On careful perusal of the OROP tables issued by the Office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) vide Circular Number 555, the following preliminary observations take shape:
(a) The Circular, on its own, has added many ifs and buts to the parent Government of India/Ministry of Defence Letter dated 07 Nov 2015 on OROP. These additional clauses are not a part of the OROP Scheme as implemented vide the above letter of the Ministry.
(b) As per Govt of India Letter above, pensions of past retirees are to be re-fixed on the basis of 2013 retirees of the same rank and same length of service. However, in the Circular, the PCDA(P) has reintroduced the distinction between the ‘rank last held’ and ‘rank for pension’ [See Note (b) under Para 11 of the Circular]. This has been apparently stated so because prior to 2006, service of 10 months in a rank was required to earn pension for that particular rank. Hence, as per the PCDA(P) Circular, if a Naib Subedar had served only for 6 months in the said rank, he would be paid the pension of a Havildar and not that of a Naib Subedar. This stipulation is incorrect since the parent MoD letter does not discriminate between ‘rank last held’ or ‘rank for pension’ which is a dispensation anyway abolished w.e.f 2006. The pension, as per the Ministry’s letter, is to be based on ‘same rank and with the same length of service’ and not as per ‘rank for pension’ [See Para 3 (ii) of the Letter].
(c) As per the PCDA(P) Circular, pension is only to be granted as per maximum terms of engagement existing at the time (See Para 7 of the Circular). So for example, if the maximum term of engagement for a particular rank was 22 years but the person was made to serve for 26 years, or had 26 years of combined service based on two spells, his pension would be capped at 22 years. This also is a condition superimposed by the Defence Accounts Department and does not find mention in the Ministry’s letter. The Ministry’s letter is simple: pension is to be based on live data of 2013 based on similar rank and similar length of service. Hence, if a person retired in a particular rank with 26 years of service, he is to be paid a pension in accordance with a person of the same rank with 26 years of service retiring in 2013, nothing more, nothing less, and as simple as that. An imposition of an additional condition is undue display of creativity.
(d) It seems that the system of full pension at 33 years and proportionate reduction below the said length has again been applied in the tables, which is incorrect, since as stated above, the pensions are to be linked with live 2013 data as per the Govt of India letter. Hence for example, if a Colonel had retired in 1996 with 22 years of service, he is to get his pension in accordance with a Colonel retiring in 2013 with 22 years of service, similarly, if a Colonel had retired with 33 years of service, he is supposed to get pension in terms of what a Colonel with the same length got in 2013. The system of 33 years is not applicable after 2006 and since OROP is based on live pension data, it cannot be brought back by circumventing the main notification.
(e) The pension tables of Territorial Army personnel seem incorrect. The system of non-grant of weightage to TA stands abolished in 2006 and the pensions are to be granted as per the live pension data of 2013 wherein TA and Regular Army personnel were at par. However, still, the system of calculation is woefully off the mark. For example, a Lt Col of the Regular Army with 33 years of service has been shown with a pension of 34,765 while an officer of the TA of the same rank with same service has been granted a pension of 16,405, the logic of which is totally incomprehensible since both TA and Regular Army Lt Cols in 2013 were in receipt of the same pension with the same length of service.
(f) Pensions of Lt, Capt and Maj of AMC, ADC and RVC seem awry. For example, the pension of a Major of the AMC which should be much more than other Arms due to addition of NPA, is shown as 17,010 while that of a Major of other branches is shown as 23,815.
(g) Calculation of pensions for the ranks of Major and below, on notional basis, have not been undertaken correctly. Since nobody retires in the rank of Major as per the current dispensation, the pension of past retirees was to be based on notional fixation. The figures in the tables however fall below the notional fixation for the said ranks. An officer of the rank of Major, if taken as not promoted to Lt Col and progressing in his own rank with due increments in his own pay-band would retire with a higher pension than what has been recorded in the tables.
(h) Rounding off of qualifying service has been undertaken based upon various cut-off dates in the circular (Para 10). This is incorrect since the concept of cut-off dates in now otiose in view of the Ministry’s letter- pension is simply to be based on the live pension data of 2013 linked with the length of service with the same length of service, which takes into its ambit the system of calculating the said length of service too.
