Full disclosure:
3. This blog author made the presentation in his personal capacity and not as a member of any ESM organisation.
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 is handicapped 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 5th September 2015 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 control and 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 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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
Increment
|
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
|
Increment
|
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
|
Increment
|
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
|
Sir, the table at Appendix 'A' to this blog post forms an excellent basis for trying to understand an issue which can appear complex at times.
ReplyDeleteFirst 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.
@Sunlit, there has to be a datum for analysis. It is Annexure A and not B.
DeleteIn 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.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteIn 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?
The tables are for illustrative purposes to show what serving officers are being paid as total emoluments (TE) - Pay in the pay band + Grade Pay + increment + MSP and their pension is arrived at by dividing TE by 2 and what the Circular 500 is indicating for that rank, those years of service.
DeleteAs 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.
Those having more length of service should be given more benefits because they have sacrifice their normal civil comfort zone domestic family life for 24 hour serving to the Nation against economic rat race of civil sector employees part time business opportunities at home.
DeleteSir, there is a Fundamental Rule that the pay or pension cannot exceed that of the next higher rank. Your hypothesis fails this test.
DeleteExcellent and powerful case
ReplyDeleteA very detailed and pragmatic analysis of the OROP issue by AVM Savur. Suggestions made by AVM are workable and should be accepted by the Government.
ReplyDeleteSorry sir, the rank is Air Marshal.
Deletesir,
ReplyDeleteThe 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
Sir, Latest news about OROP GOI,MOD letter to be issued after BIHAR Elections as stated by Def Min in GAO(Panaji) on 11 Oct 2015.Election Commission may have an issue with such an announcement.
ReplyDeleteSir A very well researched analysis. My compliments to you for this excellent piece. Only hope the RM accepts this and the ESM community represented by the core gp also acquscie.
ReplyDeleteDear Air Marshal Savur, thank you for allaying and putting to rest a large no of doubts and fears arising out of a myriad of opinions, suggestions and recommendations flying around. Your presentation at Sena Vihar was a breath of fresh air. Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteSir,
ReplyDeleteWhere is the table for Lt Col (TS)? Why only the table for Lt Col (Sel) is included?
Sandeep Pandit
I have not included tables for Lt Col(TS) and also for Lt Gens (HAG & HAG+) for the tables are for illustration. You may wish to make one and send to me for inclusion. Thanks
Delete@Sandeep Pandit: "table for Lt Col (TS).." ;
DeleteIt 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.
Sir, in reference to the part of the blog post which states, "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..", the following points could be considered as well:
ReplyDelete* 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 .
Apropos "real challenge" I have given the calculation Pay in the Pay Band + GP + INC + MSP divided by 2 for such cases.
Delete"..calculation Pay in the Pay Band + GP + INC + MSP divided by 2 for such cases.."
DeleteSir, 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.
Sir, please do not bother about all those videos and viral emails about "back-stabbers." You have placed the analysis and we are yet to read a fact based refutation. Please continue with your Satyam ev Jayate campaign.
ReplyDeleteSir, Excellent analysis. Keep going. Great work. Regards.
ReplyDeleteSir, this was also discussed some time ago on another of your blog posts where the subject of tables had come up. Now, those comments are no longer available, but, as I recall, the logic of that discussion pointed to the possibility that pay bands by themselves might not give the actual pension/pay in cut-off year. In the context of tables in this blog post, a Colonel with 27 years of qualifying service may or may not, in reality, have the pay in pay band of 58950/- in year 2013 as shown in the table. Hence a pension of 36825/- may not always apply.
ReplyDeleteSo the table could mislead some readers if they do not view it in the illustrative sense it is intended.
@Dhoop, it is my understanding (misunderstanding?) that we Servicemen are thinking individuals and will always arrive at a logical conclusion. To aid that endeavour, I have also quoted the documents I have used for my analysis.
DeleteA very comprehensive and objective analysis. There has been a trend to condemn and criticise without deep understanding. Such reactive responses on OROP have not done much credit to the cause. Instead it made us look somewhat like a trade union.It was also sending a wrong message to serving personnel. Let those voices point out gaps if any. If not , let the wisdom prevail.
