Aerial View : Where is the OROP heading

Sunday, 18 January 2015

Where is the OROP heading

It is with considerable interest that I read the musings/op ed of Brig V Mahalingam (retd), a noted TV debater/expert and of Col Rajvardhan Singh Rathore (retd), MP and now Hon'ble MoS respectively on the OROP. I do not wish to comment nor am I qualified or knowledgeable enough to do so.

But their learned comments sparked off some questions.

1. What happens in the OROP of the pre-AVSC Majors and Lt Cols with 26 years of service? Would they want the pension of Lt Cols and Cols?

Would they be satisfied if a Major (with 26 years service) was given OROP based on an extended table i.e. 13 years table of a Lt Col with an average of Grade Pay of Major and Lt Col (i.e Rs 8000-6600= 1400 divided by 2 = Rs 700) extended to 26 years of service as on 1.4.2014?

Similarly, would the Lt Col with 26 years service be satisfied with an OROP based on an extended table i.e. 20 years of Col with an average of Grade Pay of Lt Col and Col (i.e. Rs 8700-8000= Rs 700 divided by 2 = Rs 350 extended to 26 years of service as on 1.4.2014?

2. Has the equalisation of 3% been misunderstood to mean increment of 3% annually? Suppose two Lt Cols A born on 01 Jul and the second B on 02 Jul. A would retire on 30 Jun and B on 31 Jul. A would not get the increment that B gets. Now what happens if both had the same number of years of service on retirement? Shouldn't their pensions be equalised? Wouldn't it be acceptable as the financial effect may be 1 to 2 % of the total?

3. How would the financial outgo be impacted if Army which has a larger number of Y Group puts in a case for X Group pension for all? Will there be lesser effect in the Navy and Air Force, which has a larger number in X Group?

4. If service in the rank is to be the criteria for OROP, then wouldn't we need different tables for each Service, each Arm/Service/Branch/Trade? As service records are destroyed after a certain number of years, who and how would this data be provided? Because not every one is provided with or keeps copies of Casualty Reports (and equivalents in the Navy and Air Force)! And how will the clerk in the Banks calculate pension at every subsequent change for at the moment he has tables (in Circular 500 and 501) and where the X axis (rank) intersects with the Y axis (years of service) is where he/she obtains the pension due amount!!!

5. A figure of Rs 14000 crores would probably arise if CGDA (or PCDA (P)) decided that maximum years of service in the X axis and Rank in Y axis in Circulars 500 and 501 multiplied by the number of Lt Cols Rs 26265), Cols (Rs 27795) and Havildars (Rs 9145) and equivalents (the largest strength)with 28years of service or more. Wouldn't it be prudent to take some real data say over the past 3-5 years to determine the actual years of service, which would definitely be less than the highest amount taken for calculations.

6. There are an increasing number of cases where Brigs, Cols, even some Lt Cols & equivalents, drawing Pay in the pay band + Grade Pay + MSP higher than Vice Chiefs and Army Cdrs and equivalents. Is there a case of OROP for the Maj Gens, Lt Gens and Apex scale?

7. Do the following tables (in circulation elsewhere) meet the points above?

QS	LT	CAPT	MAJ	LT COL	COL	BRIG	MAJ GEN	LT GEN	LT GEN (HAG+)	VCOAS	COAS
10	16715	17560	22546	23246	23596	23696
11	17130	18000	23133	23833	24183	24283
12	17555	18450	23737	24437	24787	24887
13	17995	18915	24359	25700	26050	26150
14	18445	19395	25000	26385	26735	26835
15	18910	19890	25660	27815	27815	27915
16	19390	20400	27115	27815	28920	29020
17	19885	20925	27860	28560	28560	28660
18	20395	21465	29400	30100	30495	30595
19	20920	22020	30095	30795	31980	32080
20	21460	22595	31790	32490	32850	32950
21	22015	23185	31790	32490	33770	33870
22	22590	23795	32515	33215	34520	34620
23	23180	24420	32515	33215	34535	34785
24	23790	25065	32525	33225	34535	35555
25	24415	25600	32525	33225	34560	35605
26	25060	25600	32525	33225	35275	36420
27	25060	25600	33295	33995	36080	37255
28	25060	25600	33295	33995	36095	37255
29	25060	25600	33295	33995	36930	37275
30	25060	25600	33295	34765	36940	37280
31	X	X	X	34765	36950	37975
32	X	X	X	34765	36975	39020
33	X	X	X	X	38865	39025
34	X	X	X	X	38865	39025
35	X	X	X	X	38865	39035
36	X	X	X	X	X	39035
37	X	X	X	X	X	39035
38	X	X	X	X	X	39035
39	X	X	X	X	X	X	41500	42500	43000	44000	48000
Ord Fam Pension	15036	15360	19977	20859	23319	23421	24900	25500	25800	26400	28800
Disability element for 100% disability	15036	15380	19977	20859	23319	23421	24900	25500	25800	26400	28800

