It
is reliably learnt that a certain meeting taken by the Defence Minister where
representatives of Service HQ as well as members of the governing/executive
committee of ESM organisations were present, the following was made clear and
obvious and approved by the Defence Minister: -
1. There isn’t an annual increment of pension because pension is for the years of service rendered to the Nation through the Armed Forces/Govt Civilian employment.
Elucidation
A: - Increments are paid for every subsequent year in service i.e pay of a
serving personnel/employee A with 25 years service will be 3% lesser than the pay of a
serving personnel/employee B with 26 years of service.
Elucidation
B: - Pension is paid on the basis of the last pay drawn for the number of years
of service rendered on the date of retirement. In the above example, A will get a pension for 25 years of
service and B will get a pension for 26 years of service. An increment will
mean that A will get the pension of B, who has rendered 26 years of service and
pension of B will have to be incremented and become pension for 27 years of
service.
2. There would, however, be an annual review in OROP.
This is to remove the following anomalies: -
2.1. If C retires in a certain rank with 20 years service
on 30 June of that year will draw less than D who retires with 20 years of
service on 31st July of the same year because D gets the benefit of
3% increment on 1st July.
2.2. Bunching
effect of 4 years in 4th CPC, 3 years in 5th CPC and 2
years in 6th CPC
2.3. Implementation
of AVSC Phase I w.e.f 16th December 2004. It has resulted in
officers being promoted to say Select rank of Lt Col in the 18th but
those after 16th December 2004 being promoted in the 14th
year.
3. Perusal of the modified/enhanced parity
tables indicate a pension of Rs 7065 for a Sepoy in the 20 to 27 years service
bracket and become Rs 7175 if the Sepoy served 27.5 years or more. Similar cap
will occur for all personnel within a time frame of 5 years. Therefore, alarm
bells rung by vitiated persons are based on lack of information or mala-fide
misunderstanding the issue of OROP
4. It has been calculated and re validated
with data for the period of 5 years and the financial effect is estimated to be
0.85% or Rs 185 crore till every ESM reaches the top of the table appropriate to his rank and years of service.
5. The first annual review was scheduled to
take place on 1st Jul 2015 and the next annual review would take place on 1st
January 2016, when the recommendations of the 7th CPC kick in.
Thereafter all annual reviews would be effective from 1st January of
that year.
6. It is understood that the 7th
CPC is very clear about the differences between Civilian pension and Military
pension. Due to the Civilian Govt employees serving till the age of 60 years,
it has been termed mature pension. Because Services personnel retire at younger
ages, Military pension has been termed “aborted” pension, deserving a different
method of being dealt with.
7. It is also understood that the ESM
present at the meeting (Lt Gen Balbir Singh, Maj Gen Satbir Singh, Brig Katara,
Gp Capt Gandhi etc) had vouched for the DGL prepared for OROP and the arguments
in favour of matters cited in above paragraphs.
8. This is being published to clear the air
and reduce the fog of mistrust and, consequent but inadvertent misinformation
& misunderstanding.
Sir, Thanks for timely clarifications and up-dating knowledge of everyone who is to get OROP. We should be ready to hit with strong clarifications on every observation created on DGL by Def/Fin Min staff.
ReplyDeleteAppears to be a rational elucidation. There is scope to resolution, with due consideration of other issues. Talks should have participants of sepoy ,nco ,jco ,capt ,Maj and lt col rks also. In the past ,interests of this lot over looked. Some karnails and jarnails and their equivalents cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally decide .
ReplyDelete.
Besides the Colonels there are others in lower ranks in the IESM as well as IESL (which is funded, according to CNN-IBN in a special on OROP, by MoD) and in the myriad Army ESM organisations. A look at the composition of those on hunger strike has the ESM from the ranks you mention.
DeleteIt appears that Govt is aware of the lot who seek favours by presenting themselves as representatives of some assorted group.Several people are already taken positions and caused immense damage to military community. Be informed and aware !