ReplyDeleteSir, I have two doubts and would be grateful to have these clarified. First one is does the figure in column 'B' (for Officers in Appendix 'A') correspond to years of service in Column 'A' or does the one in Column 'F'? Second is, how do we come to the figure in Column 'B' as against QS in column 'A'? For example in the year 2013, did a Col with 23 years of service have a pay at 51390/- as shown?
ReplyDeleteDear Corona8 of course coln B corresponds to coln A and coln F is the sum of Colns B, C and D and not E. Hope this clarifies your doubt.
Delete@Col MS Raju: "..Hope this clarifies.."
DeleteDon'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 the additional 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?
A new anomaly seems to have risen regarding enhanced rate of family pension being higher than Service pension for other ranks(due to 33 years for full pension on Service pension & it not being applicable to EFP) ,though the rule says EFP can not be more than Service pension
ReplyDeleteIt 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. 1 - Col A indicates Qualifying Service (Major in 7th year), Column B is the Pay in the Pay Band, Col F is the total of Pay in the Pay Band + GP + MSP and Increment in row 2.
ReplyDeleteDoubt 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.
Sir, the figure of 25700/- for Lt Col with QS 14 years, as shown in the table, reminded me that some time back I had reworked a hypothetical table based on actual pensions, fixed on min of pay in pay-band, which in the case of Lt Col had been fixed as 26265/- and not 25700/-. As a result the figures in the re-worked table had differed from the one shown here.
DeleteIn 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.
Sir, I also have a small doubt. Starting pay of a Major with 6 years of service, is 23810 in PB-3 (12800 x 1.86). How a Major with 7 years of service can draw a pay of 21630?
ReplyDelete@SK Jain: In any case, that would be of academic interest as the Major table stops well short of the QS of 20 years required for getting a pension.
DeleteThe 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.
@Maj Jain,
DeleteYour 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 ........
Comments
@Sunlit, how I wish you provide us rays of your wisdom instead of flurries of questions!
ReplyDeleteNow 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!
@Taaza Khabar: "..flurries of questions.."
DeleteOne 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.
Every rank in Services has been diluted in the pursuit of more vacancies to accommodate the bulge that commenced in 1962 and ended in 1968.
DeleteWhy 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.
@Taaza Khabar:
DeleteUse 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.
@sunlit, appears to be some problem with that Brig of your seeking same pension as Brig of 2013? But he is not seeking pension of a Maj Gen who may have served the same number of years. No, you are not out with a complete disclosure of your logic.
DeleteSir, this has nothing to do with promotions by selection.
DeleteThe whole issue centers around ranks that nowadays come automatically on time-bound basis based on the number of years a retiree has put in. The whole logic is spelt out in detail in connected blog-posts.
As you have so aptly put it, where is the issue with a 88 Brigadier retiree seeking pension based on last-pay-drawn of a Brigadier retiring in 2013, as I understand it, based on the fact both have the same select rank, and for OROP, also the same number of years of service? On the same lines, why should an older retiree, who put in a fixed number of years but got a lower time-bound rank due to changes in policy over the years, get a lower pension than someone who also put in the same number of years of service, just because the latter was given a rank that was originally given after a higher number of years of service?
So unless someday they say as per some NFU norms, Maj Gen rank would be subject to a time-bound rule in addition to selection, the Brigadier in the example could not very well reason he be given the pension of a Maj Gen (both ranks being subject to selection) just because an older Major deserves the same pension as a current Lt Col, or even Col (both sets of ranks having been given on time-bound basis in different eras).
