was not "found feasible to consider the demand fully." The government had taken cognisance of the retired defence personnel's demand an d a committee was constituted under Cabinet Secretary to look into the issue and related matters, he said "After considering all aspects of the issue, and keeping in mind the spirit of t he demand, several recommendations to substantially improve pensionary benefits of the armed forces pensioners have been made, which have been accepted and gove rnment orders in implementation of the same have been issued," he added. I thought you the Messiahs of the Veterans had read it. Obviously either you do not know about it or if you know it you do not want to share this with your prot eges for fear of losing your already tenuous credibility. This is what the Govt reply is. Now Koshyary Chapter is effectively closed till this Govt changes or there is a change of heart of the present leadership. For a ny possibility of the first option coming about we shall have to wait for two mo re years. The second possibility is beyond your capability after what you have b een doing over the past few years of your existence. I therefore appeal to you a ll to please shut your shop till our initiative succeeds or the Govt changes. We will support you and your techniques if your mentors come to power, I assure yo u. NETAS AND NATAGIRI I thought Netagiri is indulged by people to get recognition as Netas, If that do esn't come they feel disappointed and dejected. The reason why I said so. If suc h friends feel offended obviously they are of different breed. I apologize, but please do advise how should they be addressed in future. Regards Lt Col (Retd) Inderjit Singh Chairman All India Ex-services Welfare Association