The Wheel of ‘One Rank One Pension’ and the Spoke Integral to it

P K Mishra,
Addl Director General (Retd) BSF
Mob-9810702201

A Reply to Lt Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)

The article published in Hindustan Times, 3rdJune addition “A new spoke in ‘one rank one pension’ wheel’’authored by Lt Gen Harwant Singh (Retd ) has been unequivocally demeaning to more than 8 lac Central Armed Force’s personnel who are relentlessly embroiled in the fight against terrorism and facing bullets of enemy on the border. The arguments placed by Lt Gen Harwant Singh appears to be disoriented and selectively chosen to defend the indefensible. Through the article the General has made an attempt to mislead the Nation by juggling the terms “Paramilitary “ and “Central Police Organization “ for applicability of One Rank One Pension (OROP) whereas the fact remains that the Central Armed Forces which include BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, CISF and Assam Rifles have equal status in the eyes of Indian constitution. All these forces have been created by an Act of parliament under article 246 of the Constitution of India. Further, they are similarly placed in the Union list-I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India along with Army, Navy and Air Force. So, the General needs to correct the fact that this spoke is not new to the wheel of national security apparatus and thence, inherent to the wheel of OROP.

As highlighted in the article that 85% of the military personnel retire at the age of 35-37 years is need to be seen in the light of the fact that this is required to maintain younger age profile for better combat capabilities in military and this provision is specifically made for the forces under Ministry of Defense. Here, it needs to be underlined that similar combat capabilities are required for Central Armed Forces also as they have role and tasks akin to the army and operate in, if not more arduous than, equally difficult condition as that of Army, throughout their service without any peace stations.

It should not lose the focus here that personnel up to the rank of Commandant in BSF, CRPF and ITBP, which accounts for almost 99% of strength in these forces, also retire early and not at the age of 60 years as highlighted by Lt (Gen) Harwant Singh (Retd), in his article. This early retirement of Central Armed Forces Personnel is now here compensated unlike their army counterparts who are well compensated for their early retirement by way of extending Military Service Pay and job quota for Ex-servicemen.

Work related risk and hardships in Central Armed forces are perpetual in nature as these forces do not have peace posting concepts and deployment in arduous operational conditions remains continuous from one location to other without any respite. Since such difficult operational conditions entail high level of physical standards under high disciplinary code and long separations from families, Central Armed Force’s personnel seek early retirement from the job. Take the example of BSF which is standing face to face with opponent forces making first line of defense on International borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh and thus, poised to bear the first brunt of enemy onslaught, has a high attrition rate of personnel leaving the force early. Between, 1st Jan’ 2006 and 30th June’ 2014, 33597 personnel have taken premature retirement after attaining the minimum pensionable service of 20 years as against 7837 personnel who superannuated during same period. This gives out a ratio of nearly 1:4.3 for superannuation to premature retirement. In other terms, 81% personnel retired at the age varying from 40-50 years. This figure is no different from the one projected by the General in his article. Further, approximately 18% of the personnel retire at the age of 57 years and only a minuscule .07% of officers at higher level retire at the age of 60 years. The situation in other Central Armed Forces is no different. So the notion of the General that all the Central Armed Force personnel retire at 60 years is highly misplaced.

Maintaining combat capabilities of Armed Forces, be it Army or Paramilitary, is in the interest of that nation but the government has to pay heavily in terms of rehabilitation of filtered troops in the process. As such filtering Central Armed Forces personnel may be an economic constraint of the Govt but this constraint due to economic reasons shall in no way be a debarring factor while deciding on certain important issues. The contention of the General that retirement in early age is disadvantageous to the Army personnel does hold good for the reason that the personnel of Central Armed Forces like BSF, CRPF, ITBP etc. proceeding on voluntary retirement due to arduous service conditions without rehabilitation backup like the Army leaves them on the deprived side which needs immediate attention of the nation. Hence, if early retirement is one of the criteria for OROP then Central Armed Forces reasonably qualify for the same.
The general was selective in quoting certain facts to his advantage and keeping others close to his chest which does not fit in his scheme of things. One such fact is about the facility of double HRA to Central Armed Forces in NE and J&K. This facility is available only to a handful of paramilitary personnel, who opt to keep their families at last place of posting in central government general pool accommodation unlike the available Army accommodation in all major cities. Army has a different set of rules for extending housing compensation which suites their men. Each cantonment is a declared Married Accommodation Establishment where army personnel enjoy higher housing authorization and keep their families with all the basic facilities extended to them. Shillong, which figures in the article, is one such declared family station for all the army personnel. Such facilities are not available to Central Armed Forces as there is no peace station concept for them and majority of deployment is in unpopular area with negligible education and other facilities. Since these personnel remain deployed in inhospitable operational conditions continuously, they have reduced authorization for housing as an operational imperative.