So the two cases are quite different. In the case of time-bound promotions, there has to be a priority given to years of service over nomenclature of the rank in fixing parity. Not so for select ranks as there is no basis for stating a Lt Col retiree, who had got his promotion by selection, should get the same pension as a current Col promoted by selection, both having a service of 22 years. We can never know whether or not the Lt Col retiree, who'd got his promotion by selection, would or would not have also cleared selection to Col rank. The only fixed and undeniable thing is, if a Lt Col, who was selected for the rank, had put in a service of 26 years then he should claim parity with the pension of a Col promoted to the same rank on time-bound basis. The same logic holds for an older retiree with time bound ranks of Major or Lt Col. In fact Officers who'd got the rank of Lt Col on time-bound basis and retired on 31 Dec 2004 or later, were given the rank of Col on time-bound basis if they had completed a service of 26 years in exactly the same way as Lt Cols who had been promoted by selection had been given the same time-bound rank of Col.
I had tried to differentiate between the time-bound and selection basis ranks in this in this blog post.
This matter was very correctly covered in the services HQs "DGL" that you had so kindly shared in one of your blog posts.
Thank you. But unless there is a change in policy, and applicable across the spectrum of Govt employees, we are beating our heads against a wall. In my personal reckoning, your proposal may never be accepted. But who will stop you for trying? Not me.
DeleteThe issue of time-bound promotions and the effect on pensions (for OROP and even without OROP) has received some attention at long last from some partially right minded people, who are, alas, not fully sensitised to what is involved and still exhibiting some sort of prejudice and being condescending towards people who got such promotions. https://goo.gl/D6Iz0D.
DeleteMy question to Ariel View is on implementation of OROP by the Govt which table they are going to use as base year 2013 for PBOR. Please answer.
ReplyDeleteI regret inability to second guess the Government.
DeleteI have long been following your blogs with interest. The tables which you have included in your post - I would like to draw your attention to the one for Brigadier. A 26 yrs service Brig has been shown to get pension of 34060. I retired post 2006, on 30 Jun 06 with 32 yrs and 6 months. They sent me home with a pension of 31300,(retired with 18050 + two stag increments) my battle with CDAO continues to review my fixation. Even a Col with 26 years service and a Lt Col with 23 yrs service is shown to be getting more pension than me?? Could you throw some light on this please.
ReplyDeleteThe tables are based on actual pay in the pay band + GP + inc + MSP. The analysis indicates what the pension should be paid, if the emoluments are divided by 2 i.e made 50%. There is also the aberration that some Brigs are drawing more than an Army Cdr, let alone Maj Gen or Lt Gen!
DeleteYes ,some more facts ,for greater and better understanding ! With ref to ongoing points of relevance @ sunlight and others:-
ReplyDelete1.The processes of reforms and revision of ranks started in 1984 ,when the rank of a Unit Cdr viz Bn,Regt ...was made Col instead Lt Col.This was not done from a particular date ,but in about 4 years from 1984.
2.Consistent with those reform /policy- when Bn Cdr is Col ,next lower appointment rank of coy Cdr is Lt Col.....Thus,those provisions in SAI 1987_namely abolition of selection grade rank of Lt Col FM 1986 and reduction of service limit to Maj to 11 yrs FM 13.
3. Also Service for promotion to Lt Col (ts )was reduced to 21 yrs from 24 yrs ,in the year 1984.Those days sel gr Lt Col used to be between 18 to 21 yrs in some services of Army. (prior to 1984.). Then brought down to 16 to 19. Even those days the difference in service between sel gr and time scale for the lowest rank of sel gr rk of Lt Col was 2 yrs (near).That is the background of rationale of NFFU of 2 yrs diff in services of GOI.
4. In accordance with that reforms policy the service limits for ranks of Lt ,Capt ,Maj and
Lt Col were to be reduced in say about 5 yrs from 1984.Also abolition of 2/Lt rk.
5. All these changes should have been completed in 5 yrs from 1986 , (ie ) by 1991.But delayed action by dragging into So named AVS committee in 2004 - giving impression as some meharbani of promotion at lower Svc . Is it ??? . It is not !. it is a delayed action of reform /revision/policy- .
***** That is Genesis of all these disparities/anomalies leading to present conflicting perceptions based on irrelevant datum lines and rigidity of rank perceptions.
***** let there be informed ,intellegent , logical and rational discussions and blogging. No scope for arbitrary perceptions.
