Unable to find a single comment that provided answers or solution to the seven anomalies, this post is closed.
Thank you for your participation.
It is understood that Maj Gen Satbir Singh has aired seven anomalies that stand in the way of a satisfactory solution to the OROP imbroglio.
The seven anomalies are: -
1. OROP not applicable for those who sought Pre-mature Release.
2. There should be annual equalisation.
3. Calendar year 2013 .
4. Payment of arrears w.e.f 01 Jul 2014.
5. Average of pay for pension purposes.
6. OROP should be implemented in perpetuity and not adjudicated by Pay Commissions.
7. Judicial Commission should comprise 5 members and the report should be submitted within 30 days.
May I request views/opinions backed by references that one can peruse for more details?
P.S: Please confine your opinions/comments to the seven anomalies.
Thank you for your participation.
It is understood that Maj Gen Satbir Singh has aired seven anomalies that stand in the way of a satisfactory solution to the OROP imbroglio.
The seven anomalies are: -
1. OROP not applicable for those who sought Pre-mature Release.
2. There should be annual equalisation.
3. Calendar year 2013 .
4. Payment of arrears w.e.f 01 Jul 2014.
5. Average of pay for pension purposes.
6. OROP should be implemented in perpetuity and not adjudicated by Pay Commissions.
7. Judicial Commission should comprise 5 members and the report should be submitted within 30 days.
May I request views/opinions backed by references that one can peruse for more details?
P.S: Please confine your opinions/comments to the seven anomalies.
Sir, what the IESM associations have been stating, publicly or otherwise, is one huge grey area. The marked lack of clarity and the round-about manner of dissemination, in respect of precise views of the ESM associations, can't be terribly re-assuring for stake holders. https://goo.gl/uafIwf.
ReplyDeleteAn RTI application has been filed on 20th (Sunday) requesting information on the minutes of the meetings held between ESM orgs and MoD.
DeleteAffected ESMs would be ever in debt Sir. It is strange how ESM associations have decided to get cagey with ESM.
DeleteSir, I am not able to understand point 3 and point 5 jointly. Point 3 relates that pension under OROP scheme should be fixed based on the pension of pensioners who retired on 01 Apr 14 (highest across three services) and not based on the average of pension for the year 2013. I am not able to under as to how point 5 is related to fixation of pension under OROP scheme?
ReplyDeleteA detailed post is ready but awaits some comments/opinions of readers.
DeleteVery important ,relavent and valid observation. by @sunlit and fine action by respected Air Marshal.
ReplyDeleteYes,there is need to be vigilant by individuals and GPS.
Yeah,there are several grey areas. Consolation is
Several common aspects have been covered in publicity .Transparency and records of minutes are Important.
tant .
Sir, Draft Govt Letter (DGL) was prepared by Army, Air Force and Naval HQs Integrated HQs of MOD in Feb 2014. Once these HQs are important departments of MOD, why MOD or MOF civilian beaurocrats have authority over Armed Forces HQs? Are they responsible to conduct training, military exercises, handle military equipments, mines and play with the lives of Armed Forces personnel and decide their Pay and Allowances, Pension, OROP, Medical facilities, CSD(I), ECHS and provision of technical equipment excl DRDO and Defence Factories. Time had come when MOD should be independent of Beaurocrats and have their own Budgeting, expenditure like railways, MOF should be only to provide demanded funds approved by CCS/PM. With regard to seven anamolies, Major General Satbir Singh made the reasons very clear time and again. Once every soldier's, JCO's and officer's pay , allowances and pension is to be equal as per Fundamental Rule 14, equal pay for equal work, equal pension for equal rank and equal length of service irrespective of date of retirement after 15 Aug 1947. In case NFU can be granted to unfit, inefficient officers of same batch without any selection board for promotions, why Defence forces officers are being denied NFU. It means IAS, IPS officers are superior thant Armed Forces Officers. They should also face Service Selection Boards and undergo rigorous training in National Defence Academy, Indian Military Academy, Officers Training Schools Chennai and Gaya and AF and Naval Training Institutes. Once approval by two parliaments and Koshiary Committee, IAF babus are not superior authority to over rule Two Parliaments, PM and MOD Integrated HQs of Army Navy and Air Force. It is their EGO problem and to show Armed Forces inferior to their intellectuality and Administration capabilities. In such cases they should be trained in Army for Short Service Commission and from there should compete for IAS/IPS through UPSC and all officers should get equal opportunity. Annual equilisation is must when it is applicable to MPs/MLAs/Judges/IAS/IPS/Scientists and other such services. Those who serve for basic terms of engagements viz 15 years for PBOR and 20 years for officers, there is no question denying them OROP due to PMR.Once the calender year is decided, there is no question of changing it, from 01 Apr 2014 to 01 Jul 2014. Actually it should go back to 01 Apr 1973 and pensions also restored from 50% to 75% for Sep to Hav, 70% to JCOs and 60% to Officers and civilian pensions reduced from 50% to 33/30% as earlier from Jan 1973. Since civilians serve for 60 years age and their children education and marriages of children are done while serving, they require very limited pension for family of two, Self and Wife. There is no question of average of minimum and maximum, it means soldiers like me who is just short of few months for promotion and on maximum scale, they will be brought down to average. Let the Govt letter come, we will immediately go to court and get stay on implemention of OROP due to this reason. How can you put the soldiers in loss. Are IAS lobby ready to get average of NFFU scale? Pay Commission is entirely different entity to decide for P&A of civilians after every 10 years. They are not suppose to interfere in OROP wheras Defence Services Pay Commission shoyuld be separate one and 50% members from Army,AF,Navy and Veterans, whose pay and Allowances and Pension to be decided, There can be one retired Judge,1 retired IAS/Accts/Audit Officer/civilian officer representing defence civilians.Actually Indian system require surgical operation. I having 40 years Army service with political, Public Administration graduation, Business Diploma,experience in Military And Civil Law.
