Full disclosure: Friday, 9 October 2015
1. Lt Gen V M Patil PVSM, AVSM (retd), President Akhil Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad (ABPSSP) facilitated a meeting with the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri.
2. This blog author presented the subsequent analysis based on facts & documents (sources as cited below) to the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri ((in hard copy) on 8th October 2015 at 8 am and it was discussed thoroughly. Further developments are awaited.
3. This blog author made the presentation in his personal capacity and not as a member of any ESM organisation.
One Rank One Pension (OROP) Issue
Analysis of Conflicting Perceptions & Suggestions for Resolution
References: -
(a) Koshiyari Committee Report of December 2011,
(b) MoD OM No. 17 (4)/2008 (2)/D (Pen/Pol) dated 12.11.2008,
(c) SAI (SNI/SAFI) No. 1/S/2008 and 2/S/2008,
(d) MoD Resolution No. 1 (E) dated 30.8.2008
(e) DP & PW OM F No. 38/37/08 – P & PW (A). Part II dated 3.10.2008 concerning revision of provisions regulating pension/gratuity/commutation of pension/family pension/disability pension/ex-gratia lump sum compensations,
(f) DP & PW OM No. 38/37/08 – P & PW (A). pt I dated 14.10.2008, - revised pension based on revised pay bands and grade pay for posts carrying present scales as per Sixth Central Pay Commission,
(g) Defence Pension Regulations 2008 and Rules for Army, Navy & Air Force available on the PCDA (P) Website,
(h) Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara & Others Vs UoI (1982), UoI & Anr Vs Maj Gen S. P. S. Vains & Another (2009), A. N. Sachdeva (deceased) & Others Vs Maharishi Dayanand University (MDU) (August 2015).
(j) Speech of Defence Minister apropos One Rank One Pension (OROP) on 5th September 2015,
(k) Letter from Maj Gen Satbir Singh (retd) to Defence Minister dated 18th September 2015.
List of Appendices: -
A - Tables for Pay & Pension w.e.f 1.1.2006 for Officers
B- Tables for Pay & Pension w.e.f 1.1.2006 for ORs & JCOs
C- Tables for ORs & JCOs as given in PCDA Circular No. 547
Full Disclosure on shortcomings of this paper: - This analysis ishandicapped from being completely objective due to non-availability of the following: -
(a) Minutes of meetings of Joint Working Group (JWG) constituted by the MoD on 24th April 2014 culminating with a presentation to then Defence-cum-Finance Minister on 12th June 2014, including the methodology adopted by CGDA to arrive at the cost of implementing OROP,
(b) Minutes of meetings that IESM, IESL and other ESM organisations had with the Govt and the decisions taken/consensus arrived at/differences of opinion recorded and placed in the public domain,
(c) Persistent denial of information on OROP by CPIO and by Appellate Authority, Deptt of Ex-Servicemens’ Welfare on the grounds that the information is sensitive/classified,
(d) Denial of information by CPIO, O/o CGDA on the grounds that MoD has ordered that the information is MOST CONFIDENTIAL and should not be disclosed, and
(e) MoD (D – Pay/Services and Deptt of Ex- Servicemen Welfare), MoF (Deptt of Expenditure) denying information on the Cabinet Secretary Committee Report of 2012 for recommending OROP (and NFU) to be referred to the 7th Central Pay Commission.
Basis & Aim for this paper
1. The Defence Minister’s announcement of 5 Sep 15 on implementation of OROP vis-à-vis differences of opinion/perception/interpretation by Maj Gen Satbir Singh (retd) and Governing Body of IESM/UFESM is the basis of this paper/presentation. The aim is to provide a logical analysis, and practical solutions.
5 Yearly Review vis-à-vis Annual Review
2. IESM and others quote the Koshiyari Committee Report. Therein it is recorded
2.1. At Para 6.4 on Page 5 of the Report, the Army’s representative agreed to a 5 yearly enhancement, and included the family pensioners.
2.2. At Para 6.5 on Page 5, the Air Force representative agreed.
2.3. At Para 6.6 on Page 5, the Naval representative did not mention anything relevant to this point.
3. What is the aim for either a five yearly or an annual equalisation or review? Is it to ensure that past pensioners with the same rank and same number of years of service get the same pension with one retiring in 2014 or 2015 or 2016? And pension of ESM senior in rank, or with certain years of service is not lesser than a junior’s?
4. For this the Implementation Order has to be precisely worded. Then once in 5 years or annual Review or Equalisation will not be needed in a majority of cases. The few cases that would need rationalisation are, for example, of two course-mates commissioned on the same date (say 01 Jul 1980). Course-mate A retires on 30th June 2013 in the rank of Lt Col. He does not get the 3% increment, whereas another course-mate B retires in the rank of Lt Col on 31st July 2013 and gets the increment though both have retired in the same calendar year 2013. These kinds of cases will need review only if this aspect is not covered in the implementation order. If all, like the former (who retired one day before the increment was falling due), are given the benefit of the increment, it will have a financial effect of 0.85% or Rs 185 crore.
