From: Jogindar Singh [mailto:jogi_chanchal@hotmail.com]
Sent: 26 October 2010 10:51
To: rajkadyan@yahoo.com
Cc: satbirsm@yahoo.com; Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: FW: 0ROP : OBSERVATIONS ON REPLY BY THE DEFENCE MINISTER
Dear Sir,
Hope whatever I have written below is in line with the thinking of the IESM.
Regards,
Brig.Jogindar Singh (retd.)
----------
From: jogi_chanchal@hotmail.com
To: vidya.narayanan@rajeev.in
CC: jogi_chanchal@hotmail.com; prenjen@hotmail.com; rajeev.c@sansad.nic.in
Subject: 0ROP : OBSERVATIONS ON REPLY BY THE DEFENCE MINISTER
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:08:06 -0400
Dear Rajeevji,
I have just read the reply from the DM to your letter.It is worded in the typical burocratic fashion & the appendix attached gives the letter refs more than it explains as to why not.There is no reference to the recommendations of
the recent parliament committee on the subject.
There is no service in any govt. department where a person retires before the age of 56-60 yrs.More than 90 percent of the army soldiers retire before 40 yrs.If the govt. can provide jobs to the army soldiers till the age of 56-60 yrs.,we wont ask for OROP.There was a time (till 1980s) when some retiring army soldiers & officers were absorbed by the para military organisation,which has now been totally stopped.
As regards the present pension system,there are two major locunas.Firstly,the pension of a rank is the same without any regard to the length of service in that rank.This was no so before the 6th pay commission. And second, the pension diffential in the officrs rank is so little that one wonders why he/she struggled to gain a higher rank. This difference was much more before the 6th pay commission.We are not asking for more pension here,but for a reasonable pension differential & a consideration for the length of sevice in the last rank held before retirement.
So this point needs to taken up eralier than the OROP which is likely to be long drawn-out struggle.
Thanking you for fighting for the cause of the soldiers,
& best of regards,
Brig.Jogindar Singh (retd.)
Chandigarh
9888201576
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Above letter by Brig Joginder Singh relates to policy matter, and should have been deliberated with the IESM before issue. In the present scenario, more than 50% of veterans would have crossed the stage of re-employment. This negates their interest. Rather it should have been requested that those who get re-employment, only for them orop will not be demanded.
ReplyDelete