(i) Honorary Naib Subedar and Naib Subedar are supposed to be at par w.e.f 2006 since the grant of Honorary rank of Naib Subedar is now to be treated as a regular promotion for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Further, the distinction in pension between pre and post-2006 retirees of the rank of Honorary Naib Subedar has been struck down and upheld as such till the Supreme Court, hence the wide difference in the tables of both seems to be a little incompatible and perhaps more clarity would be required on the same.
As per my opinion, various disabling factors that existed earlier as per old dispensations including some of which have already been set aside by judicial fora, have been reintroduced by the Defence Accounts Department in the tables and in the Circular while giving effect to the Ministry’s letter dated 07 Nov 2015 whereas no such conditions were imposed by the said letter of the Ministry. Needless to state, the DAD/CGDA/PCDA(P) could not have superimposed their own conditions over and above of what had been prescribed by the Ministry of Defence. I am sure the Services HQ would convey the above (and other anomalies) to the concerned competent authority and that the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, as also the Judicial Committee, would take note of the infringement of the conditions of the letter issued by the Govt of India on 07 Nov 2015.
The above is an analysis only after a cursory glance. Shall update in case more issues crop up.
Maj Navdeep Singh, Retd
(Source- Indian Military info & Benefits blog)
I guess this will now go to the one man commission appointed for the purpose.
ReplyDeleteAll points brought out by you with a cursory glance are relevant for correction immediately. The PCDA assumes that it is the supreme power and its dictates must be accepted by the soldiers faithfully with no questioning. I doubt that till a time these matters were taken to the courts, the PCDA will not relent. I hope on further examinations by you will unveil many more anomalies. We thank you for your unflinching efforts to do justice all the time for the serving and retired soldiers. Jai Hind.
ReplyDeletePeople talk about OROP.Always they talk about colonel and Lt colonels.JCOs are never figured in any discussion.
ReplyDeleteA day will come for us, the JCOs or so called PBORS
Another incongruity is regarding reference to personnel who retired in the 1960s. The CCS Rules came into effect in 1973 (with it the 33 yrs full pension rule). Rules/ Acts cannot be enacted prospectively. In the 60s a Lt Col retired at the age of 50 yrs ! So how can his QS be compared with the QS of a Lt Col as of 2000?
ReplyDeletethanks for ur kind consideration.
ReplyDeleteMajor Navdeep phir Officers ke gane ga raha not for pbor.
ReplyDeleteRespected Major Sir, You are well aware of the rules and regulations, Pay and allowances regulations,Army Act and AFT rules etc. Having gone through the PCDA(P) Allhabad circular No 555 I am not in a position to understand method adopted for calculation of pension of JCOs OR and indicated against each rank for the equal qualifying service. Sir would you kindly go through the following points and clarify the correct rules position on the subject:- Pension table consist for .5 to 33 years and above for all the ranks from Sep to Hony Capt. If it is a service pension what is the idea to indicate the table for 1 to 33 years. Is any rules permit to grant pension for JCOs OR from 1to 14 in nirmal case and disability service eliment from 1 to 10 years of service.It gives an impression that Sub, Sub Maj Hony Lt and Hony Capt are joining the service from their first year of service. The bunching system applied for calculation of pensiin can be different for the same rank with equal service. Up to 23.9.2012, pension was calculated in different method based on the maximum of pre 2006 pay scale. The system got changed wef 24.9.2012 and accordingly pensiin was calculated based on the highest maximum of each rank of three services. Sir you may kindly verify the correctness of the pre 2006 pay scale of Hav and sergeant belongs to X group. Hav pre 2006 pay scale is 4150-5650 and sergeant pay scale is 5000 -6500.Pension of Hav was calculated on the maximumpay of Sergeant ie 6500. Let me clarify it 6500X1.86 -12099+2800 grade pay+2000 MSP+1400 X pay .Totl 18290. Pension admissible wef 24.9.2012 is 9145. Then the logic to appky 10 months everage pay in the last rank held. A sep is eligible for 1ACP after completion of 8 years, 2nd ACP after 16 years and 3 rd MACP on completion of 24 years if he happened to remain in service beyond normal tenure of service. Hav gets Hony Rank on completion of 24 years of Service. From the table Hav granted to Nb Sub are