Note:

1. Table has been made using real date available and best across three Services.

2. For Majors, pension has been fixed based on the pension of higher rank

3. For Lts and Capts, pension is based on VI CPC pay fixation.

4. MSP has been granted notionally to Major Generals and above to grant higher pension vis-à-vis Brigadiers.

5. The Enhanced Ordinary Family Pension will be equivalent of the re-fixed retiring pension, Special Family Pension will be 120% of the re-fixed retiring pension and Liberalised Family Pension will be 200% of re-fixed retiring pension.

6. For lower disability (less than 100%) the above figures will be reduced as applicable.

Revised Pension with effect from 01 Apr 14: ORs/JCOs/Hony Ranks
QS	Ranks
	Sepoy	Naik	Havildar	Nb Sub	Sub	Sub Maj	H Lt	H Capt
15	8365	8760	9390	11635	12355	12800
16	8365	8760	9390	11635	12355	12800
17	8365	8840	9685	11635	12355	12800
18	8810	8845	9685	11635	12355	12800
19	8815	9015	9685	11635	12420	12885
20	9350	9550	9750	11635	12775	12885
21	9410	9610	9810	11635	12935	13705
22	9410	9610	9810	11635	13445	13935
23	X	9730	9930	11635	13450	14165
24		9730	9930	11635	13885	14405
25		X	9930	11635	13885	14405
26			9930	11635	14575	15075	15075
27			X	11735	14575	15075	15075
28				11735	14575	15310	15425
29				11865	15015	15545	15545
30				12030	15015	15790
31				12195	15015	16020
32				12360	15015	16020
33				12685	15015	16020
34				12845	15015	16020
35				12845	15015	16020
36				12845	15015	16020	16160
37				12845	15015	16020	17130	17905
38				12845	15015	16020	17130	17905
39				12845	15015	16020	17130	17905
Ord Family Pension	5646	5838	5958	7707	9009	9612	10278	10743
Disability element for 100% disability	5646	5838	5958	7707	9009	9612	10278	10743

Note: -

1. Table has been made using real data available and best across three Services.

2. Stepping up has been done in cases where the pension for greater length of service in a rank is lower than the lesser length of service in the same rank.

3. Stepping up has also been done in cases where the pension in senior rank is lower than a junior rank for the same length of service.

4. In cases where real data is not available, the data of next rank for same length of service has been used reducing the pension by half the difference in grade pays.

6. For lower disability (less than 100%) the above figures will be reduced as applicable.

31 comments:

sl18 January 2015 at 18:50
Sir, there is no way of saying how accurate the figures are in the tables. But as I had mentioned previously, a pre 70s cadre-review Major who'd retired with more than 20 years of service but less than 26 years of service should get the pension of a current Lt Col retiree with equal service. I had read on your blog that there might even be Maj retirees from that era with more than 26 years of service. They would deserve the pension of the current time bound rank holder viz., that of a Col(TS).

Also, the same sort of parity should apply for a Lt Col or Lt Col(TS) retiree (pre AVS-I) with more than 26 years of service. These retirees should get the same pension as a post AVS-I Col(TS) with equal service. I don't see how the "extended table" would be a more equitable and just way of providing a parity?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Harry18 January 2015 at 19:36
Dear Sir,

Thanks for bringing out myriad complexities in OROP fixation.
Also you may like to correct Col Rathore's rank. He retired (pre-maturely) as a Colonel and NOT a Lt Col.

warm regards,
- Harry
ReplyDelete
Replies
corona819 January 2015 at 16:25
Sir, if the table for Officers is based on real data, how can there be a "real" pension for a Lt Col with service of more than 26 years as shown, or a major for that matter?