ReplyDeleteSir, may I request specific opinion/comment on the 7 anomalies?
DeleteSir, I hope you may not like to publish my comments in ful. I request your goodself to polish/modify/ignore publication if u wish/think so.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThese are enomalies - If not factored into gov orders or not resolved and addressed ; and if persons in Govt keep abusing systems to through false propaganda against soldiers ,the need arises for soldiers retd and retiring to stand together on these issues.
ReplyDeleteThis blog and many other such blogs are fine for the cause.
That also have to show their solidarity and support by organising some forum of expression ,as considered suitable in the areas of large concentrated cities like Bangalore ,Poona ,Hyderabad, Trivandrum.....etc.
People can wait and see govt orders.If acceptable -fine. If not people effected have to stand together besides ,analysis ,presentations ,representations,appeals ,court cases ....as seen from past experience as how ineffective and slow.
Awaiting your comments specific to the anomalies.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSir, point wise, these anomalies listed by Chairman IESM, need some elaboration by the association and my views on these are as follows:
ReplyDeletePt.1: A clarification was issued by Hon'ble PM that those who had taken PR, would get the benefit of OROP. Have the ESM bodies and MOD reached some final clarification in their discussions on this? Why is this point being raised by the associations again and again?
Pt.2:It is good, given the intransigence displayed by some parts of MOD on the issue, to insist on annual review and then to negotiate. But it is not clear what is to be reviewed? I have seen it mentioned elsewhere that unless we know the exact method of fixing OROP pensions, what are we going to review?
Pt.3:It certainly is strange that the Govt should make it a prestige issue of some sort. If effective date is (or month) is to be July 2014, the base year should be the 12 months preceding that month i.e. 01 Jul 2013 to 30 June 2014. But even if they keep the cal. yr 2013, how much of a difference would it make to OROP pensions fixed in July 2014? Have the ESM associations done any calculations or have some data on this matter?
Pt.4:I think ESM associations have already accepted Jul 2014 as the implementation month. At the same time, why would the Govt not stick to April 2014 as was announced earlier? The present party in power is not granting OROP, it is the Govt of India. There is no valid reason for changing the implementation to July.
Pt.5:This "average of pay" is the most unclear issue of all. Whose average of pay? The Hon'ble RM had announced it would be the average of pension in Calendar year 2013. So, it could mean the pension actually paid to someone in 2013 in a certain rank with x years of service, including the pensions paid in 2013 to those who had retired before 2006 in the same rank and with x years of service . Such an average would be very low. I had raised this issue previously. What is the detailed understanding of ESM representatives on this?
Pt.6:Unless an even fairer deal is offered to ESM by Govt under future CPCs, the arrangement of OROP should certainly continue, provided it is clear what exactly the arrangement is.
Pt.7:The composition of the judicial commission can be negotiated. Perhaps the time limit of 1 month would be a good idea. But the judicial commission should invite representations from all affected parties. It can be done online. Let not everything be left to reps of ESM associations or even the services HQs. All such representations should be resolved within the stipulated period and a clear disposal given to those representing their individual issues.
Thank you. The most comprehensive response so far.
ReplyDeleteIf they call it orop and issue a sort of one time increment (as done before), for short period of 1.7 .2014 - 31.12 .2015 (one and half years ) , and then evade revision wef 1.1.2016 as applied to all other govt employees ; it will be a "harkari " and would amount to a deliberte hostile act.
ReplyDeleteThe contention of even the orop as per dgl of svc hq is only for these18 months ,after that ,as on 1.1.2016 it would be orop on that date.
If , bureaucrats fool us with some av fig of 2013 ,and apply upto 31.12.2015 and apply same beyond 1.1.2016 as orop , imagine .......
By and large the contention of those 7 anomalies is fairly correct as per all past records of Koshiyar Comm ,parlamentary approvals, public statements ,assurances and promises.little variations of 3 months less may be accepted to accommodate govt ego.
There may not be a perfect solution ,but violation or negation of basic principle of pension based on basic pay proportional to length of service would be illegitimate ,with NFU ,yet to be factored.