5. To emphasise the point, most importantly, since the uniform pension for the same rank and qualifying service criteria is to be fulfilled, the review and correction for all such ESM can be done at the initiation of the OROP scheme. It must be emphasised that the “5 yearly review means next in 2018, and we will miss 7th CPC recommendations” is the kind of canard spread by the ultracrepidarists (defined as habit of giving opinions & advice on matters outside one’s knowledge or competence) in the print and electronic media.
Analysis:
6. In a steady state there will not be changes in the tables below until the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations as approved by the Govt. (Please refer to tables at Appendix A for Officer ESM, Appendix B for Other Than Officers ESM).
Officer ESM
7. The tables clearly show that
7.1.In a steady state (same rank, same years of qualifying service), pension need not be revised (equalised) every year.
7.2.For the same rank and same years of service, Officers promoted earlier will draw the same pay and pension as those promoted after them. So the apprehension that a junior ranked ESM or a same rank but lesser QS ESM will draw more in without basis, obviating the need for an annual review.
7.3. Once pension is reset on 1.7.2014 thereafter no change will take place except on the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th CPC.
Other than Officer ESM (without addition of Group X Pay where applicable)
8. In a steady state there will not be changes in the tables below until the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations as approved by the Govt.
8.1.Subedar Majors/MCPOs-I/Master Warrant Officers will also have similar situation as for the Sub/MCPO-II/WO.
8.2.The current top of scale pension is higher than the pay and pension drawn by the current retirees. Therefore, JCOs and equivalents are already OROP compliant and may benefit minimally, if and when OROP is implemented.
8.3.Sgt & equivalents current retirees are drawing higher last pay drawn, consequently higher pension than the top of the scale based pension.
8.4. However, the senior will continue to get higher pay and pension than all juniors who are promoted to this rank at a later date.
8.5. Thus, once pay is re-set on a date, say 01 Jul 2014, then there will not be any change in pension of this rank till the next pay commission
Suggested Solution (Please also read Average Pensions below): -
9. Using similar methodology as used to formulate Circulars 500 (for retired officers) and 501 (for retired JCOs & ORs) to work out the solutions to the issue above.
10.Include numerical illustrations in the Implementation Order similar to the ones in SAI (SNI, SAFI) of 2008 to make ESM understand why any review would only add to delays in implementing OROP at the earliest.
Effective Date 01 Jul 2014 vis-à-vis 01 Apr 2014
11. ESM would have to be placed at the levels of pension that any retiree with the same (uniform) service and same rank would draw on 01 Jul 2013, which was the date of last increment. For example (amounts used are for illustrative purposes only: -
Particulars
|
w.e.f 01 Apr 2014
|
w.e.f to 01 Jul 2014
|
Rank Lt Col
|
20 years service
|
20 years service
|
Pay in the Pay Band (Rs)
|
45000
(includes 3% increment on 01 Jul 2013)
|
43410
|
Grade Pay (Rs)
|
8000
|
8000
|
M S P (Rs)
|
6000
|
6000
|
Increment
|
Nil - As already drawn on 01 Jul 2013
|
on 01 Jul 2014 1590
|
Total emoluments
|
59000
|
59000
|
Pension
|
29500
|
29500
|
12.Analysis-Provide illustration/numerical examples in the implementation order.
Calendar Year 2013 vis-à-vis Financial Year 2013-4
13.The Govt has indicated that the base year for the purpose of OROP would be the calendar year 2013. This does not seem to be an unacceptable proposition. The reason is that after 01 Jul 13 the pension would include the increment of the year 2013.
14.The Services/ Ex-servicemen have demanded 01 Apr 2014 as the base date but pay, and pension does not change after taking into account the increment of 01 Jul 2013. To that extent base year commencing 01 Apr 14 should not make any material difference. The only aberration is, again, that of course mates retiring on two different days, one on 30 Jun 13 the other on 31 Jul 13 having a difference in pay and pension. But these odd cases, which may not be numerous to deserve too much attention for determining macro policy.
15.In the heat and dust, it is forgotten that all Central Pay Commission recommendations are made effective 1st January (1986, 1996, 2006) i.e beginning of the calendar year.
16.Analysis: - ESM will not be deprived of OROP because the increment due on 1st July 2013 will be effective and paid whether it is calendar year or financial year.
Average Pension vis-à-vis Top of the Scale (Average Pension vis-à-vis Actual Pay/Pension Drawn)
17.Average of pension will involve checking records of 30 lakh ESM & widows or NoK. Reasons are given below.
