WHEN WE WERE FIGHTING THE WAR BABUs WERE CHEATING THE SOLDIER
It is correct(A)Pensions(a)JCOs&ORs 70 percent of the RANK subject to MIN SERVICE of eligibility of the RANK. There was the RESERVE SERVICE LIABILITY depending on Trade & Arm/Services. Say INF SEPOYS/JAWANS it was 8yrs Active + 7yrs Reserve ie 15yrs= Pension, 70 percent, when I came in it was 10 A + 5 R . SAY Signals for Operators/ Mechanics it was 12A + 8R=20yrs.
Pakistan Army has made very little changes rather have improved it and in NATIONAL EMERGENCY PAK Army doubles overnight due to Reservists pouring in. WHERE AS INDIAN ARMY IT IS ALMOST ""NIL""
(b) OFFICERS IT WAS 50 PERCENT OF THE "RANK" repeat( RANK) HELD SUBJECT TO THE MIN NUMBER OF yrs service RENDERED/ & REQUIRED IN THE rank. RETIREMENT. MAJORS 48YRS LT COL(T) 50YRS LtCOL(s)YRS 52.
No Colonels. BRIG 54YRS .
INTERESTING FOR GENERALS Fixed tenure “I AM POSITIVE & SURE ABOUT THIS. Gen Palit HE RETIRED ON 04 JUN1968 when he was hardly 50 plus . I have read the book of on Armour General retiring on 48 Yrs on the issue of fixed tenure for General Officers, Any how the orders were amended on 06 Jun 1968 by that time Gen Palit had retired missing the boat by 48 HOURS. (C) CIVILIANS It was 33 percent than improved to 40 Percent and “””IN THIRD PAY COMMISSION AFs WERE DUMPED WITH THESE BASTARDS AND EVERY THING STANDARDISED TO 50 PERCENT. (d) 4 CPC ON WARD YOU ALL KNOW THE “”MAHABHARAT” ( In this there may be very minor variations but is correct in major DETAILs) I know because my Father had retired in 1970 & recalled in 1971. Reservist Policy was a boon to keep army NUMERICALLY Healthy.In 1965 & 71 there was no dearth of man power in the units. during war. After 3rd CPC in general & 4 CPC in particular the PENSION situation was as bad as it is today. LASTLY ON ISSUE OF PARITY, IN 1993 DUE TO THE WORSENING FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE OFFFICER PENSIONERS pensions were brought ON parity to the beginning of the “RANK” there was no “ PAY BAND” to ‘BAJAO’ the Pensioners BAJA (BAND). Luckily my old man died after getting 1993 pension. It looks like his son ,my self. may repeat this fuckin PARITY .On issue of ‘ PARITY’ DISCUSSION this is the reason PENSIONERS like me who are aware & chary of this GIMMICK of ‘ALMOST PARITY’ . This means all ‘Fuck All’. LASTLY WITH PENSIONERS LIKE ME MONEY IS NOT THE ISSUE, BECAUSE BEING KEPT STARVED OF OUR FINANCIAL RIGHTS FOR SO LONG WE HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO SPEND MONEY. OUR DEMAND IS FIX OUR EMOLUMENTS ON WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES and not on the largesse of a joint secretary being called “SARKAR” who decides the issue based on his MOOD. WE DONT WANTEVEN OUR NEXT GENERATION TO SUFFER AT THE HANDS OF THESE NATIONAL TRAITORS WHOSE LOYALTY IS TOWARDS THE POLITICIANS RATHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION & TRI COLOUR.
My thinking is very straightforward. If there has to be no OROP for AFs, if even modified parity has to be given equally to civilians, then it needs to be ensured the AFs veterans are duly compensated for their shorter careers. Let their initial pension be fixed in a payband on the same basis as a civilian of equivalent standing BUT at a higher percentage, of the basic+msp+gp etc, corresponding to the proportion by which the AF veteran's career is shorter.
ReplyDeleteYes Sir.It should be made 70 or 75% of Last Pay Drawn. But it will create the anamolies again. Because a person retiring in 1970 or 1980 will draw ( though it is 70%)less than 1990, 2000 or 2010 retiree.
ReplyDeleteA very emotional out burst but simply valued one. IN FACT EVERYONE FEELS SAME.YOU HAVE BURST IT.
ReplyDeleteEven now, the civs have taken another route known as "CAT"
Actually this the OROP for civs and what a bonus. no weitage no other consideration, no logic(but a logical conclusion ahead of us)
ALL WE WANT IS MORE OR LESS THE SAME.
BUT THEY REFUSE AND REJECT OUTRIGHT.
ONLY TIME WILL TELL AND GOD ALONE CAN SAVE US.
v.sundaresan