(1) We need to have clarity on this issue as till now veterans have been talking about PMR in a general manner, which includes a variety of cases like, Low Medical Category, after final supersession or those who have completed pensionable service but have yet not been finally superseded. Our argument to the effect that PMR is a method to keep the young profile may hit a stumbling block in cases of individuals who proceed on PMR despite not having been finally superseded. I suppose, the VRS clause insertion has been worked out to exclude such a lot from the list of beneficiary.
ReplyDelete(2) The term OROP in itself encompasses annual equalisation being a natural corollary of the definition. I suppose we have gone drastically wrong in making it negotiable for two years or five years and allowed an impression to be conveyed that the veterans were seeking yearly increment. My strong conviction is that no dilution should be accepted on this issue in any circumstances. We would be depriving ourselves OROP, if anything other than yearly equalisation is accepted.
(3) I say for a bigger cause we must not make an issue with these points. My reasons are that
(a) Firstly, the current pensioners may lose out financially a bit but then we would be leaving a better situation for future veterans in keeping with our service ethos of leaving behind a better organisation than the one we had joined.
(b) Secondly it may provide a kind of face saver to the govt too.
(4) This again is a important issue and should not be compromised being core to the definition itself. With the passage of time the gap between the average and maximum would only increase. The other question is the period of this average. I suppose it would be between pay commission to pay commission. Considering that the govt decides to fix with ref to Mar 2013 then the average would be for the period of almost seven years(from 2006) for the same length of service and this difference would continue in perpetuity. I wonder what would happen to Veterans who retired as Majors/Lt Cols and their equivalents in Air Force and Navy. Now a days none retires as Major and post implementation of AVS committee recommendations none with more than 26 yrs retires as Lt Cols.
(5) It should be in perpetuity.
(6) Judicial commission for what purpose? What would be and should be its terms of reference if at all one is needed. If OROP is granted as per given definition then there shouldn’t be requirement of any such body. The existing systems or mechanism can take care of anomalies. It would amount to addition of another layer to delay and confuse the issue.
Sir,
ReplyDeletethe point wise suggestion on mentioned anomalies....
1. PMR clause should be removed in Toto...
2. one can do away with annual equalization bcz it is a myth without solution..
3. the calendar year 2013 should fin yr 2013-2014..( in fact 6cpc has recommended for modified parity for pre-2006 veterans by giving MGP which was not enacted then and there..so in true sense base yr should be a date say 01/01/2006...)
4.payment of arrears should flow from 01/04/2014 as parliament has sanctioned it..
5.the quantum worked out by service HQ DGL should be accepted..( once again i feel the arithmetic representation of the definition of orop differs from case to case...)
6.orop should be implemented in perpetuity and should not be linked with cpc yes cpc can take orop figure and give its multi folds...
7. judicial commission should compromise of enough person to understand the issue logically and arithmetically....and its report to be implemented along with implementation of orop and before implementation of 7 cpc report..
1. OROP not applicable for those who sought Pre-mature Release.This seems to be more of a prospective issue rather than a retrospective issue.I do feel that the government is coming out with some kind of a VRS scheme not only for the Services but for the complete central government employees (though CG employees are no more covered by pension but by NPS).It is also a contentious legal issue since retrospective orders are never supported by the courts & the govt is always on a weak wicket here(MAT & vodofone case are good examples)
ReplyDelete2. There should be annual equalisation.This is covered separately under one head under para 7 below
3. Calendar year 2013 . This is covered separately under one head under para 7 below
4. Payment of arrears w.e.f 01 Jul 2014.Asian the government can not fix an arbitrary date since the courts frown on it specially when it is different from the date that was announced earlier. The only date that may stand judicial scrutiny is the date on which the FM announced (what ever the budget date)
5. Average of pay for pension purposes.I I do feel that the average pay issue is directed against officers (due to pure jealousy by the civilian counterparts) & the main factor may be to reduce the average pension by taking into account the pension of SL & other pensioners whose service in a particular rank may be much less though the length of service may be much more (this would affect the maximum strength of officers since SL officers would be retiring max at Col's rank).Of course I am not too clear as to which pensions the government is talking about I.e past ,present etc
6. OROP should be implemented in perpetuity and not adjudicated by Pay Commissions. This is a vague statement & need to be spelt out more clearly. Secondly this is a double edged weapon since the subsequent pay commissions may change certain parameters like DA neutralization more for lower scales compared to higher scales(as was prevalent earlier).Probably we need to just say that the basic Definition of OROP should not be tampered with & leave it at that
7. Judicial Commission should comprise 5 members and the report should be submitted within 30 days.(I would cover points 2 ,3 also here). Frankly there is no requirement of any commission at all . Discuss & Lay down the rules & finalize the rules by Services Hq & MOD/MOF implement software which will show the discrepancies,The reason is pre audit is better & will be done by experts from both the sides instead of doing a post audit. The only condition that is required to be put is that the ESM should be allowed, access to all data though they can be under a NDA (non disclosure agreement).The software will do the equalization every time/month a new pensioner is added & only arrears will be affected to some extent if the date is brought forward
One additional issue that merits attention may be (specially if the equalization being done in 5 years is implemented in which case & 7 PC not being made applicable) is the choice to be given for accepting OROP or 7th PC since many elderly veterans may rather see more money in the pocket with 7 PC scales :)
I am giving below an e mail that i had sent to Gen Satbir
Delete******************************************************************************
Dear Gen
You have proved yourself to be a great leader in leading the ESM of all ranks for the battle of OROP.
