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.
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.

          

31 comments:

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
    1. Sir,
      My apologies for the DGL's poor command over the language. Please read in conjunction with S No. 1 of the post.

      The table has been extended to cover up to the maximum years of service i.e what would happen if a pre-2006 Lt Col with 24 years service should get on 1.4.2014 i.e same as officers retiring currently which is the aim of OROP.

      Delete
    2. Sir, extending a table seems not to make much sense to me. It is like supposing that if an officer had continued as Major what his pay would have been with the present scale and hence his pension.

      If there has to be "supposition" of this type , the correct thing to suppose would be what would have been the Major's present time scale rank hence pay hence pension.

      Delete
    3. Instead of getting into a prolonged debate, I draw your attention to MoD letter No. 1 (5(/97/D (Pay/Services) dated 21 Nov 1997 wherein Para 1 (a) states ....As a one time measure, however, those who become substantive Majors or equivalents before 1.1.1996 will be granted the scale of Lt Colonel or equivalent on completion of 21 years of commissioned service i.e. in their 22nd years with rank pay of Major."

      "The correct thing" depends on individual perception and the phrase/methodology has passed through various stages before being placed before the MoD.

      Delete
    4. Sir, all policy letters, as I understand it, do pass through those stages, yet our history is replete with anomalies and resulting litigation.

      The MOD letter quoted by you relates to pay. Pension parity, esp in the context of OROP, would require a different perspective. In any case, grant of rank pay, in that letter, divorced from rank and pay-scale, is already the subject of representation and discussions as summarised by me in blog post.

      For parity of pensions, all the points of view expressed by various entities in different forums need to be kept in mind. I had made an attempt to link to as much material as I could find in blog post.

      Delete
  4. 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
  5. 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
    1. Sir, your statement "Maj retirees.......Col (TS) respectively" turns on its head the definition of OROP - Same years of service, same rank, same amount of pension. It does not state that hypothesis you have written.

      As for future court cases, let us take the example of challenge to AVSC - may be a handful at the AFT level!

      Delete
    2. Sir, in your previous blog post, the document published clearly makes a provision for time-bound promotions and caters for the shorter time now required to get the same rank on basis of only years of service.

      As we are on the subject of pensions, that too same pension for same rank and service, the cases on the AV Singh Committee would probably not apply here. That matter deals with the divide in status and pay created by date of implementation.

      We have seen how in the past higher pay-scales were given to Maj rank. So seeking a Col(TS) pension for older Maj retiree also with 26 years of service is based on that, now reaffirmed in the DGL quoted in your previous blog post as I've mentioned.

      Delete
    3. @spanner50: Your comment seems to suggest that the AVS-I issue would be totally unrelated to OROP.

      I don't think that is the case even though it does not affect the vast majority of veterans affected by OROP.

      The AVS-I implementation has repercussions not only on the pay of those who were serving at the time or those who retired before it came into effect but also separately on pensions.

      For clarity, I have highlighted, updated and cross-linked all pertinent aspects in my old blog post.

      Delete
  6. @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
    1. @Taaza Khabar: "Wouldn't both cases (Services and Civilian officers) need a change": Well Sir, if the services Officers had NFU, like the civilian Officers, where would be the problem? Then where would have been the need for all these parities? Why do we still get so worried that civilian officers will get left behind?

      They won't.

      We'll catch up to some extent if we get NFU after OROP, but some of the bad effects of the shorter career spans of service officers would still stay. You don't need to launch a RTI campaign to know that. :-)

      Delete
    2. Sir,

      Please pardon me but I am not worried about Civilians getting left behind. I am concerned, which is different from being worried, that Service officers will be left behind if civilians demand OROP - a thought expressed by RM.

      How does NFU affect OROP? Isn't NFU not reckoned for calculation of pension?

      Shorter career spans are something one knows on the day one enters the Services. It is not something that suddenly pops up. Also, it is one thing to blame the system and the appraisal procedure, but another that we have won every war with the same leadership that, in the opinion of some, climbed on the shoulders or some uncle.

      There is no parity, Sir. The letters of January 2013 use that word more as a misnomer instead of stating it to be an increase in pension commensurate with increases in pay + GP + MSP of the 6th CPC. The pensions were increased because Services HQ pointed out that there was quite a gap between pre and post 1.1.2006 pensions. It is there on one of the posts on this blog (so also why NFU was denied to the Armed Forces officers).

      I am humbled by your "don't need to launch a RTI campaign to know that" because I do not know on the basis of what information you arrive at all those wise conclusions and offer suggestions such as done here and elsewhere. If it is based on SAI and documents in the public domain, then I will not bother you any more. But if indeed your enlightened opinions are based on information that only you are privy to, maybe you would consider sharing it, like Aerial View is doing.

      Delete
    3. In reply to query from @Taaza Khabar as to how "the table" can defeat the logic of para 9(n) of, presumably, the DGL, there's the consideration that unless a table shows equalized pensions for Lt Col and Maj at qs 20 (That being the present pensionable service) or between Lt Col and Col(TS) at qs 26 years (at present), then the principle stated in the said para is not conformed with.

      Delete
  7. @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
  8. @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
  9. @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
  10. @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
    1. I found out from a serving Wg Cdr that Rs 46900 is Pay in the Pay Band + Grade Pay of Rs 8000 + MSP of Rs 6000 = Rs 60900. The officer completed 20 years service in Dec 2014.

      If OROP is same rank, same service, same pension then it is Rs 30450 for 20 years in Dec 2014. The table shows Rs 32490. Best across may be from Army or Navy.

      Delete
    2. Sir, were these tables also part of the DGL which you have so kindly made available in the previous post?

      As I mentioned in the comment above, the two seem to be disconnected esp in relation to your question No.1 here. The letter in the last post is quite clear how earlier (pre cadre review in mid 70s and AVS Ph1 implementation) Maj and Lt Col ranks would be treated for OROP, but these tables tell a different story.

      Similarly, the statement about extending of the table and permitting average of grade pay also do not seem to match text of the DGL that you have provided.

      Knowing the relationship between the DGL and the table would be of importance for a clearer picture.

      Delete
    3. It is the methodology that is to be understood & that is what i had referred in my post & that should not be speculative at all.It should also conform to standards (as is the case for six monthly pension )& should be easily verifiable.Pension of two successive years being same may also not stand to reason even if scaling up may have been involved

      Delete
    4. @Venkatesh VT: I agree the methodology should be transparent. But these figures, as I now understand, are based on actual payments made and some extension of existing pay scales like for Lt Col above 26 years and Maj above 18/19 years.

      So best would be to wait and see what the actual policy is when it finally, if ever, gets implemented.

      Delete
  11. @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
  12. 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
    1. @sunlit: I, in turn, have taken the "liberty" of retweeting. 😊

      Delete
  13. 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
  14. 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