Another issue raised in the article is about disabled army man sent out of the service. Here again, facts need to be corrected as Central Armed Forces follow similar medical standards and board out disabled personnel like that of army. However, the difference remains that in case of army a well-established support system in the form of ECHS works for boarded out personnel even after their retirement whereas for Central Armed Force personnel there is no such medical facility and they only get a eager amount of Rs 500 as Fixed Medical Allowance. Besides ECHS facility, a disabled army man also gets Constant Attendance Allowance and certain other benefits as part of war injury status which are not extended to Central Armed Forces personnel.

The General is found on the wrong side of the facts on other counts also. There is no Headquarter Allowance which is applicable to Central Armed Forces. Further, the Detachment Allowance is given to a unit or sub unit only during the period when they remain detached from their administrative headquarters, which in the case of Central Armed Forces, is Battalion Headquarter. The reason why army does not get it appears to be linked to the fact that army units and sub units never get detached from their administrative headquarters rather whenever they move out of Cantonments, they move with their administrative headquarters and thus no detachment. Equally important is to note that Central Armed Forces are neither extended Non Functional Financial Up gradation (NFFU) nor any Time Scale Promotion as applicable in army up to the rank of Lt Col.

The Central Armed Forces have valiantly fought all the wars and hostilities along with army. Be it war with China and Pakistan or militancy in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and North East or Anti Naxal Operations, these Forces have made indelible mark in the annals of history which is brimming with ultimate sacrifices made by their men in the line of duty. Any differentialrating of their sacrifices will be an utter disregard to their Martyrdom. General’s claim that sacrifices of CPOs are at the hands of ill-trained and ill equipped Maoists and other insurgent groups and all this speaks poorly of CPOs leadership and training, then what about the casualties of 20 brave men of 6 Dogra, an elite Infantry Battalion of Indian Army, in Manipur on 4th June 15 in an ambush by ill trained and ill equipped insurgents and many more in NE, Kashmir, Sri Lanka etc. Let its not be a matter of scrutiny and bring pain to souls of the martyrs not to mention the agony of their kith and kins. It is absolutely irrelevant of the general to ask, how many IPS officers have been killed in fighting the Maoists. Is getting killed the only parameter of leadership?

A, such selective comparison done by the General, may not lead anywhere. Without further elaboration on the issues, it may conveniently be proposed that if still General feels that Army is deprived in comparison to Central Armed Forces then he is welcome to propose to 7th CPC to swap the pay and allowances of army with that of Central Armed Forces.

None the less, it would have been appreciated, had the General recognized the contribution made by Central Armed Forces in the service of the nation and not resorted to the methodology of Trade Unionism which may dent the mutual confidence among forces and may not be in the overall interest of national security. Should Army not come forward and say that the Indian army is ready to surrender OROP when the nation is in need of funds and recommend contributory pension like CAPF. It is fact that all the three defense chiefs did not implement recommendations of 6th CPC on the pay of Lt Col. What authority and competence the general has to judge the entire bureaucracy and politicians of India wrong just because of some delay in implementation of OROP? CAPF personnel are working under most arduous conditions and getting pay but the army men who retire at 35 years of age get pension and all other facilities for being at home or getting into some other ancillary service or deputation.

General please do not mislead the nation be it on the parameters of pay and perks of the CAPFs or the contribution and role being played by them in upholding the interest of the nation. And finally, a CAPF officer who retired in the require of 4th pay commission would as much like to benefit from the perks of 7th pay commission as a retired Army officer.