We all do believe that our honor is more important than money what ever the amount is & that is why why embraced the uniform & carried the flag
One of the hallmark of a good soldier is the spirit of sacrifice which i certainly believe is imbibed in all the officers.
Hence may i kindly request you to give a call to all Officers to donate their OROP arrears for the cause of construction of ECHS hospitals all over the country for ESM & even CG pensioners to start with (in my estimate one ECHS hospital may cost around 200 crores)
While this is not being done just to prove our spirit of sacrifice,it would make lot of other issues irrelevant including babudom & negative publicity & it would mostly help the ESM community specially from the lower ranks to get better medical care & repose their faith in the Officer community
It would also prove that we are nation builders too & we can follow it up with building schools & other socially relevant institutions
with best wishes & regards
Venkatesh
So, instead of the Govt providing a duly earned benefit of post retirement health care, ESM should now give up the other duly earned benefit of pension to fund what the Govt is supposed to provide, that too after struggling for forty years to get OROP, which is still to come.
DeleteHon'ble FM will love that idea. So will the business houses that may receive more largesse out of the savings resulting from such noble ideas. Perhaps part of the funds could also be targeted to provide drought relief in Burkina Faso.
I think that calls for a nomination for a Nobel, I don't know in which category, but that's definitely out of the box thinking.
Kudos!
@corona8 If you really understand business it comes under the category of self help & if you still don't understand kindly go & educate youself as how AMUL became the brand that is today(before you say you dont know what is AMUL children in your neighborhoods would know about it & educate you with glee)
DeleteDear Venkatsh, a proposal of doing away with CGHS and granting allowances in lieu to civ govt pensioners is already on cards. If this is accepted and done then what will be voice of bureaucrats and their civilian employees/pensioners?
Delete@Col MS Raju .You are right though it is again not for past pensioners (though they will be given the choice to switch over ) & only for the future retirees (one may even see the announcement in 7thPC)
DeleteActually the proposal is for the govt to pay medical premium for medical insurance to include out patient treatment
Secondly as of now, no hospitals are run by CGHS & the patients are using third part hospitals (unlike us who are using both third part & Service hospitals ).We all know the treatment meted out by Service hospitals due to their own internal problems
Hence i consider this a golden opportunity to pool our resources for our own good (even including CGHs is for our selfish reasons only)
I have been part of ECHS & i do know that things are going to get worse only
If left to myself i will opt for medical insurance to be provided by the govt & not go to ECHS at all
(Many of us with serious ailments can not even get medical insurance on our own due to prior diseases not being covered by existing medical policies)
sir...
ReplyDeletewith reference to my suggestion for point no 3 reads ". the calendar year 2013 should fin yr 2013-2014..( in fact 6cpc has recommended for modified parity for pre-2006 veterans by giving MGP which was not enacted then and there..so in true sense base yr should be a date say 01/01/2006...)" what i want to suggest is the implementation should be a latest date on which all the previous anomalies stands corrected in terms of the last and latest pension/pay paid.....
Sir, at the moment I would like to refer just to point number one. It may not be such a black and white matter as some appear to think.
ReplyDeleteThere would be cases where pre-mature release from service was followed by a lucrative second career in a Govt, or Govt body, post with better remuneration, utilizing the training and experience that the Govt had provided during the armed forces career. Perhaps some of these secondary careers were arranged by DGR. Last, but not least, the second careers may have had some pension like terminal benefits as well. Considering that the application of the shorter career span in services in such cases would not have as solid a foundation as in the case of someone super-annuating in the services, maybe, the Govt would need to at least provide a clear justification if they choose to exclude some of the pre-mature retirees from the ambit of OROP.
On the other hand, the term here is "pension". If a retiree has earned full pension after serving 20 years, how can it be justified that pension under OROP would not apply to him?
If the Govt had given the matter some thought decades ago and decided to compensate armed forces retirees specifically for shorter career spans as compared to civilians, and also for the large number of supersessions compared to civilians amongst the Officers, they could have provided for a separate retirement benefit specifically to cater and compensate for these hardships. There would have been no need or basis for something called OROP then. There would have been no excuse that others would also ask for it.
But the Govt has done no such thing. Therefore, if at all some of the pre-mature retirees have to be excluded from benefits of OROP, there has to be a clear, unambiguous basis for that.