17.1. Till the 1.1.2006, the following weightages were provided for calculating pension benefits (MoD letter dated 3rd February 1998) for all retiring from the Defence Forces: -
Rank
|
Weightage Services
(years)
|
Weightage MNS
(years)
|
Lieutenant
|
9
|
Nil
|
Captain
|
9
|
7
|
Major
|
8
|
7
|
Lt Colonel (TS)
|
5
|
-
|
Lt Colonel (Select)
|
7
|
6
|
Brigadier
|
5
|
3
|
General Officers
|
3
|
3
|
Below Commissioned Rank
| ||
Sepoy
|
10 (+2 from 17.1.2013)
|
-
|
Naik
|
8 (+2 from 17.1.2013)
|
-
|
Havildar
|
6 (+2 from 17.1.2013 )
|
-
|
JCO
|
5
|
-
|
17.2.After the implementation of the 6th CPC, wherein the qualifying service for full pensions for officers was reduced to 20 years, the weightage was removed [Resolution No. 38/37/08-P & PW(A)dated 29th August 2008] for Officers, except for commissioned officers who retired or were invalided out of service between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008. On the other hand, weightage stands withdrawn for PBOR w.e.f 1.1.2006 (Para 5.1.3 of MoD No. 71(4)/2008(2)/Pen/Pol) dated 12th November 2008.
Note: Weightages for JCOs/ORs has been withdrawn for retirees from 1.1.2006 if they are drawing pension at last pay drawn. In case it is beneficial that pension at the notional top is higher, the same can be drawn and in such cases the weightage will apply.
17.3. Further, MoD letter No. 1(13)/2012/D (Pen/Pol) dated 17.1. 2013 (PCDA Circular 501) also states as follows: -
2……The Committee of Secretaries recommended
2.1. The pension of pre-1.1.2006 JCO/OR pensioners may be determined on the basis of notional maximum for the ranks and groups across the three Services, and
2.2. Current weightage in qualifying service of Sepoy, Naik and Havildar may be increased by 2 years.
18. Another factor that will come into consideration is at Para 2 and 3 of MoD letter No. 1(04)/2015 (II) – D (Pen/Pol) dated 3.9.2015 (PCDA Circular 547) which states:
……..2. Now, after the issue of GoI, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensioners, Department of Pensioners and Pensioners’ Welfare OM No. 38/37/08-P & PW (A) dated 30.7.2015, it is decided that with effect from 1.1.2006 pension/family pension of Pre-2006 JCOs/ORs Pensioners/family pensioners shall be determined as fifty and thirty percent respectively of the minimum of the fitment table for the rank in the revised pay band as indicated under fitment tables annexed with 1/S/2008…..
3. However, in case, the consolidated pension/family pension calculated as per Para 4.1. of this Ministry’s letter No. 17 (4)/2008 (1)/D (pen/Pol) dated 11.11.2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension/family pension) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension. However, where revised pension in terms of GoI, MoD letter No. PC -10 (1)/2009 – D (Pen/Pol) dated 8.3.2010 and No. 1 (13)/2012/D (Pen/Pol) dated 17.1.2013 is higher than the rate indicated in annexure attached with this letter then the same will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension from 1.7.2007 and 24.9.2012.
19. Table below indicates the differences for some ranks and Qualifying Service: -
QS (X Gp)
|
Sepoy
|
Naik
|
Havildar
|
Naib Subedar
| ||||
Circular No.
|
501
|
547
|
501
|
547
|
501
|
547
|
501
|
547
|
15
|
5961
|
4637
|
5961
|
4637
|
6374
|
4637
|
6976
|
5558
|
20
|
6441
|
5564
|
7065
|
5564
|
7760
|
5564
|
8720
|
6947
|
25
|
6441
|
5564
|
7606
|
5841
|
8868
|
6328
|
10464
|
8337
|
20. Under the circumstances, the proposed average pension for OROP is likely to be an administrative night mare. No clarity on whether it will be a simple mean, a simple average, or a weighted mean (apropos till 1.1.2006 weightage was provided to Defence Personnel for pension purposes). There is no clarity on who will determine minimum and maximum pension for the calendar year 2013, with weightage and without. If determined, then who verifies.
21. The easier way is to tabulate the pay drawn for each rank in each year of qualifying service. The figure so determined divided by 2 will provide the amount of pension. This table is easy to comprehend and is in sync with the current table in vogue since 24 Sep 12 for pension. In any case if average method is applied the financial impact cannot be Rs 8296 Cr as those above the average do not benefit, hence there will be no change for JCO’s, but only Havildars and equivalent would get an increase in pension amount.
OROP Not Applicable for Pre-Mature Released Defence Forces Personnel vis-à-vis OROP applicable for all
22. Government of India has promulgated the definition of Ex-Servicemen issued on 4th October 2012 by DOP & T which states, inter alia
“(c) An ‘ex-serviceman’ means a person –
(i) Who has served in any rank whether as a combatant or non-combatant in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union, and
(a) Who either has been retired or relieved or discharged from such service whether at his own request or being relieved by the employer after earning his or her pension; or
(b) Who has been relieved from such service on medical grounds attributable to military service or circumstances beyond his controland awarded medical or other disability pension; or
(c) Who has been released from such service as a result of reduction in establishment;”……..(emphasis supplied)
23. Army, Navy, Air Force Pensions Regulations 2008 are statutory. These Regulations (separately for Army, Air Force, and Navy, in that order) are available on the PCDA (P) website. They are too voluminous to reproduce here. Suggested reading are
23.1.Part I- Containing Regulations regulating the pensionary awards of personnel of the Regular Army, the Defence Security Corps, Emergency/Short Service Commissioned Officer and the Territorial Army, especially
Section 1 – Para 4 – Definitions;
Para 5 – Types of Pensions;
Para 8 – Pension subject to future good conduct;
Section 2 – Para 17 and notes there under;
Para 19
23.2. Part II- Regulations relating to pension procedure affecting the personnel whose pensions are regulated by the Regulations in Part I.