These are all pension figures for Officers retiring currently.
ReplyDelete
Replies
sl20 January 2015 at 10:58
Sir, to amplify my comment dated 18 January 2015, I think the table as provided above would directly defeat the logic of para 9(n) of, I think, the DGL that you had provided in your previous blog post and which I had reproduced in my comment http://sharad10525.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-is-confusion-in-modalities-for-orop.html?showComment=1421470390406#c7129527096613118648
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous20 January 2015 at 15:24
Sir, your blog post has raised some important issues. I think the following points need to be considered in reply to the 'questions' posed in the blog post:

Q1. The complex equations and calculation for pre VI CPC /AVS-I Lt Cols and Maj retirees are unwarranted. Even for minimum of pay band pensions, no distinction is made by CPCs whether grade pay or rank pay drawn was for time scale or select ranks. When the Majs were given the one time scale of Lt Col with rank pay of Maj,, as you have mentioned in reply to a comment, even they had their pensions in the same Lt Col table as others. It is a different thing that when they were in service, even giving Maj rank pay for those officers was wrong. They should have got the Lt Col rank pay. In OROP, the minimum of pay-band is to be replaced with current pension as in April 2014 of the same rank with same service. So for those who had retired prior to the date when Col time scale rank came into being, their pension on cut off date should be the same as that of a Col(TS) with equal service.

Q2. The pension of A would have to be fixed for his rank and years of service and the same for B regardless of their dates of retirement. Subsequently when the equalisation takes place, their pensions would have to be as per the current pension of someone with same rank and service.

Q3. The X and Y groups are not clear from the blog post, perhaps for the less informed, like myself, some information on the same could be of help to them. I don't think it should be too much of a source of concern to armed forces if one option is a bit more expensive than the other considering the benefits enjoyed by other categories of Govt employees.

Q4. I doubt if years of service in a rank is going to be a basis at all. It may not be feasible to introduce such complications. So, there should be no difference based on Arm/Branch etc.

Q5. Let CGDA work out and present calculations based on services proposals before being asked to give estimates. In any case, OROP has to be introduced. How can the basis of the subject get diluted with what CGDA's guesswork, or even real calculations, state?

Q6. I recall reading that it was a myth that Lt Cols were drawing higher pay than a Maj Gen or Lt Gen but I am willing to be educated by actual examples on the matter. I see no earthly reason why OROP would not apply to ranks of Maj Gen/Lt Gen and Apex Scale. Some special provision needs to be made to ensure pensions are at the same level as those drawn by those currently retiring in these ranks.

Q7. The table does not indicate the formula or calculation on which it is based. If it is the same formula as the one stated at Q1, then it should be so stated clearly in the table itself, in case any of the parameters, such as rank pay/grade pay get revised later on. Without that the table by itself will become a basis for rejecting all claims for subsequent enhancements. But most important is the fact that unless the table gives full pension equalisation for Maj retirees with 20 years of service and Lt Col retirees with 26 years of service with pensions of present Lt Col and Col(TS) respectively, then that would be another basis of future court cases as it would amount to discrimination.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown20 January 2015 at 17:29
@corona8 & sunlit,

Ever since this blog was published, I have had the privilege of reading your respective views, opinions and perceptions but I have never seen any documents to back your positions. You must have obtained some/all information using the RTI and if you have then please provide a link so that we may also read and improve our knowledge.

There are many imperfections and two glaring imperfections of the Pay Band +GP + MSP of 6th CPC is that earlier just a handful of Brig equivalent were drawing higher emoluments than a Vice Chief or Army Cdr (deprived of MSP). Now, from July 2014, there are some Cols who are crossing the Apex scale and it is feared that soon some Lt Cols would also join that lot.

I wonder if we do get Majors pensions of Lt Cols and Cols for Majors with up to 26 years of Lt Cols who feel they should get a Cols pension simply because AVSC was not fair to them, in the words of the MoD and RM, won't US, Dy Secy and Directors who have served 16 years or more demand a Jt Secy's pay band and consequently a pension appropriate to a Jt Secy?

Wouldn't both cases (Services and Civilian officers) need a change in terms and conditions of service for presently pension is based on the actual pay in the pay band + Grade pay + MSP for Services officers and Pay in the Pay Band + Grade Pay for Civilian officers ?