Sir, my views on all the 7 points are as follows
ReplyDeletePt.1: What was aired by PM that those who had taken Premature Retirement, would get the benefit of OROP, was an impromptu and informal announcement on TV channels while inaugurating a bridge near Delhi, where as the DM who formally announced the OROP on 05 Sep 2015 has said that the OROP does not apply to VRS cases. Hence the point is still lingering in our list because the application of OROP to PR cases has not been formally announced so far. If we remove this point at this time, the bureaucrats take it to their advantage and they may not give it to VRS cases.
Pt.2: The pay/pension revision by yearly increments is confusing every one. When a jawan or officer retires with certain service say by 25 years as a Lt col, as per OROP he must get the same pension which a Lt Col with 25 years of service is retiring in the running cpc. It means pay and pensions are refixed on very first day of every pay commission. Getting annual increments extend the service by number of years which is not feasible for retired lot. Our aim is to get pension same as that of an officer of same rank and length of service is getting. I give an example here, A Lt Col retired with 20 to 28 years of service got different rates of pension till 31 Dec 2005 depending on their last drawn pay which includes service increments earned. But from 01 Jan 2006 the pension of all Lt Cols was fixed at Rs 26265 irrespective of number of years of service put in by each officer of the rank of Lt Col where as a Lt Col retired after 01 Jan 2006, in 6th cpc, is getting much more than Rs 26265/- as all the increments earned by him are inclusive in last pay drawn. A Lt Col at 21 years of service is now getting monthly pay of Rs 37400+8000+6000=51400 x 26.67701% increments for 8 years (3% progressive every year) = Rs 65112/- basic pay 50% there of comes to Rs 32556/- which will be basic pension of a Lt Col with 21 years service who retires in 6th cpc (till 31 Dec 2015). Those who remain in service on 01 Jan 2016 wound get their pay revised as per 7th cpc recommendations and again those retire now would get pension of those retiring with same rank and same length of service in 7th cpc era. This is what OROP as I understand. Similarly a Lt Col retired in year 2005 with 25 years of service is now getting Rs 26265/- per month basic pension wef 01 Jan 2006 but those Lt Cols with 25 years’ service retiring in 6th cpc era are getting Rs 37400+8000+6000= Rs 51400 x 42.57609% (12 progressive increments of 3% yearly) which works out to Rs 51400 + 21885 (12 progressive increments) = total pay Rs 73285 Basic, then pension will be 36643/- basic pension per month. All officers who retired prior to 01 Jan 2006 in Lt Col rank with 25 years’ service should get this pension of Rs 36643 Basic per month till 31 Dec 2015. Then on 01 Jan 2016 the pension will be revised as per 7th cpc recommendations.
Pt.3:It It is totally wrong on the part of Govt to keep modifying the financial/calendar years as per their sweet will. If the effective date of implementation of OROP is 01 Jul 2014, then the base figures of salaries/pensions as on 30 Jun 2014 should be taken into account.
@Col MS Raju: You have raised very important points. However,
Delete*"..all the increments earned by him are inclusive in last pay drawn.." : With each increment, the years of service also increase by one. So the present day retiree-to-be with x years of service, when he gets an increment could be (not always) in the x+1 years of service bracket and therefore pension for the x years bracket would not (always) be affected by his increment. I had tried to cover this here http://goo.gl/nX5j7W.
*"..Lt Col retired with 20 to 28 years of service got different rates of pension till 31 Dec 2005 depending on their last drawn pay.." : An important issue I never tire of touching upon is that now there will be no Lt Col with more than 26 years of service unless there was a disciplinary or fitness issue involved. So for all older Lt Col retirees with service more than 26 years, the current pension of Col at 26 years+ service needs to apply as that is a time-bound promotion. The last time I had touched upon this was here. Your point 5, in the following comment, also relates to rumored DGL from Services HQs. Frankly, that "DGL" still offers the only reasonable template for an implementation, with appropriate modifications for base year and implementation date announced by the Govt. The ESM associations may not, if they are genuinely sincere in safe guarding all stake-holders' interests, go at all wrong in asking for an implementation on those lines, without too many variations. It could serve the cause a lot better than pushing thumb rule approaches for the sake of "simplicity".
Dear Sir Sunlit...... I agree to your points. I tried to bring out in my post that even today a Lt Col with 25 years of service before becoming Col in 26th year or after 26th year, is drawing 12 increments in Lt Col Rank. It means lt Col of 25 years is drawing 12 increments immediately before retirement. With 12 increments his basic pension will be Rs 36,643/-. I already given working out data in my post. Then why a Lt Col retired in ivth and vth CPC is drawing just Rs 26265/- basic pension now? All Lt Cols retired prior to 1 Jan 2006 are not given basic pension of Rs 26265 irrespective of their length of service, this is what is totally wrong which I tried to convince in my post. OROP means a Lt Col drawing basic pay of 13500 + rank pay of 1600 in vth cpc (without earning any increment) and a Lt Col who earned more than 8 increments both are now getting same basic pension of 26265/- instead of getting the basic pension which same length of service Lt Cols are getting now in 6th cpc. Of course in 7th cpc even 6th cpc retirees will raise the same questions which we are raising now. The govt has put all officers of one rank in one basic pay which is min of the pay in the pay band irrespective of the length of service and the annual increments earned by them which is totally wrong, and we wanted to remove such anomaly through OROP.
