FLASH

Invites regional ESM organizations to get affiliated with AFVAI to strengthen the movement Further.Please contact at afvaindia@gmail.com #

FLASH

WATCH THIS BLOG REGULARY FOR LATEST NEWS ON ONE RANK ONE PENSION & OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS RELATING TO EX-SERVICE PENSIONERS #

Friday, 29 January 2016

A Humble Reply to JS ESW's Letter received in Response to AFVAI's Appeal, made on 05-Nov'15, regarding injustice done to JCO / ORs




"1:2200000 RATIO"- THE TRUE TRIBUTE TO OUR MARTYRS!

We have just finished celebrating the 67th Republic Day of our country with all pomp and show. The high light of the celebration was the 'Republic Day Parade' in which the President of India and the Supreme Commander of our Armed Forces received salute from the marching contingents.  The marching soldiers were so smartly turned out in their colourful uniform, head gear and with their medals proudly pinned in their chests. Their moustaches  were coloured and twisted to look up as a symbol of their courage and combatant capability. As they marched swinging their arms upto the level of their head and in tune with the bands playing various patriotic tunes like  "Sareh jahaje acchahai, humara Hindustan" etc, the crowds cheered them up loudly perhaps making the Chief guest who is usually a head of a foreign government seated in the dias to wonder as to why their armed forces are not doing the same thing on their national days!  He might have been  later on told by his Armed Forces Commander that the soldiers are meant to fight the enemy and not to put up a colourful show during National Day celebrations. There could be another view point that one needs show case only those things that one is lacking in reality. Is it not true that when our bed is dirty then we spread a colourful bed sheet to cover it?; when we put up a board in public offices not to pay bribe is it not obvious that the officials are corrupt and take bribe; if we advertise swaach bharat, do we not acknowledge that we are dirty? I only hope and pray that the Republic Day parades do not fall in that category. It does not by  mistake convey an entirely opposite image of our efficient and capable armed forces!!
The second important highlight of the event was our Prime Minister leading the nation in paying the tribute to the brave hearts of our country by laying  a wreath on the platform of Amar Jawan Jyothi at India Gate before the commencement of the parade. The place was so tastefully decorated with colourful flowers and plants; the brass vessels in which the Jyothi is lit 24x7  polished to the gilt and shining; the PM arrived in his cavalcade and received by the DM and his MOS along with all the three chiefs of the Armed Forces; placed a wreath carried by two slow marching soldiers while 21 guns boom to salute the solemn occasion. The whole ceremony was  meticulously planned and organised with military precision.
No doubt the ceremony looked grand and fabulous but it appeared more of a mechanical and text book ceremony, wherein the rituals were given precedence than the realities. One couldn't help asking the question to himself : were they there to truly pay their respect to the soldiers who have laid their lives today for the tomorrow of their fellow countrymen so that they will have a safe and secured future forever? Somehow I did not feel the presence of that kind of a spirit.
It was also devoid of the sensitivity that such solemn occasion demanded. People should have avoided wearing  attire of dazzling and dashing colours like gold, yellow or pink which are worn only during festivals. I am sure they were not there to celebrate the sacrifice of the martyrs but to pay obeisance to the soldiers who have died for the national cause! How can people ignore such niceties and etiquette?
Neither this government nor the future ones would stop such  grand celebrations just because of this article. But they can attempt to pay true tribute and show real respect to those soldiers who have laid down their life for the safety of their fellow country men, at least in the coming years, by treating the serving soldiers and the surviving former soldiers  with the dignity that they deserve and by recognising their genuine needs and aspirations! Now one gets an impression that one should  be 'dead' to get recognition and respect and the survivors are treated as past baggage passed on to them; as intruders who have become a burden. This applies equally to any  government irrespective of the party to which they belong to.
The question is what are the genuine needs and aspirations of the serving soldiers and the surviving former soldiers ? Let me list them  out for the ready reference:
(a) Kindly do away with the feudal practice of making the young and combatant soldiers to work as "orderlies" in the homes of their officers;
(b) Kindly formulate a fair and just pension scheme written in simple and easily understandable language for the soldiers who are required to retire very early to keep the profile of the forces young and fighting fit. This must be different from the pension scheme of all others who retire later;
(c) Kindly provide adequate and reasonable RESETTLEMENT schemes  for early retirees to smoothly change over and settle down in their civil life;
(d) Kindly evolve a mechanism whereby  every soldier - serving or retired is able to express his views and opinion in matters of his service conditions like pay, pension and other facilities and not to depend exclusively on the recommendations of officers on such matters;
(e) Kindly treat all soldiers equally irrespective of their rank in all sensitive matters like compensation payable after death due to war and terrorist attacks; Military Service Pay and all other risk related allowances;
(f) Kindly introduce President's awards to personnel other than officers also. Presently most of these awards are only for officers  thereby giving a wrong impression that others do nothing worth to recognise;
(g) Kindly ensure that the defence housing societies like Army Welfare Housing Organisation and Air Force Naval Housing Board build a minimum of  75% of the units as small budget houses affordable by the personnel of lower ranks. Currently these housing societies construct houses which are affordable only at the level of senior level officers;
(h) Kindly introduce much more efficient and equitable medical facility, which would treat every soldier equally without difference or discrimination with an effective grievance mechanism in built to redress immediately whenever any discrimination is reported;
(j) Kindly ensure that all post retirement facilities and benefits meant for Ex Servicemen are available equally to all irrespective of their rank and status.
(k) The state sainik welfare boards should have an executive council to be elected through secret ballot by the Ex Servicemen registered in the respective sainik boards;
(l) Presently all the CSD canteens cater to both officers and others; both the serving and retired. It would be better to have exclusive canteens for the Ex Servicemen retired from other ranks as their number is huge in any city or town.
(m) Kindly implement the ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) which has already been notified without any further delay. Also accept and implement the legal pronouncements on delinking full pension with 33 years service, immediately.
Hopefully our political bosses would understand the urgent necessity of redressing the above grievance points before the next Republic Day Celebrations on 26th January 2017. That will only be the true tribute and respect they can pay to the martyrs!.
Jai Jawan!        Amar Jawan!!
Sgt M.P. KARAN
President
Karnataka Chapter