24. The Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the D S Nakara case in 1982 averred, inter alia,
“In the instant case, the petitioners do not challenge, but seek the benefit of the liberalised pension scheme. Their grievance is of the denial to them of the same by arbitrary introduction of words of limitation. ………………... If the event is certain but its occurrence at a point of time is considered wholly irrelevant and arbitrarily selected having an undesirable effect of dividing a homogeneous class and of introducing discrimination, the same can be easily severed and set aside. It is therefore just and proper that the words introducing the arbitrary fortuitous circumstance which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and struck down.”
25. The Honourable Court ruled in the Maj Gen S P Vains case, inter alia,
“…..The case of the respondents however, was that in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, the fixation of a cut-off date as a result of which equals were treated as unequals, was wholly arbitrary and had been rightly interfered with by the High Court. One of the questions posed in the aforesaid decision was whether a class of pensioners could be divided for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension…… The question was answered by the Constitution Bench holding that such division being both arbitrary and unprincipled the classification did not stand the test of Article 14. xxxx xxxx
26. The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years…… In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals. ………… The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution (emphasis supplied).
Suggestion/Solution:
26. It would be advisable for the Government to delete the VRS/PMR clause unless the Government wishes to
26.1. Further mar its image as being anti – Armed Forces Veterans, and/or
26.2. Waste time of the Courts, Law Officers and itself in fighting and losing cases.
Govt’s Constitution of Single member Judicial Commission
Vis-à-vis IESM’s 5 member Committee
27. If proposal is to appoint a Commission of one member or a Committee of 3 to 5 members, one of the members should be from Finance and one an ESM unaffected by the OROP scheme. This will make the report of the Commission/Committee more likely to be acceptable and would invite far less strictures/observation then if the committee does not have any finance representative.
Jai Hind ============================================================ Appendix A (Refers to Para 6)
Officers
[* Amounts are taken from Annexure A of PCDA Circular No. 500 dated 17.1.2013.]
Majors/Lieutenant Commanders/Squadron Leaders
Qualifying
Service
(QS)
|
Pay in Pay Band
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Increment in Jul
|
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS)
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn*
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
7
|
21630
|
6600
|
6000
|
850
|
34230
|
17115
| |
8
|
22480
|
880
|
35080
|
17540
| |||
9
|
23360
|
900
|
35960
|
17980
| |||
10
|
24260
|
930
|
36860
|
18430
|
9930
| ||
11
|
25190
|
960
|
37790
|
18895
|
10482
| ||
12
|
26150
|
990
|
38750
|
19375
|
11034
| ||
13
|
27140
|
1020
|
39740
|
19870
|
11585
| ||
14
|
28160
|
1050
|
40760
|
20380
|
12317
| ||
15
|
29210
|
1080
|
41810
|
20905
|
12689
| ||
16
|
30290
|
1110
|
42890
|
21445
|
13240
|
Lt Colonels (Sel)/Commanders/Wing Commanders
Qualifying
Service
(QS)
|
Pay in Pay Band
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Incre-ment in Jul
|
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS)
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn*
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
14
|
37400
|
8000
|
6000
|
1370
|
51400
|
25700
|
16716
|
15
|
38770
|
1410
|
52770
|
26385
|
17510
| ||
16
|
40180
|
1450
|
54180
|
27090
|
18306
| ||
17
|
41630
|
1490
|
55630
|
27815
|
19102
| ||
18
|
43120
|
1540
|
57120
|
28560
|
19898
| ||
19
|
44660
|
1580
|
58660
|
29330
|
20894
| ||
20
|
46240
|
1630
|
60240
|
30120
|
21490
| ||
21
|
47870
|
1680
|
61870
|
30395
|
22286
| ||
22
|
49550
|
1730
|
63550
|
31775
|
23082
| ||
23
|
51280
|
1780
|
65280
|
32640
|
23878
|
Colonels/Captains/Group Captains
Qualifying Service
|
Pay in Pay Band
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Incre-ment in Jul
|
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS )
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn*
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