ReplyDeleteSir, para 2.3 refers to AVS Committee. What is not clear is how the issue of Lt Col at 14 years is relevant to OROP other than for providing parity of pensions of older retirees in rank of Major with a service of up to 25 years as they need their pensions to be equal to that of Lt Col with equal service on cut off date?
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, older Maj, Lt Col (both select and those promoted on time bound basis) retirees with more than 26 years of service need to have pensions equal to Cols with equal service promoted on time bound basis after Dec 2004.
These are old issues and were fully catered for in the services DGL as mentioned in one of your blog posts.
I do feel these matters are just as important as the cut off date and date of implementation for OROP. If this has been overlooked, would there, perhaps, still be time for a review?
1. Those promoted to Lt Col at 18 would have their pay in the pay band fixed at the minimum of the pay band as would those who are promoted in 14 years.
Delete2. The 5th CPC has already fixed the pensions of Major with 22 years or more of service in the scale for Lt Cols as a one time measure.
3. The principle of OROP - same rank, same years of service, same amount of pension - would be turned on its head if Maj and Lt Col with more than 26 years of service are to be paid pensions of Cols.
Sir, the fundamental principle of "non-discrimination" would be severely impacted if OROP, a measure to bring about parities, was used to discriminate. A time bound current rank of Lt Col, now given at 14 years is the equivalent of the Major rank given with the same length of service decades ago.
DeleteWhat V CPC, or VI CPC for that matter, decided clearly did not include OROP as a principle. An old time Major retiree with more than 14 years of service would be discriminated against if not considered for pension in the same table as a current Lt Col with the same service, so at the pensionable service of 20 years, not 22 years, both need to have the same pension.
The concept of "One Rank" has subtle shades of grey.
Also, could you please guide us on the clarification " Those promoted to Lt Col at 18 would have their pay in the pay band fixed at the minimum of the pay band as would those who are promoted in 14 years."?
Why, under OROP, is there an issue of "minimum of payband"? Pension equalisation of an older Lt Col retiree with 18 years of service, under OROP, would be at the level of the current Lt Col retiree with the same service viz., 18 years regardless of where the minimum of pay in payband is, of course it is understood that pensionable service being 20 years, the equalisation would be at the 20 years (and higher) service.
Up to the rank of Major (and equivalents) who are in service will have lower pay in Apr 2014 than the Major in say Apr 2007. Similarly in higher ranks there is no guarantee that a Col with 28 years service in Apr 2014 will draw a lower pay and pension than a Col in the 28th year completed in Apr 2015 or Apr 2016…. Simply due to the fact of higher fixation to 2014 retiree in January 2006. In fact most cells in the DGL tables will not change every year.
DeleteSir, I still can't understand why a serving Major in April 2014 will have less pay than one with equal service in April 2007 in the example cited by you.
DeleteBoth Majors would be in the same post-VI-CPC payband. Both would not have attained pensionable service of 20 years, so OROP would not be applicable, in any case.
But a Maj who retired with 20 years of service in 1974 needs pension parity with a Major retiring also with 20 years of service on 31 Mar 2014, except that the Major retiring with 20 years of service in 2014 would not be a Major but, on time bound basis, a Lt Col and would get a pension applicable to a Lt Col with 20 years of service on 01 April 2014. So the pension table for the 1974 Major retiree should in no case fix his pension under OROP which is less than that of the Lt Col retiring with equal service on 31 Mar 2014 (pension for April 2014).
That is a more basic requirement in this example than the one of "rolling OROP" parity presently reputed to be a stumbling block in discussions between MOD and ESM associations.
On a second reading, this begins to clear up somewhat. But pensioners would have their pensions bench marked only to the highest level. The highest pension paid to a Lt Col retiree with 20 years of service in April 2014 is the benchmark for all earlier retirees in rank of Lt Col also with 20 years of service. If the pension of a Lt Col w 20 years of service retiring on 31 March 2014 is calculated and found to be less than pension of a Lt Col who retired in, say, Apr 2007, also with 20 yrs of service, due to reasons of fixation, then the higher pension paid in April 2014 to the 2007 Lt Col retiree would be the benchmark, even for the Lt Col who retired in March 2014.
