Dear Pre-Dec
2004 retiree Majors/Equivalents,
A court case is being
planned to be filed in AFT Delhi as per the attached brief. Approximate
expenditure for the same is likely to be around 5000 to 7000 per head. This
case is not related to OROP which is applicable from Apr 14. However we will
wait for OROP till April end before starting action. Majors/equivalents willing
to join the suggested case may contact the following:
Major S K Jain
- majorskjain@gmail.com
Major Gurdeep
Samra - prontoits@gmail.com
Brief - Parity of Pension between Majors and Lt Cols (TS)
based on the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'
With the implementation of 6CPC report from 01 Jan 2006,
following anomalies took place with regard to the pension of pre-Dec 2004
retiree Majors:
·
All pre-Dec 2004 retiree Majors have been paid a pension of Rs. 14100/-
(maximum pension for 28 years or more service) from 01 Jan 06 to 23 Sep 12 as
per Annexure-II of MoD letter No. 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) dated 11 Nov 08.
Whereas post-Jan 2006 retiree Hony Lieuts have been paid a pension of Rs.
15465/- and Hony Capts have been paid a pension of Rs. 16145/- for the same
period.
·
All pre-Dec 2004 retiree Majors have been paid a
pension of Rs.18205/-wef 24 Sep 12 to 31 Mar 14. This pension has been
calculated based on the pay of Majors with 6 years of service thereby bringing
all pre-2004 retiree Majors having more than 20 years of service, to the level
of 6 years.
Supreme Court has already held that:
·
The principle
of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is to be read into the fundamental rights as a
matter of interpretation.
·
Pension is a
‘deferred portion of the compensation’.
Equivalency between Majors and Lt Cols (TS)
·
The rank of
Lt Col (TS) was in existence up to 16 Dec 2004.This ranks was abolished
consequent to introduction of a new promotion policy vide which promotion up to
the rank of Lt Col was made applicable to all officers on completion of 13
years commissioned service.
·
No separate
authorized strength was ever sanctioned for the rank of Lt Cols (TS). All Lt
Cols (TS) used to be held against the authorized strength of Majors.
Accordingly, all Lt Cols (TS) used to be posted against the vacancies of
Majors. Officers of these two ranks were even posted inter-changeably.
·
The concept
of ‘Rank Pay’ was in existence from 01 Jan 86 to 31 Dec 05 wherein officers
were granted Rank Pay commensurate to their ranks. Lt Cols (TS) and Majors have
always been paid the same rank pay up to 16 Dec 04 when the rank of Lt Col (TS)
was abolished.
·
There is a
judgment of High Court of Delhi which has held that Lt Col (TS) is not a
separate cadre distinct from Major.
·
Under the
principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ Majors and Lt Cols (TS) should get
equal pension because they have always performed equal work.
At first glance, this appears to be a case of advancing a very just cause with an extremely flawed and self-limiting approach.
ReplyDeleteWhen the time bound rank (it is no longer to be referred to as "TS" if recent instructions from services HQs are to be believed) of Lt Col was introduced, the pay-scale of the rank of Lt Col was also granted. As to why the rank pay of Lt Col was not given is a subject of discussion and debate till date. Rank Pay being part and parcel of rank and corresponding pay-scale, should have been given along with time-bound rank of Lt Col. No one, the CPC, the MOD or Services HQs had any business tying up Rank Pay with post/vacancy filled and de-linking it from the rank and corresponding pay-scale.
Why would the Major veterans wish to base their argument for their case on a wrong step taken by the Government and, for reasons not explained till date, not corrected by the services HQs or MOD.
Equal Pay, or in this case Pension, for equal work is a broader principle. Since a veteran Major served for the same time as a retiree in a higher time-bound rank with the same length of service, he should get the same pension as the person with the time-bound rank of Lt Col.
But using a foundation stone of the wrongly fixed rank pay for time-bound Lt Col rank for building a case, a foundation stone itself likely to sink into the ground if a rationalisation comes through, would be a grave error. IMHO.
Maybe the idea behind my comment could be understood better through a reading of my old blog post.