18
|
43120
|
8700
|
6000
|
1560
|
57820
|
28910
|
21057
|
19
|
44680
|
1610
|
59380
|
29690
|
21900
| ||
20
|
46290
|
1650
|
60990
|
30495
|
22742
| ||
21
|
47940
|
1700
|
62640
|
31320
|
23584
| ||
22
|
49640
|
1750
|
64340
|
32170
|
24426
| ||
23
|
51390
|
1810
|
66090
|
33045
|
25269
| ||
24
|
53200
|
1860
|
67900
|
33950
|
26111
| ||
25
|
55060
|
1920
|
69760
|
34880
|
26953
| ||
26
|
56980
|
1970
|
71680
|
35840
|
27795
| ||
27
|
58950
|
2030
|
73650
|
36825
|
27795
|
Brigadiers/Commodores/Air Commodores
Qualifying Service
(Years)
|
Pay in Pay Band
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Increment in Jul
|
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS )
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn*
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
26
|
53220
|
8900
|
6000
|
1870
|
68120
|
34060
|
27795
|
27
|
55090
|
1920
|
69990
|
34994
|
28262
| ||
28
|
57010
|
1980
|
71910
|
35955
|
29145
| ||
29
|
58990
|
2040
|
73890
|
36945
|
29145
| ||
30
|
61030
|
2100
|
75930
|
37965
|
29145
| ||
31
|
63130
|
2160
|
78030
|
39015
|
29145
| ||
32
|
65290
|
2230
|
80190
|
40095
|
29145
| ||
33
|
67000
|
2280
|
81900
|
40950
|
29145
| ||
34
|
67000
|
2280
|
81900
|
40950
|
29145
| ||
35
|
67000
|
2280
|
81900
|
40950
|
29145
|
Major Generals/Rear Admirals/Air Vice Marshals
Qualifying Service
(Years)
|
Pay in Pay Band
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Incre-ment in Jul
|
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS )
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn*
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
30
|
61090
|
10000
|
Nil
|
2140
|
71090
|
35545
|
31250
|
31
|
63230
|
2200
|
73230
|
36615
|
31250
| ||
32
|
65430
|
2270
|
75430
|
37715
|
31250
| ||
33
|
67000
|
Nil
|
77000
|
38500
|
31250
| ||
34
|
67000
|
Nil
|
77000
|
38500
|
31250
| ||
35
|
67000
|
Nil
|
77000
|
38500
|
31250
| ||
36
|
67000
|
Nil
|
77000
|
38500
|
31250
| ||
37
|
67000
|
Nil
|
77000
|
38500
|
31250
|
[Note: - There are current cases shown above wherein Brigadiers & equivalents are earning PB 4+ GP + MSP = Rs 81900 and their pension is Rs 40950! Army Cdrs/VCOAS & equivalents are paid Rs 80000 (fixed) pm and their pension is Rs 40000 pm. Apex Scale??]
Appendix B
(Refers to Para 6)
Other Ranks
Notes: 1. ‘X’ Group Pay of Rs 1400 p.m is not added in arriving at Column F.
2. Column X indicates the pension for X Group.
3. Amounts indicated in Column H are from PCDA Circular No. 501 dated 17.1.2013.
Naik/Leading Seaman/Corporal
QS
|
Pay in PB
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Incre-ment
|
Total
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn*
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H (X Gp)
|
6
|
7650
|
2400
|
2000
|
290
|
11650
|
5825
|
-
|
7
|
7940
|
300
|
11940
|
5970
|
-
| ||
8
|
8240
|
310
|
12240
|
6120
|
-
| ||
9
|
8550
|
320
|
12550
|
6275
|
-
| ||
10
|
8870
|
330
|
12870
|
6435
|
-
| ||
11
|
9200
|
340
|
13200
|
6600
|
-
| ||
12
|
9540
|
350
|
13540
|
6770
|
-
| ||
13
|
9890
|
360
|
13890
|
6945
|
-
| ||
14
|
10250
|
370
|
14250
|
7125
|
-
| ||
15
|
10620
|
380
|
14620
|
7310
|
5961
| ||
16
|
11000
|
390
|
15000
|
7500
|
6182
| ||
17
|
11390
|
410
|
15390
|
7695
|
6402
| ||
18
|
11800
|
420
|
15800
|
7900
|
6623
| ||
19
|
12220
|
430
|
16220
|
8110
|
6844
| ||
20
|
12650
|
440
|
16650
|
8325
|
7065
| ||
21
|
13090
|
460
|
17090
|
8545
|
7271
| ||
22
|
13550
|
470
|
17550
|
8775
|
7506
|
Havildar/Petty Officer/Sergeant
QS
|
Pay in PB
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Incre-ment
|
Total
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
14
|
9040
|
2800
|
2000
|
360
|
13480
|
6920
|
-
|
15
|
9400
|
370
|
14200
|
7100
|
6374
| ||
16
|
9770
|
380
|
14570
|
7285
|
6651
| ||
17
|
10150
|
390
|
14950
|
7475
|
6929
| ||
18
|
10540
|
400
|
15340
|
7670
|
7206
| ||
19
|
10940
|
420
|
15740
|
7870
|
7483
| ||
20
|
11360
|
430
|
16160
|
8080
|
7760
| ||
21
|
11790
|
440
|
16590
|
8295
|
8037
| ||
22
|
12230
|
450
|
17030
|
8515
|
8314
| ||
23
|
12680
|
470
|
17480
|
8740
|
8591
| ||
24
|
13150
|
480
|
17950
|
8975
|
8868
| ||
25
|
13630
|
500
|
18430
|
9215
|
8868
| ||
26
|
14130
|
510
|
18930
|
9465
|
8868
| ||
27
|
14640
|
530
|
19440
|
9720
|
8868
| ||
28
|
15170
|
540
|
19970
|
9985
|
9145
|
Naib Subedar (Nb Sub)/Chief Petty Officer (CPO)/Junior Warrant Officer (JWO)
QS
|
Pay in PB
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Incre-ment
|
Total
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn*
