I remember a movie in which one person draws a line in the black board and asks the second person to make the line shorter without touching it. An interesting puzzle,indeed! The second person thinks for a while, walks to the black board, takes the chalk piece and draws a longer line next to the line drawn by the first person and answers by asking him a question : is it not small now? The answer is apt and brilliant. The answer is equally applicable to make the line taller by drawing a smaller line by its side. So it is up to a person who has the chalk piece in his hand to make the already drawn line smaller or longer as he wants. Similar is the case with the officials who have been entrusted with the task of issuing orders and interpreting them that they can interpret it either way as they want.
Now let us look at the way the OROP tables notified on 03.02.2016 have been prepared. They were supposed to have taken the mean average of 'the maximum' and 'the minimum' pension of those holding the same rank with same length of service and who have retired in the calendar year 2013. This is as per the provisions of OROP notification issued by MOD on 07.11.2015.
The maximum and minimum are to be taken across all the three wings of the service - Army, Navy and Air Force. The maximum of a group X Hav/PO/Sgt has been confirmed thro an RTI application as 9475/-, although my calculation given below pitches it at 9490/-.But there are issues concerning the minimum.
All of us are aware that prior to 2006, unlike the officers, the pay scales of JCOs & NCOs were different in the three wings of the defence services. For example the pay scale of the X group Sepoy in the Army was 3600-70-4650; for the LAC in Air Force was 4025-60-4925 and the Apprentice in the Navy was 3200-60-3260.
Since there will be different minimums due to different pay scales as above, the question is: which one would be taken as 'the minimum' ? It is just & fair only if the highest among minimums is taken as 'the minimum' for computing the average/OROP. Above all, it should be 'the minimum' obtained in the cut off year 2013.
The following model calculations made in respect of a sepoy/ LAC recruited in 1998 promoted as NK/CPL in 2008 and as HAV/SGT in 2013, will reveal the difference in the minimum of these forces. As far as Navy is concerned their promotion chances were better than the other two wings. They had time bound promotions in the first 2 ranks. Therefore the data of NAVY can only be taken for the 'maximum'.
ARMY
15.01.98.
Sepoy (3600-70-4650)-3600=01.01.06. 3600+(70×8) =4160
(8 increments 01/99- 01/2016)
01.01.06/6th CPC-13140 =01.07.06 -13540
01.07.07 -13950 01.01.08 - Promoted as NK
Pay fixed@ -14770
01.07.08 -15220
01.07.09 -15680
01.07.10. -16150
01.07.11 -16640
01.07.12 -17140
1.01.13 / Promoted as HAV &pay fixed@ -18060
31.01.13 - DISCHARGE =PENSION -18060/2= 9030/-
AIR FORCE;-15.01.98=LAC (4025-60-4925)-4025
01.01.06. 4025+(60×8)=4505
(8 increments 01/99- 01/2005)
01.01.06 / 6th CPC -13780
1.07.06 - 14200
01.07.07 - 14630
1.1.08-Promoted as CPL(4150-70-5200)& Pay fixed @ -15470
01.07.08 - 15940
01.07.09 - 16420
01.07.10 - 16920
01.07.11. - 17430
01.07.12 - 17960
01.01.13 - promoted as Sgt -Pay fixed@- 18900
31.01.13-DISCHARGE =PENSION-18900/2=9450/-
NAVY
15.01.98. Apprentice (3200-60-3260)-3200
01.01.99. 3260+(60×1) =3260=(1 increments 01/99)
15.01.99 / Promoted as Artificer V (4150-70-4360) & Pay fixed at - 4150
01.01.02-4150+(70×3)=4360(3 increments 01/2000-01/02)
15.01.2002- Promoted as Artificer IV (4550-100-6350)
Pay fixed-4550 =01.01.06. 4550+(100x4)= 4950
(4 increments 01/03 - 01/06)
01.01.06 / 6 CPC. -15410
01.07.06. - 15880
01.07.07 - 16360
01.07.08 - 16850
01.07.09 - 17360
01.07.10 - 17880
01.07.11. - 18420
01.07.12. - 18980
31.01.13 -DISCHARGE =PENSION -18980 / 2 = 9490/-
This is a one man work and based on the data available in public domain and therefore there might be some arithmetical mistakes and minor variations.
From the above it is clear that the highest among minimums across the three services is 9450/- and the maximum as per the above calculation of Navy is 9490/- Therefore the average/ OROP is (9450+9490) = 18940/2= 9470/-. But the OROP of X group Havs/POs/Sgts with 15 years of service as per table 7 notified on 03.02.2016 is only 8585/-.This has been calculated by taking the maximum as 9475/- and the minimum as 7695/-. As a result there is a reduction of Rs.885/- in the OROP. Even when the maximum pension is taken as 9475/- as communicated under RTI, then also the OROP would be 9475+9450= 18925/2= 9463 which is 878/- more than the OROP announced. This is a serious anomaly.