Sunday, 24 January 2016

"1:2200000 RATIO" DOES OROP MEAN ONE RANK TEN PENSIONS? SOME STRAIGHT QUESTIONS!

        The OROP being demanded by some of the ESM associations is not objective and  is heavily loaded in favour of retired officers. They are in fact misguiding the retired NCOs and JCOs by wrongly projecting themselves as if they are fighting for the  benefit of all.
(1) Their contention that the armed forces personnel start retiring very early from the age of 33,  is true only in the case of  NCOs and JCOs since the Commissioned Officers normally retire only at 54. How can they then expect these two different groups of personnel to be treated equally for the purpose of OROP and expect to be computed by an uniform formula? What is the additional consideration available in the proposed OROP scheme for those who retire very early at the age of 33?? If there is no difference in consideration between those who retire at 33 and 54,  and if they are to be governed by the same formula and yardstick then why should there be a difference in consideration between those who retire at 54 and 60?
(2) Their contention that the OROP was in existence until 1973 and the same has been denied thereafter is true However, in 1973  the pension of NCOs and JCOs was 70% of the pay and their OROP was also calculated on that basis, while the pension of the officers was only 50% of their pay and their OROP must have been calculated only on that basis. But the current OROP being demanded will be based on 50% of the pay for both the groups. How is it justified?? Further with the Introduction of MSP after 6CPC, the reckonable emoluments of officers for the purpose of pension has increased exponentially taking their OROP figure to  much higher level than the NCOs & JCOs who are only benefited marginally with the MSP.
(3) The demand of officers to fix their pension at the maximum of the scale is also another veiled attempt to reap as much benefit as possible to themselves. It is an undeniable fact which everyone of us has witnessed over the years that the officers prefer to compare themselves with the IAS officers wherever it is beneficial to them and at other times they will join with the NCOs and JCOs, if that benefits them. They want to eat the cake and have it too and that too always!!!!. For the purpose of pension at the maximum of the scale and OROP they felt it is beneficial to be with the NCOs and JCOs and so dragged us to JM in the name of an united agitation. At the same time they fix frequent unscheduled meetings with the 'Powers-that-be' and agree to the proposals of the government which may neither be beneficial nor in the interest of PBORs. One such decision is agreeing to retain the X and Y group of ORs for the purpose of OROP. The simple question is: who are they to agree and decide things on our behalf? It is unheard in the history of any democratic country or institution that a group which is only a minuscule part of the entire group take decisions on behalf of the majority which is almost 95% , without even consulting or informing them?? Can this be considered as part and parcel of the ethos and discipline of the Armed Forces?? Will they  accept payment of lower OROP for the officers belonging to Administration branch than the officers of other branches like the Flying Branch ? If not, then why not ??
(4) Therefore the bottom line is that we are not happy with what is proposed to be given as OROP to us. The real OROP for NCOs and JCOs should be different from the officers who normally retire 20 years after the retirement of a Sepoy, Naik or Havildar. The advantage of 20 years more service gives them the benefit of 2 additional pay commissions; at the least 20 annual increments @ 3% every year thereby taking their pay 60% higher and their pension 30% higher. Therefore the fair and equitable OROP for NCOs and JCOs should provide for the following vital aspects:-
(a) Adequate compensation for very  early retirement commencing at the age of 33 years which deprives them 2 CPC benefits and 20 annual increments. This should be IN ADDITION TO THE OROP to be calculated on an uniform formula applicable to  both the retired officers and ORs.