Delete".. With 12 increments his basic pension will be Rs 36,643/-. I already given working out data in my post."
DeleteSir, that is the doubtful part.
Would that be based on a calculation that 12 years ago, the Lt Col was at the beginning of the pay-band as applicable to Lt Col, viz.37400/- and after 12 increments he'll have a pension of 36643/-? That can not be the case as I had mentioned. 12 years ago that pay-band was not in existence. It will depend on what his rank was 12 years ago (counting back from Calendar year 2013, that would be 2001) and his rank would have been Major with a service of 13 years. In Dec 2004, with a service of 16 years he would have got the time bound promotion to Lt Col. We can't say off hand what the fixation of basic would have been in the Lt Col rank. From Jan 2006 his basic would have been fixed at some post VI CPC level, probably higher than the level of 37400/- (lowest in Lt Col pay-band figure). From there onwards he'd have received seven increments till calendar year 2013. So I'm not sure what his pension would actually be.
But your point about the pre 2006 retirees had been discussed in many places in the past. In circular 500 the pre VI CPC Lt Col pension reaches the value of 26265/- at service of 20 years and stays constant after that. This can only be attributed to the concept of modified parity which seeks to equalize to some extent pensions of pre CPC retirees.
But with OROP the same principle may not apply as pensions are now to be pegged to a rank and years of service, by definition. Now, it will not be "modified parity" but something like a "Full Parity". Some of the distinctions had figured here.
Dear Sunlit Sir. You yourself accepted in your post last para above. It is full parity as far as OROP definition is concerned. Same service same rank get same pension at any time in any cpc. Then how can we assume Lt Cols of 20 years and 25 years (may be erstwhile 28 years)get same pension. I was in service when all Majors with 13 years to 20 years service became time bound Lt Cols with full pay and allowances. I was selection grade Lt Col in 15th year but I was not given Lt Col basic pay till I completed 17 years where as in time bound ranks people started becoming Lt Col on completion of 13 years service with full pay and allowances and their pay on 01 Jan 2006 was fixed according to their service and rank held on that day. There were Lt Cols whose was fixed with multiple increments on 01 Jan 2006. That is why I said there are Lt Cols who have completed 25 years of service in 6th cpc era with their previous seniority in 5th cpc and started drawing 12 increments at 3% per early cumulative and progressive. Today there are Lt Cols getting basic pension of Rs 36643 per month. Similarly Colonels at the service of 34 years what are they getting, are they getting their pension at par with those Colonels retired in 6th cpc era?. See our pension table issued in year 2009, Lt Col 32 years, Col 34 Yrs, Brig 38 years and so on. Does it mean there are no Lt Col and Col who served for 38 years. I am living example of halving 38 years of physical service. Then what should I get? My PPO shows my service 37 years 8 months and 24 days, then why should I get monthly pension of Rs 26565? why not above 42000 with 25 increments right from 14th year of service. This is what OROP. OROP does not mean of getting early increments after retirement. Hope I made it very clear.
DeletePt2 Sir,above Working of Lt Col pay with 8 years of service will need change as #% increment is only given on basic pay and grade pay.
DeleteDear AP Singh, the increments are earned on basic pay, do every one mean to say Basic pay is only the band pay plus grade pay, did any rule say MSP is not part of basic pay. Because of our ignorance only, the bureaucrats are riding on us. MSP by all means is basic pay. If civilian earns increment on band pay plus grade pay we have the right to get increment on band pay plus grade pay plus the rank pay which is a peculiar basic pay for armed forces personnel. Was not the rank pay clubbed with basic pay getting increment in 5th cpc? Instead of rank pay we get MSP in 6th cps. Why don't people understand that the bureaucrats are denigrating our position. If civilians have only band pay and grade pay as basic pay then we have band pay, grade pay and MSP as basic pay which earns increment and DA.. Kindly understand.
DeleteContd.
ReplyDeletePt.4:I ESM associations have already accepted Jul 2014 as the implementation month. At the same time, why would the Govt not stick to April 2014 as was announced earlier? The present party in power is not granting OROP, it is the Govt of India. There is no valid reason for changing the implementation to July. The change of implementation date from Apr 2014 to Jul 2014 is an afterthought of bureaucrats to save 3 months arrears which comes to Rs 2075 crores.
Pt.5: Why should average of pay to be taken for fixing the OROP scales. The old retirees must get the pension being drawn by the people retiring in year 2015 with same rank and same length of service. People are retiring every month, and revising the pension of old retirees is not any issue or problem. This "average of pay" is the most unclear issue of all.
Pt.6: Does this point really arise when the old retirees start getting at par with new retires in every pay commission era?
Pt.7: Our ESM is very right in this case. The commission should include members from ESM, Service HQ and a bureaucrat under a judicial head.
