OPed in 'The Tribune'

My OPed as it appeared in on the editorial page of 'The Tribune' :

More logic, less rhetoric to strike a better deal

Maj Navdeep Singh

Is atta-dal cheaper for a pensioner who retired in say 1995 than an employee retiring today ? Absolutely not. Then why should an old retiree be paid much lesser pension than an equally placed person retiring today in the same rank and with the same length of service? Legalese apart, this is the question which stares the present system in its face. But then, the logic is equally applicable not only to defence pensioners but to all pensioners irrespective of the service they retired from. And this is where I differ from some veteran organisations which time and again bring in the talk of honour, valour and sacrifice of defence personnel while trivialising the roles of other occupations. OROP, or more precisely ‘Equal pension for the same grade with same length of service’, is definitely an equitable and ideal concept and should be granted, but it should be extended in time to all pensioners irrespective of the service from which they retired. If the defence services deserve it earlier or in a different format than others, it is not because their contribution is more hallowed than civilian employees but because they retire younger, at times 25 years before their civilian counterparts, are at call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and definitely lead a tougher regimented life. Every service or occupation however has a role to perform in sustaining this nation and the thin line between pride and superiority should not be crossed.

The outrage and retort of some members during a recent popular TV talk show, when an economics Professor suggested that there were other professionals too such as firemen who faced occupational risks, again reflected a kind of hollow supremacy which we are unknowingly instilling within the military society and that is taking us further away from the real world. Perhaps, the example of a fireman was not apt, but there are others such as personnel of the Central Police Organisations who face similar risks and probably lead an even tougher life. The only intelligible differentia that can be logically put forth is that defence personnel retire earlier. Of course, fallacious was also the argument of the Professor that defence personnel should be granted higher pay but not greater pension because the nation cannot afford it. Perhaps the Professor did not know that pension, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is a ‘deferred wage’ and a higher wage therefore has to rationally translate into higher pension. This fight should be won not by comparisons or running down others but by articulating a logical stance that is not easy to defy.

The idea should be to convince the government, the public and the nation as to why pensioners in general and defence pensioners in particular deserve a better deal. Though I do not agree with the conspiracy theory of the bureaucracy being always opposed to what defence personnel deserve, I can say it with conviction that mischievous elements at not-so-high-levels definitely have the ability to deceive the upper echelons of governance with misleading notings on which there is no proper application of mind at the top but only affixing of initials as a mere formality. Or else nobody on earth could justify what has been labelled as ‘modified parity’ or ‘rationalisation of pension structure’. The difference of Rs 1400 in pension between a Captain and a Major as on 31-12-2005 has gone down to Rs 250 on 01-01-2006 after the 6th Pay Commission rather than increasing with the enhancement of scales while the difference of Rs 950 between the pension of a Major and a Time Scale Lieutenant Colonel has gone up to Rs 11,600. As on date, the disability element of pension of a 100% disabled Chief of Army Staff who retired on 31-12-2005 with 40 years of service is Rs 5880 while the disability element of the same officer retiring a day later is Rs 27,000. In fact, a Lieutenant, the lowest commissioned rank, with one day of service released on 01-01-2006 gets a disability element of Rs 8100 which is much more than that of a 100% disabled General, the highest commissioned rank, who retired a day earlier. Probably it has been somehow established on file that an injury sustained on 01-01-2006 is more agonising than the one sustained a day before !

The government may call it anything - modified parity or rationalisation, officialdom may put across a labyrinth of rulings and decisions to defend itself but the net result is that the differentia between pre and post 2006 retirees is something that shakes the conscience. But how do we counter it - by rhetoric and presenting ourselves as ‘holier than thou’ or by logical reasoning?

The writer practises in the Punjab & Haryana High Court