@bala: "... rigidity of rank perceptions..." Never was a more apt statement made or read on the blogosphere.
DeleteOn the dot!
@bala,
DeleteSir,
"...Thus,those provisions in SAI 1987_namely abolition of selection grade rank of Lt Col FM 1986 and reduction of service limit to Maj to 11 yrs FM 13...."
Was it not the Scale/Rank of Maj(SG) that was abolished after 4CPC?
Lt.Col.(Sel) continued well until 2004.
@penmil,
DeleteSir, from what I have been able to understand, what @bala has been saying all along is there was supposed to have been no select grade of Lt Col with effect from 01 Jan 86 but the powers that be, chiefly the services HQs, maintained the distinction between selection-based and time-bound promotion to Lt Col till December 2004, perhaps in the process mindlessly harming interests of the Officer cadre.
But @bala can best clarify that when the blog-owner reactivates the blog.
@Dhoop.
DeleteSir,
Thanks.
My query was in relation to the recommendations of the IV CPC.
I recall a reference to that by @ Bee Cee, in Maj.Navdeep’s blog long ago.
http://www.indianmilitary.info/2008/05/not-so-pragmatic-god-save-us-from.html
An extract from that post is given below: -
PMONDAY, MAY 26, 2008
Not so pragmatic : God save us from ourselves!
………………………………………………………………. The ACP was available to armed forces also in the pay of Major (Selection Grade), given to the Major who was not selected for promotion to Lt Col. This I think was an achievement of the Q&M paper of 1982 and few seem to recollect this. The CPC report recommended that the pay of Maj (SG) be done away with in view of the running scale (as requested by Services) ………………………………………………..
Probably you too might have read this then
Further to ibid ,
ReplyDeleteHaving abolished ( exact print in that para of SAI 1987) the selection grade rank of Lt Col from 1986 ,consistent with projections of philosophy of integrated pay scales upto rank of Brig ,with separate rank pays of 4 cpc Govt approvals ,there were retrograde actions by some . That philosophy was the pivotal principle/rule of integrated (basic ) pay proportional to length of service as an officer ( similar to philosophy of NFFU since 2006 in other services of GoI ) and higher rank pay for higher rank.All this was subotaged at the time of implementation in that fixation of pay from 3rd to 4 the CPC scales .That was the saga of rank pay denial and rectified by judiciary.
That so called sel Lt Col practiced after 1986 was simply equivalent of pre 1986 Maj .These so called LtCol sel gr after 1986 were d of different type from those pre 1986 sel Lt Col .They did not hold appointments of OC of Bns or Regts. That was suttle difference.
** Some of those practices ,particularly in Army were serious aberrations and cause of anomalies .
Because of these inconsistant and retrograde actions military officers lost ,both on basic pay and NFFU interms of pay and pension.that is where that orop phrase of 1973 being superimposed on revised ranks of ranks in 2015
and working on those tables is only a temporary rief only (subject to implementation )
Pse - little more addition:-
ReplyDelete1.Some spelling errors due to touch ph are regretted. Also many thanks to Air Marshal S Savur for allowing informed debate.
2.in 50s and 60s ,many appointments such as armoured corps Indep Sqns , arty Lt Btys , other such Coys ,staff appointments ....were commanded /held by rank of substantive Majors and equivalent in AF & Navy. - these days some of those posts/appointments are held by rks of Col and above.Earlier ,there were promotion exams part -A ,B ,C & D ,efficiency bar & Maj with sel gr pay /increments to off set loss of promotions due to limited slots of sel gr promo of about 40% ,only.
3.After revision these ranks are related to one up. Further ,with about 30% defficiancies in officer cadre and about 20% in those being SSRC officers , and increase of vacancies in sel gr rks. __in the remaining lot ,about 80% get sel gr prom . probably ,soon it will be 90% in HAG - gr.
4. In the light of above if there is a sort of blind equation of past and present ranks ,naturally it will be visibly unfair. Yes ,issue of izzat gets invoked.