Sir, I have re-perused the statement read out by Raksha Mantri on 05 Sep 15, which is available on the website of PIB. I do not find any reference of pay scale in the statement.
ReplyDelete{Apologies for the bad hyperlink in the comment posted previously, now deleted.}
Delete@SK Jain: You could consider viewing some of the issues resulting from or connected with the ambiguity you have referred to https://goo.gl/DGbonF
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of Lt col pen of 21 to 25 yrs Svc as exp by @ MSR & SUN ...:-
ReplyDelete3% yly Inc is on basic pay of 37400/ only ,ex msp & gr pay.The mul factor for 8 &12 yrs would be 26.6 & 42.6 for ibid basic pay .that is for figs.
Next ,basic pay of Lt Col is based on Svc of 13 yrs as officer. Subsequet incr accordingly for additional yrs of svc as officer.That is basis.prior Svc in gr other than offr in that proportion as prescribed ,is counted for total weight age in that 33 yrs Svc limit .That is my reading !, well ,I can be wrong too ! if so pse do tell me without any body getting offended.
Next ranking and ranks of 1 - 5 , of 2/Lt - Lt Col ( old ) & Lt - Col ( new) notations of appointments pl - unit. application /super imposition of template or intellegent equation of transition from old to new revised names of ranks of those fixed appointments . There is no need to be prisoners of drilled concept of rank ,in ever changing status with NFU already existing in other services of GOI.
That is where a fundamental principle of basic pay proportional to length of svc is key for solutions - rank pay & gade pay can be separate and different. That was the principle of integrated pay scale of 4 CPC.But somebody did not like it .thus fauxpas of min ,rank pay & fixation. Legendary Danapalan corrected after decades of effort.
This issue of old Maj & Lt Col of 26+ Svc is not in the heads of esms. Has to be pursued by effected lot.
@bala, if you read Para 9 of the SAI 2/S/2008, you will find increment is calculated on Pay in the Pay Band + Grade Pay and not as stated by you.
DeleteAs for the rest of the comment, the jargon flew over my thinning hair like a Scud missile!
There is no weightage for PBOR after 1.1.2006 and no weightage for officers after 1.9.2008.
It is easy to extrapolate a table for pay in the pay band + grade pay + increment + MSP divided by 2 for pension for and up to the top of the pay band i.e. Rs 67000 for PB-4 etc.
Issue of older generation of Maj & Lt Cols - a reading of notes below Circular 500 will indicate the Govt's position.
Dhanapaln filed on Feb 1996, Supreme Court dismissed UoI SLP in Jul 2005 and he was paid - just under a decade and not decades of effort!
Let us be objective and not get carried away and write like ultraceridarians!
"...Issue of older generation of Maj & Lt Cols..."
DeleteSir, Note 4 of Circular 500 for table for Commissioned Officers (other than AMC etc) comes a little close to the issue of parity for older Maj retirees with more than 20 yrs and 26 yrs of service, though not completely. It was based, if I remember correctly, on some judgement in a case or some representation and probably did not result from Govt thinking directly.
During some discussion on Maj Navdeep's blog, it had come out that this application of the higher pay-band for Maj retirees was based on some other consideration and was different from the issue of parity of pensions on account of qualifying service, on time-bound basis, for the same rank having been drastically reduced over the years.
In any case, OROP is a totally different concept from a routine transition from one CPC to another. Whatever notes or explanations had accompanied CPC implementation letters or circulars cannot restrict the much wider scope of OROP. This pension-parity matter, in the case of Maj retirees between 20 and 25 yrs of service and Lt Col with more than 26 yrs of service makes a lot of sense considering recent discrimination based litigation and judgments on the same. It had also been clearly spelt out in the "Services DGL" so kindly shared by you with readers of this blog.
I have just updated the table and chart in one of my previous blog-posts to indicate the difference it would make if the older retirees were denied this parity in-spite of having put in the same service as current retirees in higher time-bound ranks.
Pse add to ibid comment.
ReplyDelete" prior to 1962 (before the beginning of expansion ), most appointments (at all levels ) of general staff , GSO gr 3 to 1 were held by officers of rank of Capt - Lt Col. Same posts / appointments are now held by Maj. - Brig.
@bala: "..Same posts / appointments are now held by Maj. - Brig."
DeleteYou have raised another important point!
In the case of time bound promotions for Officers, the same work was done for an equal number of years by older retirees in lower ranks obtained on time-bound basis. Perhaps, designations for posts might have changed over the decades just as the service required for attaining the same rank, on time-bound basis, decreased over time.
Differentiating, for grant of pension, between an older Maj/Lt Col retiree with more than 26 years of service and a current retiree, who attained time bound rank of Col with the same years of service, appears to be a classic example of discrimination. There would be other such examples for many other ranks obtained on time-bound basis, perhaps also in the case of JCOs, Havildars.
Hence my constant stress on the fact there is a need for application of sensible logic, when thinking of OROP, to the concept of one rank.