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
19
|
10520
|
4200
|
2000
|
450
|
16720
|
8360
|
8371
|
20
|
10970
|
4200
|
2000
|
460
|
17170
|
8585
|
8720
|
21
|
11430
|
4200
|
2000
|
470
|
17630
|
8815
|
9089
|
22
|
11900
|
4200
|
2000
|
490
|
18100
|
9050
|
9418
|
23
|
12390
|
4200
|
2000
|
500
|
18590
|
9295
|
9787
|
24
|
12890
|
4200
|
2000
|
520
|
19090
|
9545
|
10115
|
25
|
13410
|
4200
|
2000
|
530
|
19610
|
9805
|
10464
|
26
|
13940
|
4200
|
2000
|
550
|
20140
|
10070
|
10813
|
27
|
14490
|
4200
|
2000
|
560
|
20690
|
10345
|
11336
|
28
|
15050
|
4200
|
2000
|
580
|
21250
|
10625
|
11510
|
Subedar/Master CPO II/Warrant Officer
QS
|
Pay in PB
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Increment
|
Total
|
Pension
|
Pension drawn*
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
24
|
12280
|
4600
|
2000
|
510
|
18880
|
9440
|
11517
|
25
|
12790
|
4600
|
2000
|
530
|
19390
|
9695
|
11914
|
26
|
13320
|
4600
|
2000
|
540
|
19920
|
9960
|
12510
|
27
|
13860
|
4600
|
2000
|
560
|
20460
|
10230
|
12708
|
28
|
14420
|
4600
|
2000
|
570
|
21020
|
10510
|
13105
|
29
|
14990
|
4600
|
2000
|
590
|
21590
|
10795
|
13105
|
30
|
15580
|
4600
|
2000
|
610
|
22180
|
11090
|
13105
|
31
|
16190
|
4600
|
2000
|
630
|
22790
|
11395
|
13105
|
32
|
16820
|
4600
|
2000
|
650
|
23420
|
11710
|
13105
|
33
|
17470
|
4600
|
2000
|
670
|
24070
|
12035
|
13105
|
First of all, it appears that the annotation "[* Amounts are taken from Annexure B of PCDA Circular No. 500 dated 17.1.2013.] applies to the pension amounts in columns 'G' of the Appendix tables which correspond to pension amounts shown in Annexure 'A' to MOD letter dated 17-01-2013 reproduced in Circular 500.
Those pension amounts were fixed as related to minimum of pay in pay band. As I understand it, there was pro-rata reduction of pension, an issue currently under dispute/litigation.
To arrive at any conclusion as to how pensions under OROP would get affected by increments in base year (presently, calendar year 2013) it might be useful to compare actual data of pensions in that year for varying years of service in different ranks.
Tables relating to non-OROP fixation of pensions by VI CPC do not appear to offer a direct explanation as to how pensions under OROP ought to be calculated.
If data on actual pensions in base year has gaps, due to the possibility there were no retirees for all the variables of years of service in a particular rank, then there is the option of evaluating on the basis of potential pensions based on pay of personnel not retiring but meeting the number of years of service criterion. For example, if no Col retired with 27 years of service in base year, it can be seen from the pay actually paid to all serving Colonels with that many years of service in base year what their pension (potential pension) would be if they'd actually retired.
Merely basing estimates on pay-band tables or non-OROP pension tables might result in an incomplete picture.
In a later part of the analysis, I have stated that the best would to take pay in the Pay band + GP + MSP and divide it by 2 to arrive at a modern day i.e. 2014 pension.
In the MOD letter appended to PCDA(P) circular 500, Lt Col pension with 26 yrs to 33 years & above qualifying service was shown as Rs 2626/ only with no increase beyond 26 yrs service. Your analysis shows Rs 32640 for Lt Col with 23 years qualifying service and the analysis is silent beyond 23 years of service.
My Second point is - there are Lt Cols and Cols who served for more than 38 years but they were given pension only for 33 years service only which was their net physical service without any weight-age. Now if the Court grants full pension for 33 years to all those who served for 20+ years and the pension is paid to them for 33 years irrespective of their service then what would be the fate of those officers who served for more than 33 years without including any weight-age?
As the matter of full pension for those who have between 20 and 32 years of service, this author has resisted making an calculations presuming which way the Court may rule.
If you read the Defence Pension Regulations, and Army Pension Rules 2008 the pension for those who served more than 33 years is not in the statutory rules Section 2, Sub-section I, Rule 17).
Even if one treads into space no wiser person has so far, there is a top of the pension scale for each rank and that top cannot cross the limits for pension of the senior.