(b) Since the MSP will have substantial bearing on the quantum of OROP payable, unless all ranks of the Armed Forces are paid the SAME AMOUNT OF MSP, there cannot be any meaningful or equitable OROP. Even otherwise we donot see any logic or valid ground for different MSP for different categories of personnel of the Armed forces, since all of them are exposed to the same and equal difficulties and hardships of Military life.
(c) The quantum of pension for NCOs and JCOs should be RESTORED TO THE PRE-1973 LEVEL OF 70% and then the OROP should be computed on the basis of it.
(d) The OROP of the same rank of NCOs and JCOs should be equal irrespective of their group. Any attempt to retain the groups is contrary to the basic definition of OROP included in the Koshiyari Committee Report ; it will be ONE RANK TWO PENSIONS. Further, if UFESM describes the proposed OROP as One Rank Five Pensions, then does it not amount to ONE RANK TEN PENSIONS FOR NCOs & JCOs?
(e) The most important point is that there should be consultation with all stake holders and especially with those who are directly affected by the decision. The practice of making the officers who just constitute less than 5% of the defence personnel to take decisions on behalf of 95% of the community and make them to suffer perennially, in the name of discipline is neither appropriate nor acceptable.
(f) There is lot of confusion created about applicability of OROP for pre-matured retirement cases.  As per the statistics available in public domain approximately about 12000-15000 PBORs and about 300-500 officers seek PMR every year. This information is incorrect and wilfully spread by them so that the NCOs and JCOs would become anxious and join the agitation in large numbers. If we read carefully the OROP notification issued by the MOD, you will realise that the notification does not speak of PMR. It only speaks of "discharge on own request (DOOR)"
It will be interesting to note that THE ARMY PENSION REGULATION  stipulates discharge  on the following circumstances are neither construed as PMR nor as DOOR:
(i) on completion of tenure
(ii) on completion of service limit (iii)on completion of terms of engagement
(iv) on attaining the prescribed age of retirement and
(v) who seeks within one month pre-mature retirement/discharge within one month on request for the purpose of getting higher commutation.
There will hardly be any PBOR who would  opt for discharge other than on any of the above grounds. These are only those rare cases of PBORs seeking PMR/ discharge on personal compassionate grounds. These cases can easily be identified from their discharge books, where it is explicitly recorded as  "discharge on own request" against reason for discharge. Only such DOOR cases and that too the FUTURE ones will be denied OROP as per the notification issued by GOI. It is  possible that this kind of discharge among officers could be more in number. The officers who are offered senior level posts in public sector undertakings & Autonomous bodies opt for DOOR in order to take up such positions and this happens frequently among them. This also happens in some rarest of rare cases where the officer or the PBOR concerned is instructed by the department  to seek the DOOR for some obvious reasons. Hence the statistics of 12000 - 15000 PBORs opting every year for such discharge on own request is absolutely wrong. It's a mischief intended to create unnecessary anxiety among PBORs. Let us not be carried away by such statistics.BEWARE OF SUCH FALSE & MALICIOUS PROPAGANDA!
Finally, it would be in our own interest and particularly in the interest of  those veterans who are in advanced age to accept the OROP currently being offered by the GOI and then take up for revision of the same ON THE ABOVE VALID GROUNDS with the one man judicial commission already appointed to look into the anomalies concerning OROP. If necessary, the legal remedy is also available to us as a last resort.
Sgt MPKaran
President
Karnataka state Chapter AFVAI

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

WELL DONE BISWASDA


Our West Bengal state President Biswasda Addressing ESM meeting organized by him in Kolkata during membership drive

Saturday, 16 January 2016

'1:2200000 RATIO"- WILL DELINKING OF 33 YEARS, BENEFIT THE PRE-2006 ESM WHO HAVE RENDERED LESS THAN 20 YEARS SERVICE?

Friday, 15 January 2016

Congrats AN Singh Sir,President Gujrat Chapter

LIST OF MEMBERS GUJRAT

Sl. No.
Name of Member
Rank
Service No.
Membership No.
1
ATAR SINGH
SGT
661224H
GJ1301
2
SRIDHAR ROUT
SGT
636184 K
GJ1302
3
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH
SGT
671925 B
GJ1303
4
YASHWANT SINGH
SGT
622474 A
GJ1304
5
VRAJESHKUMAR P VAKHARIA
SGT
651432 G
GJ1305
6
BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
SGT
621203 G
GJ1306
7
K.V. GOVINDANKUTTY
SGT
620632 N
GJ1307
8
R.P. SINGH
JWO
699769G
GJ1308
9
SURAT SINGH
NK
14322262 L
GJ1309
10
HARBIR SINGH
SGT
651703S
GJ1310
11
AJOY KANTI GHOSH
SGT
637260
GJ1311
12
BHOOPENDRA TIKHE
SGT
633324R
GJ1312
13
DHYAN SINGH BISHT
HAV
4053384A
GJ1313
14
SUDARSAN SINGH
SGT
624485 N
GJ1314
15
PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA
JWO
617242F
GJ1315
16
YESH PAL SINGH SHEORAN
MWO
277408 R
GJ1316
17
SOHAN PAL SINGH SIWACH
JWO
618596 L
GJ1317
18
KRISHNA PAL SINGH
JWO
667448 N
GJ1318
19
SURAJ SINGH
WO
645071 L
GJ1319
20
AMRENDRA KUMAR
SGT
689868 N
GJ1320
21
NIGAMANANDA TRIPATHY
SGT
662627 T
GJ1321
22
MANHAR R SHAH
SGT
618364 K
GJ1322
23
SURYA PRAKASH GUPTA
JWO
691955f
GJ1323
24
DEEN DAYAL YADAV
SGT
638603B
GJ1324
25
RAM BAHADUR SINGH
JWO
286050
GJ1325
26
WANKHEDE NIVRUTI GANPAT
SGT
670555F
GJ1326
27
BALJIT SINGH MALIK
JWO
287925H
GJ1327
28
NANDKISHOR SHARMA
MWO
255921
GJ1328
29
GOURI SANKAR PATI
SGT
626184A
GJ1329
30
RAMESHCHANDRA KHAMAR
SGT
608728T
GJ1330
31
SUMAN KUMAR
SGT
747429K
GJ1331
32
SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA
SGT
621113 H
GJ1332
33
RAKESH KUMAR
L/Hav
14390773N
GJ1333
34
GYANENDRA KUMAR SINHA
SGT
609938
GJ1334
35
BALARAM DASH
JWO
622868
GJ1335
0
RN SINGH, Advocate
SGT
0
0
0
Ajit Kumar Dey
SGT
0
GJ
36
JAGDISH KUMAR SINGHLA
Hony Fg Offr
612517 G
GJ1336
37
RAMAYAN RAM MAURYA
JWO

654060 T
GJ1337
38
RAMESH CHAND SONI
JWO

242215 N
GJ1338
39
VISHVA NATH NAKARA
SGT
292853 A
GJ1339
40
INDAL SINGH
WO
617161 F
GJ1340
41
DHARMENDRA SAROHA
SGT
640063 R
GJ1341
42
AYUDHYA BAITHA
SUB
JC 174138 Y
GJ1342
43
HARENDRA SINGH
Hav
14341110 Y
GJ1343
44
SAHADEO SINGH
SGT
727752 T
GJ1344
45
SHANKAR LAL KUMHAR
CPL
703396 K
GJ1345


EXSERVICEMEN BENEFITS