DeleteNow extending the concept to older Maj retirees also with 20 years of service, the highest pension paid in Apr 2014 to a Maj or Lt Col retiree with 20 yrs of service ought to be the benchmark. I can't presently see how the highest pension of a Maj retiree as paid in Apr 2014 could be more than the highest pension paid to a Lt Col retiree, also w 20 yrs of service, in the same month. Here the time bound rank issue needs to be resolved to ensure full parity for the older retiree.
Hope the much neglected snco of IAF ranked sergeant ( miserably placed in pb 1 in 6cpc and offered ranked injustice) the status quo and dignity will be restored through this dgl and orop....
ReplyDeletePerhaps VI CPC had a reason for placing a current Sergeant in PB I or perhaps it was a mistake.
DeleteBut can you clarify something? With the same years of service as a retiree of earlier days in rank of Sergeant would a serving airman have been made a JWO or WO as per time bound promotion system of IAF as on 01 Apr 2014?
This would help to illustrate the issue of older and present time bound promotions for OROP.
@ sunlit sir rgds For promotion to jwo in gp x that too in mechanical stream min 18 to 20 yrs service is required and the parallels of gp x sgt in civil side is enjoying the status of pb-2. where as in IAF sgts to mwos r snco's then why this humiliation????
Deleteas per my understanding lowering a rank status and promotion opportunities in a rank is two different things and can be debated differently as far as orop is concerned.
OROP,phrase coined in70s ,has to be applied to revised ranks of appointments of platoon,coy and bn Cdr.In that bn Cdr is col , coy Cdr Lt col,pl Cdr capt/Maj ;2/Lt rk abolished.Lt col sel stands abolished since 1986 .transition started in 1982. What ever some transitory orders my say , fundamental principles ,rules & regns would take precedence and it is binding on everybody.
ReplyDeleteThe issues of the rks of Lt col and col with 26 yrs service (commissioned ) are to be accordingly eqated/hammered into those dgls .This may or may not get into those dgls ,despite principles equity and without discrimination of arbitrary dates of AVS committee.
This has to be insisted/ initiated by the effected.Let there be participation and feed back if service hq,desw ,cgda and mod do not act upon.
oined
any one has any idea what is this 3% funda about and from where it has creep in....
ReplyDeletethe present negotiators comprises of whom does all the sections of defense pensioners r represented??? .....AND MOST IMPORTANT ANY KNOWLEDGE ON WHAT NEGOTIATORS ARE NEGOTIATING AND WHAT GOVT IS OFFERING IN FORM OF TENTATIVE CHART RANK WISE.....there should be transparency as far as stakeholders are concerned...
The 3% annual increase is a red herring from vitiated parties and/or a misinterpretation by the correspondents and some spokespersons of ESM. They do not appear to understand that the 3% increase (increment) annually is for every additional year of service rendered by the serving personnel as has been elucidated in the example in the post above.
DeleteThe present negotiators are IESL represented by a team led by Lt Gen Balbir Singh (retd) and IESM represented by a team led by Maj Gen Satbir Singh (retd). IESL is recognised and funded by MoD. The Maj Gen Satbir faction of IESM is a breakaway faction of IESM initially led by Lt Gen R S Kadyan, who is presently in UK and hence not on the scene. The Govt is represented by the Principal Secretary to PM &/or Joint Secy in the PMO and the COAS - Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag. What is being negotiated is the date of commencement of the OROP and also the base year for fixation of tables of pensions. It is understood that the tables were prepared by Air Force Pay Commission Cell based on a 5 year data of retirees (NCOs, SNCO, Warrant Ranks and Officers) obtained from AFCAO. It is understood that the Defence Minister has approved the validation of the tables and DGL prepared and the consequent amount of Rs 8300 croe (approx) as arrears for FY 2014-15 and a similar but lower amount as arrears for 2015-16 till June 2015.