not eligible for the pension at par with Nb Sub. Nb Sub,Sub,Sub Maj and Hony Lt are honored with the rank of Hony Sub,Hony Sub Maj, Hony Lt and Hony Capt on retired list on completion of 26,28,and 32 years as applicable.They not eligible for the next higher grade even the rank is honor for their retired list. A Sub get the rank of Hony Lt and Hony Capt while in service is eligible for pay and allowances and pension at par with regular officer in the pay band three with increased grade pay and MSP. A and Hony Lt and Sub and Hony Capt draw more pension than a Sub Maj who had completed 4 years tenure of service in that rank. Sir look at the case carefully.Most of the cases Sub gets his Hony Rank on 26 Jan and 15 Aug each year and they become due for retirement on 31 Jan and 31 Aug with less than 16 days service in that rank. However the clause of 10 months service is not applicable to then and condoned as per pension regulations. At last here I add the pension entitlement of officers. LT 16160, Capt 17070, Maj 23815 and Lt Col 34765. As per time scale promtion no officer retires less than the rank of Lt Col. The difference in the pension betwee Lt Col and Maj is 10950 with 119 DA works out to 23980. A Major with 21 years of service is likely to be admissible for the pension of Lt Col. How the JCOs OR is benefitted with the revised table. Less service personnel got more benefit than the personnel completted their tenure of service. Kindly verify the above facts and appraise the correct position to One Man Commission.
ReplyDeleteSir, Once there had been a group B category in which Subs and Havs which still constitutes considerable strength among both serving and retired. Where this personnel have been brought down and dumped for nothing. This is not the question of money but highly demoralizing. So the time has around to make group less pension structure like officers at the earliest and call it OROP.
ReplyDeleteA subedar of x group given rs 13085 rest he served 11 month in the rank till 27 years.But sub major of group y served 4 years in rank till 32 years by completing all terms & conditions is given rs 13045 . what kind of one rank one pension is this suited best to our RM please.
DeleteIt is shameful for highest rank of jcos.
These elite group bloggers when will start think about people once worked under them and presently struggling to lead a decent life style. The OROP meant for early retirees from middle and bottom line of forces who are not in a position to make both ends meet. This concept is hijacked by the elite group retirees and even after getting hike in 1000's still not satisfied. When will they think about people discharged before 40 yrs who is shouldered with responsibility of shouldering aged parents and family of his own. Had he not joined the forces he might have got trained in some job as mechanic or atleast pan wala. Today status is determined by bank balance and property in possession. I regret to say jawan's status is certainly placed below pan wala. My earnest request to those elite group retirees is kindly think about plight of poor jawans who once worked under you as a slave whose wellbeing is your moral responsibility since you took oath to work for welfare of personnel placed under you in the system. Stop comparing with another elite group civil services officers who never failed in their responsibility of taking care of their suborinates.
ReplyDeleteI,one among you, suggest tha we all should spread the facts of fajuis' life across the poor mass that joining defense forces is not the right career to choose.I do always since 1987. Whomever I stopped, they thank me whenever I meet them.
DeleteArrears should be given to PBOR on the basis of Circular 547 tables mentioned as A to C.
ReplyDeleteFlt Lt M.Maheswaran(Retd) Dear Sir,
ReplyDeletePlease refer para g) where in you have mentioned for the ranks of Major and below. You are the first Senior Officer who has mentioned regarding the Junior Officers. Thank you for the same.In the proposed Govt DGL the pension of a Capt was recommended as 25600/- where as in the OROP it is drastically brought down to 17010/- making a difference of 6805/- between Maj and Capt.
When I was in service, in Air Force, an officer became a Flt Lt after 6 yrs and Sqn Ldr after 13 yrs of commissioned service. Where as now an Officer becomes a Flt Lt after 2 yrs, Sqn Ldr after 6 yrs and Wg Cdr after 11 yrs of commissioned service.Those who were commissioned from the ranks could not pick up the rank of Sqn Ldr after serving for more than 8 yrs or more and were to leave the service on superannuation or PMR. Had this policy of promotion was in existance then, all would have become at least Sqn Ldr and retired with the pension of Sqn Ldr.