I,Major Nazar Singh Gill (SL o3025X) is willing to join your Band Wagon for this case from 16 Dec 2004 to future date till our category is considered equivlant to Lt Col pay/allowances/pension as per Fundamental Rule 14 of Constitution of India.My ranks service from 09 Dec 1963 to 24 Jul 1983 and commissioned service from 25 Jul 1983 to 31 Jan 2003(Total 19 years 228 days+19 years 191 days=39 yrs 54 days).My pension from 01 Jan 2006 to 23 Sep 2012 was Rs.16560 (Rs.7327x2.26=16560).My contact mobile Number 09876188868 and email majornsgill3025@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteRestricting pension parity at the level of Lt Col will not fully deal with the issue. Equal pension for equal work really means that a Maj who retired with 26 years of service should have pension parity with a person who retired after 01 Jan 2006 in the time bound rank of Col with the same service and a Maj who retired with twenty years of service should have pension parity with the now time bound rank of Lt Col.
ReplyDeletePara 9(n) of, presumably, the OROP DGL is very specific in this regard as posted in this very blog in the blog post http://sharad10525.blogspot.in/2015/01/what-is-confusion-in-modalities-for-orop.html
But I am firmly of the view such a 20 years/ 26 years parity (for Maj Lt Col retirees) should apply also to the non OROP pensions starting from 01 Jan 2006 till the date OROP is introduced, as I have tried to point out here http://sol-dozdoz.blogspot.in/2014/12/minimum-guaranteed-pension-as-related.html.
Why can't the Lt Col's who put in more than 26 yrs of service and retired before AVSC-1(2004) and could not get Colonel(TS) be roped in to join this group to fight the case together?
ReplyDelete"..Lt Col's who put in more than 26 yrs.."
DeletePlease see my preceding reply on the matter. There is a need for a broad-based approach to resolving such parity related anomalies.
@Lt Col G K Mohan Rao: Even services HQs have officially stopped using the suffix TS with ranks given on time bound basis. It is high time veterans began to extend the same courtesy to former members of their own cadre.
DeleteApart from that, what you say is in fact true. But sections of ESM can avoid making it a fight based on petty arguments like rank pay of Maj (wrongly) given to Lt Col given time-bound promotion of Lt Col.
This subject has come up time and again. This really needs to be sorted out first, OROP or no OROP.
ReplyDeleteI had made a mention of this in this old comment on the RDOA blog.
Unfortunately further discussion linked to from that comment is now not available, but the comment and the blog post on which it was made are quite clear on the subject.
RDOA should consider informing others what is the latest on that particular situation so that joint legal action can get underway rather than through a piece meal approach.
Waiting,waiting ,waiting and awaiting ! 30 long yrs and still not sighted .
ReplyDeleteThis rank approach ,so rigidly ,even after all those revisions , without consideration of realities and facts is root cause of all these created disparities and anomalies.
Some are still, blind to the fundamental principles of human resources , practiced all over the world ,incl this NATION (in all other avenues of employees and /wages)
The template of some of those tables produced even after the revision in 2004 by defense accounts and service HQ reflect how disconnected ,they are ???
Battles ,battles.......and battles . What news on WAR front ???
ReplyDeleteTHANKS a lot for every thing .My comments -, i do not imply any thing to hurt any body !
Basic and fundamental factor for BP is length of service in years as officer,for military or other services of GOI. With NFU in all other services of GOI (expect mily ) ,if we still rigidly hold on to rank concept (as a sort prisoners of bonded system) ,we are lost (no where ) looking for mirage in a desert.
ReplyDeleteWhat is this fascination/bondage /rigidity to ranks ,when these have been revised from time to time (2/Lt abolished ,Coy cdr-Lt Col , unit cdr- Col ). These are simple revisions or re-designation of an appointment .The yard stick or measuring stick adopted was of variable length in inches/years from time to time . yard stick was of differing length of 24/26 (unit cdr rank ) 24/25/24/21/13 ( coy cdr rank & 13/11/9/6 (coy cdr rank ) .... inches/years and would get further modified in near future .Therefore, these AVS,COS,GOM reports/committees are only transitory and cannot be eternal ,without amendments ,modifications &revisions.
All these disparities ,anomalies,denials were self inflicted ,due to narrow and flawed vision - may be due to lack of information (frog in well- illustrative for easy understanding of issue - there is no need to get offended ).
Stretch ones imagination and mental faculties to find solutions to this issues.
Services HQs contentions and views ( due to some individuals bias ) , on past and present ranks equation are liable for revision/correction .
all in pursuit of being informed.
What happened after 7 comments ???? . . This is an important issue. requires views from cross section of entire lot.
ReplyDeleteDiscussions, deliberations,interactions among veterans ( more from effected and victims ) in small and big gps should go on and on .
Ultimately, give a shape ,adopt a strategy ,give a push in diverse ways and multiple efforts.
Simple silence /passivity will not get what people are hoping !