Wednesday, 15 April 2015

ALL INDIA EX SERVICES WELFARE ASSOCIATION

aiewa_association@rediffmail.com
Web site :
www.aiewa.org
Blog : aiewa.blogspot.in
(We Were THIRTY YEARS YOUNG On 21 Nov 2011)
M 35 Palika Bhawan,
RK Puram, Sector 13,
New Delhi 110066.
Ph :011 26110710
Fax :011 241O6144


Respected Parrikar Saheb,


Your appearance on DD News and statements on Defence matters was very satisfying. Your handling of various matters made us very happy that after a long time we have got a right person, who has full grasp of the Defence matters, doing the onerous duties of Defence Minister. My heartiest congratulations.

Having said that, your statement about OROP, after the earlier commitment you had made, sent the Veterans reeling into despondency and despair. I came to know from officers who have met you on 14 Apr that this was all due to reference you have received from Finance Minister/PMO which was responsible for your non committal statement.

This is a totally misleading bureaucratic objection which they have often used in their attempt to scuttle OROP. They believe that if a lie is spoken repeatedly, ultimately it will be accepted as truth. The only case that they have been referring to was in 1983/84. The case filed and conclusions arrived at are attached as Appendix to this letter.

In simple words the Veterans case was that the Govt had committed Contempt of Court by not giving OROP under Liberalised Formula Ruling of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court Judgement in famous Nakra case. The fact was that the Govt had given more than what the Court had ruled. The case for Contempt of Court was therefore dismissed. There was no stricture on the legitimacy of demand of OROP as such.

I will send the paper on Bureaucratic Objections which they have been handily applying to scuttle every legitimate demand of ours. This will help you in over ruling their objections which they may put up in their desperate bid to scuttle the noble desire of Modiji in future.


Submitted for your consideration please.

Warm regards and best wishes.

Yours Sincerely

Lt Col Inderjit Singh
Chairman
Al India Ex services Welfare Association
Mob : 09811007629


---------------------------------------------
Appendix
( Refers to para 3)

SUPREME COURT EXAMINATION OF OROP. NAKRA CASE

IT SEEMS THAT THE BUREAUCRATS BELIEVE IN THE ADAGE THAT IF YOU CONTINUE TO SPEAK THE SAME LIE, A STAGE WILL COME WHEN EVERY BODY WOULD START ACCEPTING IT AS TRUTH.

THE NAKRA CASE WAS THAT THE LIBERALISED FORMULA SANCTIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL IRRESPECTIVE OF DATE OF RETIREMENT. THE LIBERALISED FORMULA SAID THAT PENSON SHOULD BE FIFTY PERCENT OF LAST PAY DRAWN.
THE ORGANISATION WHICH FILED THIS CASE, LESS SAID ABOUT THEM THE BETTER. THEY ARE ACTUALLY THE CAUSE OF OUR MISERABLE PLIGHT. SOME HIGHLY INTELLIGENT MEMBERS OF THAT ORGANISATION, WITHOUT APPLYING THEIR MINDS, FILED THE SUPREME COURT CASE SAYING THAT THE GOVT HAD COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF COURT BY NOT GRANTING US THE OROP ON ACCOUNT OF THIS RULING.

THE COURT THEN PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE IF THE OROP CAME UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE RULNG ON LIBERALISED FORMULA.
A WORD ABOUT THESE TWO THINGS. LIBERALISED FORMULA MEANT GIVING FIFTY PER CENT OF LAST PAY DRAWN AS PENSION. THAT MEANS WHATEVER SALARY ONE WAS GETTING AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT HE GETS FIFTY PERCENT OF THAT SALARY ONLY. SINCE AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF TIME MEN GOT DIFFERENT RATES OF SALARY SO THEY COULD ONLY GET DIFFERENT RATES OF PENSION UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THIS ORDER.
THE OROP MEANS THAT SAME RANK PERSONNEL GOT THE SAME PENSION IRRESPECTIVE OF DATE OF RETIREMENT.
HOW COULD THEY THEN GET SAME PENSION FOR SAME RANK UNDER THIS ORDER..
THE COURT VERY RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT OROP DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF NAKRA CASE. THE GOVT HAVE THEREFORE NOT VIOLATED THEIR ORDER. IT WAS THEREFORE DISMISSED.
THE GOVT IN ACTUAL PRACTICE HAD GIVEN MORE THAN THE LIBERALISED FORMULA GAVE BY BRINGING ALL THE SEPOYS TO RS 150.00 PM PENSION EVEN TO THOSE WHO DREW FAR TOO LESS A SALARY AND WERE DRAWING RS 4 AND LATER RS 17 AS PENSIONS.
IT WAS NOT OROP THAT WAS REJECTED, IN FACT THE CONTEMPT CASE WAS REJECTED. THESE GENTLEMEN ASKED A WRONG QUESTION FROM THE COURT AND GOT A WRONG ANSWER.

THIS CASE HAS NOT DONE ANY GOOD FOR US, ON THE CONTRARY THIS CASE HAS LEFT A PERMANENT HANDLE IN THE HANDS OF BUREAUCRACY TO FLAUNT TO THE UNWARY LEADERSHIP AND HAVE THIS MATTER REJECTED EVERY TIME IT COMES UP.

No comments:

Post a comment