5 .well there are other phrases (besides orop ) frequently used and in vouge ; namely - rat race ,crab mentality...etc.There is no scope for these phrases in soldiering and brotherhood in arms.Armies don't exist like robots - at press of button/ orders ( even on pay compensation ). They are also human and that human factor( motivation ) makes difference between defeat and victory in war.
** Note - errors and omissions are regretted. Additions and corrections are welcome.
The following anomalies are noticed in the pension entitlement of Officers and JCOs OR shown in the respective tables in the appendix. Basic pay of Col for 26 years 56980 where as Brig for 26 years 53220. Nk for 14 years 10250 where as Hav for 14 years 9040. Hav for 19 years 10940 where as Nb Sub for 19 years 10520. Nb sub for 24 yers 12890 where as Sub for 24 years 12280. Formula not adopted to work out the pension is mainly to avail the benefit by officers only. A Nb Sub happened to get the promotion of Sub in the 14 year of service is entitled for basic pay 12280where as basic pay of Sub completed 24 years has been found shown as 12280 thus the annual increment enitiled for 15 to 24 years has not been found omitted. Pay band 3 for the JCO s 9300 to 34800. After completion of 24 years service a Sub can only draw basic pay of 12280 means what is the justice given to the JCOs rank.The formula adopted for calculation of pension entitlement to JCOs OR may invite lot of representation on a later date.
ReplyDelete@ .Q by penmil.about Lt Col sel that existed afterv1986 , contrarary to SAI 1987.:- I would rather put it as my understanding of various rules,regns ,related policy reforms letters of that time ,1986 .Contrary views would be there . it is for everybody to infer.
ReplyDelete1.before 1986 Maj sel gr -beyond top of Maj scale at 1800 -after 18 yrs . a step of stagnation incr.Lt Col ts , ser reduced to 21 from 24 in 1984 in the yr when of oc. unit raised to Col from Lt Col.
2.After 86, it was elongated integrated pay scale upto Brig with separate rk pays. Thus no more sel gr Maj pay. Also ,Maj at 11 yrs FM 13.
3.Lt Col sel gr during transitory period existed in different level and continued after 1987 ,contrary to stipulation in SAI ,1987. In that , it was a different grade of selection and given to those under 21 yrs of svc ,including SL ( QM ,RO ,TOT ,ciphers,.....etc) special list cadre without any restriction of appointment or vacancies.Obviously,it was a transitory practice instead of lowering sevice for Lt Col to 13 yrs ,as delayed till 2004 by AVS named Comm.
That was the background and of course - history.
Please do add or delete with knowledge of others.
Further. :-
ReplyDeleteIn the light of facts as stated ,that time scale rank known as substantive Lt Col by time scale as per DSR,RA 1962 ,after waiting for several years upto 24 yrs before 1983 ,after their batch mates were promoted to sel gr acting rank around 16 yrs and later substantive rank of Lt Col ; was also by approval and finding fit after long wait of 8 yrs more.
Despite that truth and rules , the irrelavent and unfair deregatory branding by TS even in year 2015 - reflects ignorence of people in MOD ,incl integrated hq,PCDA, CGDA ,DESW,some esm GPS....etc.Even in those recent orop tables in 2015 of Lt Col rank-affixing sel at levels of DESW and PCDA is reflction of ignorance and disregard to veterans of that era of tough military service through frequent wars of 1962,65 and 71,who have given glory to Army ,Navy &AF.
Therefore ,that denial of legitimate pay and pension to veterans of rank of old time Maj &Lt Col after 13 & 24 yrs service by equating with pay of 7 & 13 yrs svc officer , after 1986 ; leads to extreem anguish.That is reflected in these
agitations ,particularly recent Jullandar rally .Equally applicable from sepoy to Hav.
In branding those substantive Lt Col of 24 +yrs of combat arms of Infantry ,armoured ,engineer ,artillery and signals who retire at lower age as compared to services incl RVC ,postal..... etc ,as ts and with lower weightage of 5 as that of Brig ( neither 8 of Maj nor 7 of Lt Col or Col ) ,further results in reduction by 12% as demonstrated by @ Sunlit.