In all negotiations, both sides are maintaining somewhat of a stiff upper lip except for the periodic statements by Col Anil Kaul VrC (retd) the media adviser of the United Front of ESM or UFESM, which is both IESL and IESM named above.
That is the information available with me..
Sir,thanks for the clarification.it seems u r referring to dgl prepared by service h.q.
DeleteMy concern is if basic figure(with reference to mentioned dgl) of orop as per koshiyari committee is agreed upon then the veterans have almost won the battle then why negotiators are not taking advantage of it.......one can be flexible in other parameters to reach to a favorable conclusion.
sir, with due respects, I find the 3% affair rather ridiculous. A Col who retired in 2010 (6 th CPC) gets the same pension today, only DA indexation changes. So where has this 3% solution logical ? It has given strength to adverse comments and publicity. If the 3 % was brought in to index the implementation year (2011 vs 2014), which may be a bargaining point, but having come so close to a hand shake, let us not over reach and forget about the prime target beneficiaries ,namely the widows & NCOs. I request The Air Marshal to give sane advice to the OROP management. Even even we lose 3% indexation for three yrs, it works out to a paltry RS 1000 + DA thereon at the rank of Col/ Brig/Maj Gen
Delete@ karan sir agreed with ur view. Yesterday on 28/08/2015 Maj Gen Satbirsingh was on ndtv24x7 stressing implementation of 3 % increase and was talking very adamantly. one fails to understand that a person who is at the max pf pension tables how he will be benefited???? IT SEEMS SOME BHULBHULAIYA GAME IS ON AND GOVT IS FORCED TO RUNAROUND... IS IT JUSTIFIED????
Delete@Kiran: That 3% confusion, bad enough as it was, never was so "confusing" as to include indexation or inflation or Dearness Relief that you have brought in.
DeleteEvery year serving personnel get an increment in their salaries which affects the retiring pension of a rank with a certain number of years of service. This requires an annual review of pension for that rank and that many years of service to establish what the "one pension" would be for that rank and that many years of service. Where is the element of indexation that you are mentioning?
Sir, I am sorry to enter the ring but that remark is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteFor example
I retire with 25 years of service.
My course-mate of the same rank continues in service.
I get pension for 25 years of service.
My course-mate gets an increment of 3% because he is into his 26th year of service.
To put it arithmetically,
My pay and his pay for the same rank at the time of MY retirement was Rs 50000.
So I get Rs 25000 as my pension for serving 25 years.
My course-mate, still serving, gets Rs 50000 as pay + 3% increment for the 26th year of service.
If he retires in his 26th year of service he will get pension of the rank and for 26 years of service.
I will still get pension for serving 25 years.
In other words there are three factors - his rank is the same as mine; his QS is one year more than mine and hence his pension will be more than mine.
QED
"Remark is incorrect"
ReplyDeleteSir, is that in the context of what I had stated? My comment relates only to the pension paid in cut off month (hopefully April 2014) to retirees in a certain rank with equal service. My view is all pensions to retirees in that rank with the same years of service after 01 Apr 2014 would need to be equal to the highest pension paid to any retiree in that rank with that many years of service.
The course mate of the example would have his pension equalized to the highest pension paid in year of course mate's retirement to any retiree with the same years of service and rank as the course mate.
But the earlier retiree with 25 years of service would also require his pension reviewed in the subsequent year (after serving personnel have received salary increments) so that his pension can be now refixed to the highest level of pension paid, to any retiree with his rank and 25 years of service, after salary increments for serving personnel in the next year. It may be the same as the pension benchmarked to in the previous year or more; it may or may not be equal to the pension of the course mate retiring with 26 years of service in that year.
It will all depend on at what level the pensions for 25 years and 26 years service are fixed in the year of retirement of the course mate with 26 years service.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteTalks are going on which chart ? DGL or CDA ? Please reply.
AM SS Sir,
DeleteMy submission to you is that, you with some other senior veterans should 'brief' / advice the iesm on the course corrections and limitations of charter on behalf of all veterans towards attaining the real goal. :)