You are requested to study the matter and take up the matter so that a Capt and equivalent who has served for more than 6 years commissioned service and drawing pension of a Capt may be granted the pension of Maj as recommended in the case of Maj.
It may be noted there may be very few officers in the rank of Capt drawing pension as no one will be retiring in the rank of capt at present.
There is no comments for PBOR only Lollipop has been given to them and they are happy for this, but the officers are not satisfied. Therefore, all the payment of PBOR should be given to Officers because they are very poor for heart.
ReplyDeleteFlt. Lt. M Viswanathan (Ae M) 35years total service & 11 years Commissioned service.
ReplyDeleteWith reference to Para g. DISCRIMNATION OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS SELECTED FROM JUNIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
Many of these officers retired before 15 years and some are lucky to live now and drawing the pension after serving as Captain with more than 6 years and 11 years of commissioned service. Where this grade fits in the pension chart. As per the present regulation these officers should have retired as Major or Lt. Col. To do justice to this lot minimum pension of commissioned officers to be fixed as Major and those have qualifying service to become Lt Col. To be given pension of that rank.
Sir, I would like to know whether MACP is considered to pre-2006 retirees where men served 10 to 20 years in a particular rank due to lack of promotional avenues........
ReplyDeleteSir with your permission I may be allowed to add one more point which I could include in my earlier post. The point is with regards to the rank of Sub Maj of Army. Sir when you go back the pay scale of Sub Maj as per RPR 1960, they are entitled for Rs 312 common for the groups A to D with out any discrimination. At that time pay scale of Sub of A group was 225-10-255. Sub Majwith peculier rules of Army and restricted tenure of 4 years he is compelled to retire from service on completion of 4 years tenure in that rank presumably to avoid the blockage of promotion to juniors. Due to changes in the subsequent Pay commissions titme to time pay scale got revised up to 1996 with reasonable difference in the pay between Sub Maj and Sub. In Indian army there were 8 groups ie A to H up to 1973. From 1.1.1973, thease groups reduced to 5 ie A to E. On reorganization group and trade again these 5 groups reduced to 3 ie X,Yand Z. Pay scales of Sep to Sub got revised wef 10.10.1997 but the pay scale of Sub Maj kept unchanged.This resulted Sub of X Group to draw more pay and pension of Sub Maj of Y Group. The reason for degradation of Sub Maj rank is not known to me. A Pensioner of H group retired prior to 1973 is now eligible for pension at par with the pension of Y group. The Original B group retirees remains with out any change since 1973. The only group entitled for X group pay is old A group. As 6th CPC pay scale of JCOs are 9300-34800,Grade pay for Nb Sub 4200, Sub 4800 and Sub Maj 4800. MSP is common for Sep to Sub Maj 2000. X Group is entitled for the X pay of 1400. Considering common pay scale,grade pay and MSP the difference in the pension should have been fixed @ Rs 700 only ie half of X Pay. From the revised pension table difference between X and Y is abnormal. If it is one rank one pension that should be group less for each rank with equal qualifying service at least for pension purpose. Qualification pay if required may be added for service personnel as applicable which will not be counted for pension purpose. Sir You may kindly make analysis on the subject and your valueble suggestions be submitted to the One Man Anomlies commission as a justfied action towards JCOs OR.
ReplyDeleteWe must insist that when an amendment is issued to PCDA (P) Circular 555, it must be in full and not para wise piece meal corrections. Whole thing, all of the 101 charts require corrections at every rank and QS tabs.
ReplyDeleteSir, The peculiarity, I must say that the gross anomalies in the PCDA Circular 555 is that a Havildar with QS of 15 yrs have have a difference with an increase of Rs.2249. Herein after the peculiar formula applied is that the same rank on the 20th yr this increase comes down to Rs.1342, on the 24th yr the increase comes down to Rs.433 and on the 28th yr the increase comes down to Rs.390. From the 15 th yr to 28th yr with a gap of 13 yrs why this gross anomalies have croped up? After 15 yrs, as the QS is increasing why the difference resulted at the 15 the yr is not maintained for the rest of the 13 yrs. Why this 13 QS is not accounted? What is the factor that has been deleted?
ReplyDelete