By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Congress on Saturday demanded that the ‘one rank, one pension’ (OROP) scheme be implemented in line with the recommendations of the Koshiyari Committee report and accused the BJP government of doing vote-bank politics on the sacrifice of soldiers.
Congress spokesperson Shaktisinh Gohil said the UPA-2 government had accepted the recommendations of the Koshiyari Committee on OROP, but, unfortunately, the BJP has gone back on the promise after assuming power in 2014.
“We demand that the BJP government immediately implements the OROP (One rank one pension) as per recommendations made by the Koshiyari Committee,” he told reporters.
He said the government in Parliament said on February 17 and 26, 2014 that it will implement the OROP in line with the recommendations made by the Koshiyari Committee.
“Despite giving this promise, the government should tell why it did something contrary on November 7, 2015,” he asked.
Gohil said the government should tell the country as to who is responsible for the loss suffered by our soldiers and their widows.
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s directions to the government about not implementing the OROP as promised.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that Centre’s hyperbole on the One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy presented a much “rosier picture” than what is actually given to the pensioners of the Armed forces.
The SC has asked the Centre to place before it as to how many persons in the Armed forces have received Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP), how many are in Assured Career Progression (ACP), and what would be the financial outlay, if the court directs MACP to be also factored in for OROP.
A bench of justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath posed some searching questions to Additional Solicitor General N Venkatraman, appearing for Centre, and wanted to know whether there was any policy prior to the commitments made on the floor of the house on February 17, 2014, that government has agreed in principle to grant OROP.
“We have to deal with the fact that there is no statutory definition of OROP. Their (petitioners) contention is that there is a discrepancy between what was said in Parliament and the policy which ultimately came.”
“The question is whether that amounts to a violation of Article 14. Your (Centre) hyperbole on the OROP policy presented a much rosier picture than what is actually given to the pensioners,” the bench said.