In Para 9 (n), to the best of my knowledge, it is stated that pay in the rank would be extended to the numbers of years of service at the time of retirement of say a Major. In the process if the pension so derived at is equivalent to that of a higher rank officer say Lt Col, there will be no embargo on the Major being paid that pension. How does the table "defeat the logic?"
ReplyDelete
Replies
corona820 January 2015 at 22:21
@Taaza Khabar: If a person on returning finds his house ransacked and robbed, he won't need to file a RTI to learn that he's been robbed.

There is no clever conclusion in knowing 5 is less than 10 and 10 is less than 20.

As for knowing about things from the day we joined, we also knew there was no OROP. So why bother about anything at all?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Aerial View21 January 2015 at 07:39
@corona8, debate and discussion on this blog is in furtherance of the aim "Being informed is the best weapon."

Please make comments that enlighten and add to the information that is available in the public domain.

If you find some one is making statements below your own intellectual level, it is better to enlighten him/her with facts and figures rather that these statements made out of pique or inability to tolerate some one below your intellectual level.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown21 January 2015 at 09:31
@Formula for the Pension tables .From what i can make out for every rank a maximum pension is decided for the maximum number of years of service possible for that rank or keeping the maximum years of service as 33 years.
The person with a given rank with the maximum number of years of service for that rank will get full pension. For others ,with the same rank but less years of service respective weightage factor (for weigtage factor please see http://allcgnews.blogspot.in/2011/04/officers-on-retirement-pension-and.html )would be added to arrive at the pension
Taking an example for Cols ,maximum service is taken as 33 years of service with the maximum pension as 38865 (may be as on 01/04/2014) .For a Col with 23 years of service the pension would be ((23+7)/33)*38865=35331(how ever the table shows 34535)
Actually this is the formula that was used for Circular 500.Not only that the present table need to be worked out every 6 months of service since every 6 months is applicable for pension(Circular 500 does work it out for every 6 months.)
One more mistake seems to be that the given table figures are same for successive years of service even for the same rank (for Col 23 & 24 years & Lt col 22 & 23 yrs,Brig 27 & 28 yrs))which need to be checked with a fine comb :)
May be some one can also check & clarify
ReplyDelete
Replies
Dhoop21 January 2015 at 16:24
@Venkatesh VT: Any speculation related to the actual figures quoted in the table would be pure guess-work.

Till full details emerge, one can only work out how the doing away of weightages in DGL of last post and these figures will match.

All calculations and formulae are fine and acceptable as long as the "minimum pension conditions" or "pension-not-lower-than" basis, spelt out in the DGL, are clearly stated along with any table that may be included in the final Govt policy. But the blog post also clarified these tables were "in circulation elsewhere". So maybe these are not connected with DGL at all. Only @Aerial View could enlighten us.

As this blog post says "using real data available and best across three Services", it may not be top of scale based as you say but based on actual salary drawn by Officers in ranks and service as laid out in the table.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Aerial View22 January 2015 at 15:18
@dhoop,

The questions posed were for the consideration of wise readers so that we may know where exactly the OROP implementation order should proceed.

Emoluments in the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014 have been utilised to suggest the amount that could be arrived at for the definition - Same Rank, Same years of Service, Same amount as pension as on 1.4.2014.

The clear picture is, I believe, just a few days away. Hope the info is correct.
ReplyDelete
Replies
sl22 January 2015 at 17:35
Sir, I just saw that your blog post and these tables are in circulation elsewhere on blogger and those state that the tables are "OROP Tables" in circulation. http://karnmk.blogspot.in/2015/01/where-is-orop-heading-orop-table-in.html.

But the question you have posed as to where OROP should proceed, to my mind with my limited grasp and knowledge, there seems to be just one correct direction, as I've taken the liberty of tweeting here https://twitter.com/Sunlit_Tweets/status/558225377999716352.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown9 March 2015 at 11:54
what procedure will be adopted for those ex-service men who's service was less than
15 years and getting service element.
B L YADAV
ReplyDelete
Replies
Hav vidyadharan kt12 November 2015 at 22:13
Can't believe orop notification.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown24 November 2015 at 23:04
Dear friends
Please educate me : I am a retired Major from corps of signals with 27.5 years
Do I get Lt Col or Col TS pension Sir.
Regards
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment