Observations and anomalies JCOs?NCOs and ORs

Indian Military Veterans

Respected Sirs,

The following few points observed may please be considered for representing to the concerned authorities with due recommendations at an early date.

 As it’s well known that it’s not the OROP and is being issued on the name of OROP. 

Added to this loss, the following observations are made on the side of the JCOs, NCOs & Ors for due consideration please.

Ø  The most hurting aspect is that the junior most within the Rank is more benefitted and the seniors affected.  This discourages those who have served more and sacrificed more for the country and indirectly makes the serving lot to quit the service at the earliest.

 Ø  Till date the Pension for Hony.Naik is the same as the Naik(TS) and was just one rupee less that the Naik Pension.

 Ø  (Please do refer Sub para I of para 9 of Circulars like 401, that very clearly states as

o   “As per existing rule, pension of TS Naik/Hony NK and Hony Havildar is Re 1/- less than pension admissible for NK and Havildar for the same length of qualifying Service and group of pay in which he was last paid respectively. It is therefore, clarified that the rate of pension shown in Annexure III (modified parity of pension) may be reduced by Re 1/- while comparing revised pension for TS Naik, Hony Naik and Hony Havildar between Annexure –I and Annexure-III –Table 1.).

 The same is further confirmed in para-2 of Circular 549 dated 30.09.2015.

 Ø  It is unfortunate that  now vide Circular 555, the Hony. Naiks pension has been  drastically  reduced and made as a separate clause.  The pension of the Hon Naik of Group ‘Y’ has been reduced to that of the Sepoy.

 Ø  The pension of Group ‘X ‘ SEPOY  is a constant and same for the service rendered for 7 years to 28 years.

 Ø  The pension of Group ‘Y ‘ Naik is a constant and same for the service rendered from 15 years to 28 years.

 Ø  The pension of Group ‘Y ‘ Hony. Hav  is a almost the same for the service rendered form 15 years to 22 years. on

Ø  Most of the ranks have the staggering of pension given in slabs without any variation based on qualifying service and thus leaving no value for the  Qualifying service rendered.

Ø  3.  Similarly it is unfortunate that  now vide Circular 555, the Hony Hav’s pension has been  reduced and made as a separate clause and equated to the pension of Naik except a little variation at the tail end of Hony.Hav of Y group where a little difference is shown.

 Ø  Ten Months service mandatory to get  pension for the rank last held:

The clause of Ten Months service mandatory to get pension for the rank last held was very well removed by the 6th CPC implementation Circular 397. .  Unfortunately the clause  is re inserted in Circulars 430.  But again the same clause has been withdrawn  by Circular 551 stating at para 6 of the circular as

 Ø  “ Further, revision under these order may be done on the basis of rank last held and not for the rank for which pensioned as the same has already been clarified in Note below Annexure-III of GoI, MoD letter dated 11.11.2008 circulated vide this office Circular No. 397 dated 18.11.2008 (as amended from time to time).

 Ø  The Hony.Naib sub ‘X’ group pension is the same as Naib Subedar ‘X ‘ Group  for the 22.5 to 26 Years of Q.S.  But for the Group ‘Y’  there exists the difference in pension between theses ranks.

 Ø  The most CRITICAL issue of the pension is for the Families. who lost their husbands at.  By linking the Qualifying service of their martyred husbands, the family pensioner who lost her husband at very young stage which means that with least service gets least Family Pension .  Till 6^th CPC the Family pension is decided based on the highest scale of the rank in which her husband had died,  Thereby the young family pensioner who lost her young husband ( means highest sacrifice) was getting higher Family pension in par with the Family pensioner whose husband had martyred at high service.

 Ø  Unfortunately the Circular 502 has hampered this condition and had linked with the Q.S. of their martyred husband.  The same thing is again repeated in Circular 555 OROP.  This should be considered seriously not on the basis of money but a token of respect to the martyr who sacrificed his life at the very young age and to support the young widow morally and financially.

With humble regards

Vtrn WO. R.N.Thiruchelvam

Member, Pension Cell, Indian Ex Servicemen Movement, India.

Member, District Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Board, Sivaganga Dist, TN.

General Secretary, Ex-Servicemen League Trust, Karaikudi