Dear Bala Sir, we are from Hyd and that too from Sainikpuri only. In regards to your comment that only the band pay gets annual increments, I made a reply comment to AP Sing post above. Because of this understanding only we became slaves for idiot bureaucrats. Were not we getting increments on our basic plus rank pay during 5th cpc? Can you deny this fact? Today in sixth cpc the civilian crowed including so called idiot bureaucrats are getting increments on their basic pay which includes pay in band pay plus the grade pay, in addition we are getting MSP (which replaced rank pay) and this MSP is part of Basic pay. Do you want another Dhanapalan to come up to file a suit in courts to say that the MSP is part of basic pay?. Kindly understand the denigration of AF personnel being made by the bureaucrats at every stage. When the civilians are getting increments on their band pay plus grade pay then why you say MSP does not get increment. We have the right in every way. While the civilians basic is band pay plus the grade pay, our basic is band pay plus grade pay plus MSP. Let us not now expect another Dhanapalan raises this issue of rank pay versus MSP. Bureaucrats have already done it. Who says civilians are not getting equal amount of our MSP. I will show sit what civilians of our counterparts are getting and what we are getting. Please keep eyes and years open at face book, you get lot of information.
ReplyDelete@MSR & SUN.It is good. From interraction of experienced and intellegent veterans lot of intricate and complex factors& issues are surfacing.It is welcome development .
ReplyDeleteMy views are in total agreement with you.
That fig expressed by me is based on pen being paid to pre 2006 vet .earlier fig 25700 ,26050 ,26150 ,26700 for Lt Col - Maj Gen and revised to 26265 ,27795, 29145 , 30350 ; showing inc rements of 1 ,3,5,&6.interpolation only .
The view and contention that gr pay &msp should be inclusive of basic is very valid and legitimate .
Proportionate pen for 33 yrs is still being followed by PCDA (p), despite adjudication by HSC.
We can ,together focus and find solutions to these issues .
Thanks a lot .I have misplaced u ph no. Contact ,my ce 8125234342. we can fine tune issues.
Sir, Please go through the following and learn how smart and clever are the bureaucrats and their assistants.
ReplyDeleteSubsequent to implementation of 6th CPC wef 01 Jan 2006, the governments under MOD have fixed basic pension of Lt Cols retired prior to 01 Jan 2006 @ Rs 25,700/- pm by working out from the following data :-
Min of the pay band in 6th CPC Rs 37,400/-
Grade Pay Rs 8,000/-
MSP Rs 6,000/-
Total Basic pay Rs 51,400/-
Pension fixed at 50% of pay Rs 25,700/- (This is for all Lt Cols irrespective of amount of unrevised pay at the time of their retirement perior to 01 Jan 2006).
The govt while fixing the pension as per the court judgments have raised the pension by just one increment of 3% that too only on pay band of Rs 37400/-. (See the following working out as to how the govt raised pension of Lt Cols from 25700/- to Rs 26265, there by adding Rs 565/- per month that too wef 24 Sep 2012) Rs 37400 x 3% = Rs 1122, rounded to 1130/- and its 50% is Rs 565/-. Here also the govt has totally neglected the GP and MSP which are part of basic and qualify for increments.
The following were the various procedures adopted by the Govt in fixation of the pay/pension wef 01 Jan 2006: -
1. Minimum of the pay band is Rs 37400 + 8000 GP + 6000 MSP
2. Min of the pay in the pay band – Total basic pay of 6th CPC + one increment thereof
3. Min of the pay in pay band corresponding to unrevised pay drawn by the Officer prior to 01 Jan 2006. (This qualifies equal number of increments which a pensioner earned and included in the unrevised pay)
The Judicial judgments speak out that the pre 2006 retirees will be given pension at the minimum of the pay of pay band corresponding to the unrevised pay. (Which is given at ser 3 above) but the courts never said it is only minimum of the pay in pay band. The words “corresponding to unrevised pay” are self explanatory and do not hide anything which could not be understood. On this judgment the govt has raised pre-2006 retiree Lt Cols pension of Rs 25700 to Rs 26265 just by adding Rs 565/- wef 24 Sep 2012 which was 50% of one increment on min of pay band of Rs 37400 without adding GP & MSP which are the part of basic pay.
No my question is “does every Lt Col retired before 01 Jan 2006 was drawing same basic pay among other Lt Cols” to say that it was his “corresponding unrevised pay”. Would anyone believe this statement which the govt has done?
What does “corresponding unrevised pay”?
What reasoning and logic I apply to the above mentioned phrase is “Min of pay in the pay band must include the number of revised increments corresponding to the number of increments contained in the unrevised pay of the pensioner”.
Is not the reasoning, logic, meaning and definition of the phrase “Corresponding to the unrevised pay” as brought out above are true and apply suo motto while working out the pension wef 01 Jan 2006.
Isn’t that the bureaucrats and the civ govt officers again displayed their smartness and cleverness which they did in 1986 while debiting the rank pay from the total pay?
We the AF fraternity are neither smart and clever but we are honest, loyal and intelligent enough to understand what the smart and clever people are doing on our back, that is why we are capable of fighting wars.