Most Secretary level IAS & IDAS officers with service of about 20yrs and even those next low level officers in GOI do not know this difference.So also with military service officers of that lot including top brass - of course ,this does not concern or effect them.
This is Genesis of persistence with ts diffentiation as if they were of lower grade territorial Army.
If bureaucrats of both civil and military ( incl Col Rathore retd and MOS ) display such ignorance ,how can we expect Hon RM &PM to know this difference - testimony to this is reading of inserted VRS on 5 sep 2015.
This ts suffix is thrust upon both by civil and mily staff as top brass have no concern for their batch mates who were co - rifle coy cdrs in FDLs ( forwarded defended localities -trenches ) in war and retired in that lower rank .What a brotherhood in arms ??.
Wait and see. !
@bala : "..derogatory branding..";
DeleteNow some association has decided to champion the cause of such veterans but judging by the tone of their emails floating about, they are themselves quite unmindful of the offensive nature of the suffix attached to the rank. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease! But I doubt the message will sink in as I tried to convey in a comment over there.
Respected Gen Sab,
ReplyDeletePlease have a look on the following anomalies worked in the entitlement of pension to the JCOs OR through your kind analysis.
Pay of Nk for 22 years 13550 Pay for Hav for 22 years 12230 Pay for Nb Sub for
22 years 11940 Pay for Sub for 24 years 12280. Now look at the pension entitlement of Sub having 33 years of service in the pay band 9300- 34800. (Basic pay 17470 + Grade pay 4600 +MSP 2000 Total 24070. Pension admissible 12035. Now take the case of Brigadier on completion of 35 years on the pay band 37400 -67000. He happened to reach the maximum of the pay band with in 35 years of service. (67000+Grade pay 8900+MSP 6000= total 81950 Pension admissible 40950. How adversely affect the formula applied for calculation of pension entitlement to JCOs OR and it become beneficial the officers. If the pension of Naik is worked out for 33 years his entitlement of pension may reach more than 12035 which is admissible to the the rank of Sub. With this the analisis appears to be incorrect and needs study in length.
Sir, I am not a Gen Sab.
DeleteThe tables are worked out based on the documents cited - SAI 1/S/2008, SAI 2/S/2008 and SAI 3/S/2008.
These are the pay in the pay band + GP + increment + MSP. The amount so arrived at is divided by 2 (50%) to arrive at what the pension should be.
The pay in the pay band + GP + increment + MSP was worked out by Def/Fin and approved/concurred by MoF/Deptt of Exp. The tables in SAI's quoted above were not worked out by Service HQ.
Due to lack of foresight, the Def/Fin appears not to have realised that Brig & equivalent at the top of the Pay Band will earn more than Maj Gens etc.
The analysis only shows the shortcomings of the Def/Fin tables in the quoted SAIs.
JCOs, as per the orders of Circular No. 501 are already drawing higher pension than 50% of Pay in the Pay Band + GP + increment + MSP because their pay was assumed as the notional maximum of the rank across 3 services i.e if the Subedar earned the highest, then his equivalent in the Navy and Air Force too would get the benefit.
The formula for officers is pay drawn + rank pay as on 1.1.2006 multiplied by 1.86. Actually, today's in service officers are drawing lesser if one studies the tables - lesser than the amount arrived at by the 1.86 factor.
Well the ORFP has been issued. Now what? and where do the veterans go from here. End of November new retirees will join our fold who will now be stuck with ORFP and not the OROP. So now once every five years for a brief period during the year there will be matching pension based on rank and length of service.
ReplyDeleteAs per official records brought out in an earlier blog the total expenses for military pensioner works out to approximately 32,000 crores 2014-15(54,500 crores less civilian defence pensioner of 22,500 crores)
ReplyDeleteIf that be so how can OROP can cost additional burden of 8 to 10,000 crores which is about 25% of the current pension being given. Something is not right and it does not seem to add up. I guess RTI is the only solution to call the bluff of Finance Ministry and general public be informed of it. Or did I get something wrong.