You may wish to read the Vains case judgment to understand the reasoning given by the Court why a Major General cannot draw less than a Brigadier.
The Hon RakshaMantri has told that the OROP will be Probably announced on Vijaya Dashmi Day. I hope that your analysis will be taken into consideration before the issue of same.
Ramani
It is shocking how that repugnant suffix continues to be used, even after Army HQs officially stopped its usage. But, a point that has been totally missed here by all concerned is that post VI CPC there was only one rank for Lt Col which was a time-bound promotion for all. How can there be a post VI CPC table or pay-band for two different types of ranks?
There was a separate column for time bound promotees to Lt Col rank in the pre VI CPC pension table of Circular 500 as, I think, the difference of minimum of rank in pay-band arose due to difference in rank pay in fitment. That does not apply post VI CPC. The pay-bands have no such distinction. So when OROP is being talked about we can all jettison that set of select/non-select blinkers. OROP will not be as per pre Jan 2006 (or, more accurately, pre AVS-I) distictions in Lt Col rank.
IMHO.
Even the pay-band for time bound rank of Col is the same as for Col, including grade pay. Please check SAI 2/S/2008. I couldn't find anything there to distinguish between the two.
* Since the 05 September 2015 statement mentions average of min and max pension, presumably actually arising and paid in base year for personnel retiring in base year, that too separately for each rank and years of service combination (Col-21 years, Col-22 years and so on), then there would indeed be variation from the highest pension accruing for the same rank and years of service combination. The rank-years of service combination before the increment date could have lower pensions, even with all other variables remaining the same (such as date of promotion, years in the rank). However, as so ably clarified by you, as the increment date falls in the calendar as well as the financial year, the variation in OROP pensions arrived at may be minimal, but the actual mean could still be different as different sets of pension-years of service combinations would be included in the two (calendar year/financial year) scenarios.
*The real challenge for some stake-holders is to try and understand what would happen if there was no actual pension data in the base year (whether it is calendar year or financial year) relating to some of the rank-years of service combinations, such as due to no one retiring in the base year with that combination or the combination having been rendered anomalous on account of vastly reduced years of service required to attain the same and higher ranks in base year in comparison to older retirees, as mentioned by me, along with a few other considerations, here http://goo.gl/Y0kPoa .
Sir, true!
There can be no disputing the correctness of that.
The point is, in reality, two persons with the same rank and same years of service could be at different points on pay bands in the base year, before the increment date or after the increment date.
That is where a need for a fool proof validation with actual pension or pay data as applicable to base year might come in.
The first way to check this would be to make a table for a rank and pensions worked out for varying years of service on the basis of pay-band. Then these could be checked how actual pensions were really worked out for that rank and the varying years of service for the base year. Data from PCDA and AFCAO could be used as a test case.
So the table could mislead some readers if they do not view it in the illustrative sense it is intended.
Don't take it the wrong way, but we need to be clear about the query first, then we may find there is no "of course" about it.
The sum 69760/- in Col F. shown against QS of 25 years is in order through a simple arithmetical addition,but as the column heading states "(add E for additional year of QS )", it would give any prudent person reason to recheck whether the figure relates to 25 years or after the increment to 26 years. As it turns out, we know the theadditional year of QS refers to the fact that the next line (QS 26 years) will have fig. for column A by adding the fig of col E of QS 25 years to the fig. of col A for QS of 25 years.
When we seek clarifications, we also provide feedback so that it is clear to other readers what the rationale is.
But you have not provided guidance regarding my other, really important, question. Please guide others whether, as an example, a Col retiring in 2013 with QS of 25 years would have a pay of 55060/- as shown in the payband table? Would it be more or less than that figure and why?
It would be interesting to watch whether the govt will increase the Service pension in such cases or make the EFP same as Service pension,though natural justice demands that they should equate the Service pension with the EFP (if EFP is higher)
ps
Sir, Finally the promised blog software for your blog with Rich Text capability is ready (though testing will go on) & hope to send you the link by this Sat.Sorry for the delay
Doubt No. 2 - Yes the Col with 23 years service has Pay in Pay Band of Rs 51390 + GP + MSP + increment of Rs 1750 and total emoluments of Rs 66090.
In the same blog-post I had also tried to state my own doubts (in red) whether such a table would actually reflect reality as there were some fairly restrictive assumptions in using the pay-band figures to populate the rows and columns of the table.
I think some real sample data, when filled into a table I had suggested here , might serve to validate all assumptions.
The Circular 500 lists pension of Major at 20 years as 15447/-. Where would we get figures of basic pay for QS beyond 16 years for OROP calculation as laid down? The probability of getting actual, anomaly-free, pay or pension data for Maj with QS>20yrs in 2013 does not appear to be very high, to my mind, though I'm prepared to be educated on that issue if anyone has a rational explanation.