In view of the above, it is quite clear that 'the minimum' taken for calculation does not pertain to the crucial cut off year - 2013, atleast in the case illustrated above. It might be so in all other cases as well. Incidentally the figure 7695/- nearly matches with the minimum pension of non diploma, X group Sgt as on 01.01.2006 which can be verified with the pro-rata figures notified by PCDA vide it's controversial Circular no. 547.
THEREFORE OROP TABLES ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF OROP NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY GOI ON 07.11.2015.
We need to represent inter alia, the above anomaly before the OMJC constituted to look into all issues relating to OROP, for necessary correction and rectification.
Sgt M.P. KARAN
President,
Karnataka AFVAI
(Source- AFVAI blog)
There was a news item sometime back before the issue of the tables that dy defence minister agreed for the max of the pension in 2013 to be taken into consideration for calculation. Whatever happened to that??
ReplyDeleteRamani
More chest width person is required to pay the legitimate dues of Hav and Sub equivalents in Navy and AF because their strength is high.
ReplyDeleteDear Sgt Karan, First of all I seek your permission to express my views on the subject of rank and yearwise OROP table attached to the PCDA(P) Allahabad circular No 555. The elaborated calculation/method adopted to arrive the pension entitlement for each rank may not be the formula applied by PCDA (P) Allahabad to finalize the rank and yearwise pension table. You may kindly go through the latest rules and regulations available on the subject verify the correctness. If my views are proved to be baseless please excuse for the lapse on my part. Here the table now we are referring is normal service pension. In my knowledge there is no provision exists to grant normal service pension to JCOs OR for less than 15 years service in normal case. However disability service element are being sanctioned to the personnel discharched with disability on completion of 10 years qualifying service.OROP table starts with .5 years service and ends upto 28 years and 33 years as applicable. The amount of pension indicated against each rank from .5 to 14.5 years qualifying service and for disability case from .5 to 9.5 needs proper scrutiny with your projected calculation. As a rule MSP will not be counted to work out the annual increment of 3%.It appears you had calculated annual increment for the total pay including MSP. If at all your views are correct, as to how the pension of Sepoy of X group remain with out change from 7 years to 28 years. The buching system applied to arrive the entitled pension of each rank is different and there is no similarity. The pension of pre 2006 was worked out based on the highest maximum of pre 2006 pay scale of the three services. Half of the maximum pay was treated as pension for each rank for 33 years qualifying service including service weightage admissible to each rank. If we have to workout the pension of sepoy with 15 years service the formula is as follows. Total pension admissible for 33 years devided by 33X service(15 years)+weightage.From 1.1.2006 the clause of 33 years service and weightage is removed. Half of the last pay drawn will be taken as pension for each rank. JCOs OR when earn annual increment surely there must be a change in their pension entitlement. Such changes are not found in the pension table depending upon the completed qualifying service. Earlier the pension table was prepared for 15 to 28 years only now it is extended to 33 years and above. Tenure of service was increased for 2more years for each rank wef 30.5.1998 correctness of which needs to be verified. With the above explanation, Iam of the opinion that the formula for calculation of pension of each rank as indicated in your post may not tally with the figures shown in the pension chart. You may verify the correctness and rectify the defects if any to avoid confusion at all level.
ReplyDeleteI DIFFER FROM YOU TOTALLY. SGT KARAN AT LEAST GUESS AND FIGHT FOR ALL ARMED FORCES VETERANS. BUT YOU APPEAR TO BACK THE ACT OF BEAROCARTS.FIRST OF ALL WHY NO TRANSPARENCY IN CALCULATION AND ARRIVING OUT CORRECT TABLE.WHY THE SERVICE HEADQUARTERS PAY CELL WAS NOT TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT FOR CONSULTATION BEFORE ARRIVING AT TABLE OF ENTITLEMENT. LIKE RAJNIKANTH CINEMA EVERYTHING WAS UNDER SECRACY. THEY WANT THE GROUP IS WAKING UP GO UPTO APEX COURT. IF YOU HAVE NO MIGHT ACCEPT THE DEFEAT. THE LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST (IT IS NOT CHATTING BOX FOR THE TIME PASS BUT NOT CONSTRUCTIONAL BENEFITS).I RPT I RPT CONFIRMEDLY AFFIRM NO BEAUROCRATS DO TAKE THE INTEREST OF THE NATION AND ITS PEOPLE RATHER THAN THEIR BETTER LIVING.
Delete