We get into uncharted seas beyond that point of QS=16yrs. Some would say "extrapolate", others would even say let an older Maj retiree's OROP pension, regardless of his years of service, stagnate at the QS of 16 years level provided for in the pay band. However, at present, with min of pay in pay-band, not OROP, basis Maj pension stagnates at 18205/- at QS of 25 years. How would that figure translate into OROP pension? Imaginations will run wild and illogic could reign supreme.
Hence my point about "grey areas" in the tweet to which I had provided a link in my previous comment.
Your figure is based on the refixation on transition from 5th to 6th CPC.
The original table was worked out with the following parameters of what today's officer will draw i.e.Commissioned 1.1.2006: -
Officer commissioned on 1.1.2006 starts at Rs 15600 + GP 5400+ MSP Rs 6000.
Second year -1.1. 2007 - Rs 16230 (including increment 630 + GP +MSP
Third year - 1.1 2008 - Captain - Rs 16880 (incl Rs 650)+GP 6100+MSP
Fourth year - 1.1 2009 - Captain - Rs 17560 (incl Rs 680) + GP + MSP
Fifth year - 1.1. 2010 - Captain - Rs 18270 (incl Rs 710) + GP + MSP
Sixth year - 1.1 2011 Captain - Rs 19000 (incl Rs 730) + GP + MSP
Seventh year - 1.1.2012 - Major - Rs 19750 (inc Rs 750) + GP Rs 6600 + MSP
Now a Lt Col draws Rs 46240 + 8000+6000= 60240 and his pension with 20 years of service would be Rs 30120.
Why can't a Major's table be extended till his pension is below Rs 30120.
Like 17th year Rs 44000/2 = 22000; 18th year Rs 45140/2 = 22570 etc till the Major's pension nears Rs 30120?
After all, minimum service for pension is 20 years!
One of the ways to offer humble suggestions as to what could be looked for. :-)
As to why can't a Major's table be extended, we may need to ask the people who make these tables, viz., the Govt. Instead of extending tables or pay-bands, why can't the older major retiree w 20 years of service be at par with a current Lt Col retiree w same years of service?
The old Major rank is not the same as the Major rank of today. It is spelt the same way, is pronounced in the same fashion, but isn't the same. I had expressed some views on the subject in a couple of my blog posts.
The reality of today is that an Officer with 20 years of QS is a Lt Col by time bound promotion. Is the older retiree in Major rank to be given pension parity on the basis of this reality or on the basis of some imaginary, extended table? I think reality should prevail.
If by extending the Maj table, perhaps with the help of some bureaucratic magic wand, if the old Major retiree gets a pension higher than a current Lt Col retiree with the same QS, then that is okay by me. Not otherwise.
Also, I don't really know how much a Lt Col draws at 20 years of service, or, more importantly what he would have drawn in base year 2013 with 20 years of service. There could be variations in pay drawn in Lt Col w 20 years of service in base year 2013. If we go by the pay-band, then that has to be validated with actual data as I have proposed here.
But I see no reason why an older Maj's pension with QS 20 years can't be equal to a current Lt Col retiree's pension with QS=20 years.
Why should only the Majors with > 20 years of service be given the pension of Lt Cols? Why not the Lt Cols with > 24 years of service be given Cols pension and why are we not wanting the same for ORs and JCOs?
There is only one parity that every one is seeking - same rank, same years of service, same pension whether on retired in 1976, 1986, 1996, 2006 or 2016.
Based on just the years of service that a Mjor served and demanding a Lt Col's pension can be countered that you will have a fireball effect.
If you really don't know how much a Lt Col draws at 20 years service, I suggest you walk across to the nearest independent accounting Air Force Unit and I am sure the Senior Account Officer will be glad to share that information (which is already in the tables above), the variations , and also a cup of tea.
I see very good reason why "older Major's pension cannot be equal to a current Lt Col's pension - because they are of different ranks.
Use of the word diluted denotes the old pro-pyramid view-point. No wonder people in uniform, due to our rigid conditioning to think in set, uniform patterns, have a very hard time entertaining ideas like NFU or parities. Though I have theories, I can't say for a certainty that I know how OROP got so much of a backing inspite of our pro status-quo mind-sets. Whatever the reasons be, the campaign was a refreshing change from old patterns.
The principle I had referred to in my previous comment does not apply to just the one rank of Major as you seem to have misunderstood.
Please consider reading this blog post.
When a Brigadier who retired in 1988 with a pension based on 50% of his "last pay drawn", as was laid down, can seek parity with pension @ 50% of last-pay-drawn of a Brigadier retiring in 2013, what have old time, Naik, Havildar, JCO, Major or Lt Col retirees done wrong that they should not have pension-parity with ranks they, with their years of service, would have currently got based on time-bound promotions? They slogged the same number of years, facing the same, if not worse, hazards serving the nation. The number of years is a hard reality that cannot be ignored where years-based promotions are involved. Rank is a variable entity. Especially when we're thinking of time-bound promotions.
Fact No. 2. NFU will affect the OROP only if the judiciary decides in favour of Services. That may also depend on the 7 CPC recommending continuing with it or not.
Fact No. 3. There is also the issue of DACP for AFMS doctors and what the Apex Court decides in the Contempt petition.