IESM Governing Members' Opinions on Analysis on OROP

IESM Governing Members' Opinions on Analysis on OROP

Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com>	31 Oct (6 days ago)
to Ravindra, Colonelrajan,  Dear Commander, Expecting to gain wisdom from you, reportedly the  financial expert of IESM, I opened the email eagerly. To say I was disappointed is perhaps the understatement of my life. The analysis contained two lists at the beginning - the documents that I relied on to prepare the analysis and the list of disclosures that CPIOs & AA of the Govt did not help me with. The ack was that the analysis would have been more accurate, had the Govt shared the documents I applied for. In your, some times unnecessarily personal comments, that wisdom on financial aspects was missing. In fact, in your eagerness to show your own acumen by disparaging others, you left me completely unenlightened because there were no logical reasons and arguments why the analysis was bad i.e. How increments apply only to additional years of service rendered but not for pension because the Pay in the Pay Band for each rank (whether for Capt, Maj, Lt Col, Col, Brig, Maj Gen or Lt Gen & equivalents) is no different whether the officers attained that rank in 2006 or in 2015. Adding Grade Pay, increment on Pay in the Pay Band + MSP gave me a sum of what serving officers are earning today and that 50% of that sum would be pension. In your disparagement, you did not bring out that my arguments that JCOs & equivalents do not stand to gain or why, in your opinion, Circulars 501 and 547 are correct, partially correct or completely incorrect. The analysis was shared with the Chairman CoSC & CAS and discussed in his office in the afternoon of 7th Oct 2015 in the presence of the Chairman, Air Force Pay Commission cell. The effort was no misguided missiles such as the 3% increment in pension), annual revision, FY and AY (when all Pay Commission recommendations are made effective 01 Jan (1986, 1996, 2006 and now may be 2016). I am grateful to you for correcting the facts about your financial acumen. With Best Wishes

Ravindra Pathak	2 Nov (4 days ago)
to me, Colonelrajan ​Dear Savur Sir I understand your view. The need to reply to the mail from Col Rajan was different than to discuss the financial nitty gritties. That is the reason why I did not touch on those issues. The time to touch on those issues to my mind was before the presentation to the RM. Anyway in your presentation you have very rightly put in a number of disclaimers and the lack on knowledge on certain issues. I much appreciate that. I also hope you understand that the Babu is looking for every straw to hang on to. He would use portions of the presentation and twist it to our disadvantage and that you are aware of when you say the letter of implementation needs to be carefully worded. That is where I also agree with you but defer in the view that they would look at your ifs and buts. I do not stake any claim to my being financial wizard. But yes I do understand a little. However my way of looking at it goes from an overall impact. Pls do understand the response in the light of what I have said. Even now it is not late to discuss the issue with the GB and we could be on a common ground. Brgds Pathak Cdr Ravindra Waman Pathak I.N. (Retd)       Member Governing Body and Pension Cell Indian Ex Servicemen Movement 1 Surashri,1146 Lakaki Road Shivajinagar  Pune 411016 raviwarsha@gmail.com

Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com>	2 Nov (4 days ago)
to  Ravindra, Colonelrajan Dear Commander, My name was among the addressees. Certain remarks were made about the analysis prepared by me. My objection is that your remarks were personal and extremely avoidable. You may have a view and/or criticism based on the documents cited in the analysis and express it, which you did not. It would have helped me know the overall impact, that you do not wish to share as yet. Instead, you arrogated to yourself the liberty to make personal remarks without any basis for the same.  The analysis was also circulated on Aerial View. It elicited 10648 readers as of this morning, and many comments and suggestions, but none personal or disparaging me or other ESM who you may have your opinion on. The analysis is also available to the GB from 8th Oct 2015, in addition to more than 2 GB of information. In anguish

Ravindra Pathak	2 Nov (4 days ago)
to me, Colonelrajan, naraz, venkypatil Dear Sir I am sorry if it caused anguish to you but it was not intentional and not intended. I apologies. As to others history is witness to what i said and my remarks are based on their past record.They have done very little in way of helping the cause and infact at times given wrong information. I hope to remain in your good books Ravi

Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com>	3 Nov (3 days ago)
to Ravindra,  Dear Commander, History is only witness to what we did in our previous jobs and I wonder how many remember the mistakes and correct them so that we improve our own lot. Getting back to the topic, please let me know where my analysis was wrong on the points raised by IESM/UFESM as a counter to Def Min's announcement: - 1. Point No. 1 - Increments are for every additional year of service. If I retire at 25 years in Col's rank pre-2014, I will get pension i.e. half of what a Col with 25 years service will get in 2014 (i.e 50% of Pay in the Pay Band+ Grade Pay + Increment for the  25th year + MSP). I will get no increment in pension in 2015 because I have not rendered an additional year of service i.e 26th year of service. So, why annual revision, let alone 5 yearly revision? And you know who spread the canard of 7 CPC being implemented from Mar 2018 for ESM! Isn't pension a corollary of pay etc? Will serving personnel also have the 7 CPC implemented in Mar 2018? 2. Point No. 2 - How does FY 2013-14 or AY 2013 matter because the increment that a serving officer gets is in July 2013 which falls in FY 2013 as well as AY 2013-14? Incidentally all Pay Commission recommendations are implement from 1.1 of the year i.e 1986, 1996, 2006 and may be now 2016! 3. Point No. 3 - Average of pension would mean as many pensions as years of service in the rank and is an administrative impossibility because promotions were based on vacancies after Cdr & equivalent rank and time-frames were different in Army (again different for Arms & Services and inter-regiment), Navy and Air Force. So why not 50% of the PB+GP+Inc+MSP drawn by an officer/JCO/OR of same years of service? Point No. 4. What is dilution in using the word 'uniform' as it was used in the Budget speech of Feb 2014, in the MoD letter of 26th Feb and 24th April? Dictionary defines "uniform" as same at all times i.e. same pension as the one drawn by an equivalent after 2013, on a particular date but applicable at all times. Point No. 5 - Qua the above, what is this perpetuity thing? Doesn't uniform pension mean at all times without need for adjudication? Point No. 6 - What do we need a Judicial Commission for if the IESM/UFESM ensures that it speaks to the RM on each of the above aspects. Point No. 7 - where/what are/is the error(s) in the tables attached in the tables to the analysis?

Ravindra Pathak	3 Nov (3 days ago)
to gove, me On 3 November 2015 at 10:20, Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com> wrote: 1. Point No. 1 - Increments are for every additional year of service. If I retire at 25 years in Col's rank pre-2014, I will get pension i.e. half of what a Col with 25 years service will get in 2014 (i.e 50% of Pay in the Pay Band+ Grade Pay + Increment for the  25th year + MSP). I will get no increment in pension in 2015 because I have not rendered an additional year of service i.e 26th year of service. So, why annual revision, let alone 5 yearly revision? And you know who spread the canard of 7 CPC being implemented from Mar 2018 for ESM! Isn't pension a corollary of pay etc? Will serving personnel also have the 7 CPC implemented in Mar 2018? If this is the understanding then the very concept of OROP is being denied by you and so i don't think there is any further discussion involved and all further points are meaningless. ​The definition ​as approved by parliament is “implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners” Your statement above clearly defies the this very definition. 2. Point No. 2 - How does FY 2013-14 or AY 2013 matter because the increment that a serving officer gets is in July 2013 which falls in FY 2013 as well as AY 2013-14? Incidentally all Pay Commission recommendations are implement from 1.1 of the year i.e 1986, 1996, 2006 and may be now 2016! 3. Point No. 3 - Average of pension would mean as many pensions as years of service in the rank and is an administrative impossibility because promotions were based on vacancies after Cdr & equivalent rank and time-frames were different in Army (again different for Arms & Services and inter-regiment), Navy and Air Force. So why not 50% of the PB+GP+Inc+MSP drawn by an officer/JCO/OR of same years of service? Point No. 4. What is dilution in using the word 'uniform' as it was used in the Budget speech of Feb 2014, in the MoD letter of 26th Feb and 24th April? Dictionary defines "uniform" as same at all times i.e. same pension as the one drawn by an equivalent after 2013, on a particular date but applicable at all times.Dilution is in not adjusting the pension on an annual basis and the pension of a retiree will be different in 2014/2015/2016 and so all till review and is that not the same as 10 years pension commission or for that matter 5 years commission. Point No. 5 - Qua the above, what is this perpetuity thing? Doesn't uniform pension mean at all times without need for adjudication? Point No. 6 - What do we need a Judicial Commission for if the IESM/UFESM ensures that it speaks to the RM on each of the above aspects. Has RM given a date to speak to us after 5 Sep 2015 even when our team was there with him as late as 1130 hrs on that day and even he expressed surprise at he meeting on VRS and yet he read it out.Even we are questioning the Judicial Commission.You seem to think we asked for it.But no they introduced it last minute. Point No. 7 - where/what are/is the error(s) in the tables attached in the tables to the analysis?       Sorry not doing that as your first point itself makes any study of the tables fruitless. ​Gandhi Sir you may kindly also respond. This is very different from his presentation made.

Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com>					3 Nov (3 days ago)
to Ravindra, gove Sir, Future enhancements means what the next pay commission will give. If you had 22 years of service and retired in a particular rank, your basic pension will not increase but be commensurate to the pension of a same ranked officer with a service of 22 years. It may be Rs 20000 in 2013, it may become Rs 40000 in 2016 and Rs 80000 in 2026. If the  22 years service officer is alive in 2026 he will get Rs 80000.  On the other hand if 23 years service officer gets Rs 25ooo as pension in 2013, Rs 50000 pension in 2016 and Rs 100000 in 2026, any officer of same rank still alive in 2026 and having 23 years service will get Rs 100000 as pension.    Any way your mind is made us and I will not change your mind. Thanks & good bye!
Ravindra Pathak	4 Nov (2 days ago)

to me, gove If everybody has made up his mind then there is no discussion. I am still sorry to note that you have not got the concept of OROP definition right. It is not every 10 or 5 years but every year as the 3% increase occurs every year. Brgds

Aditya Jaini <ajbjaini@hotmail.com>					4 Nov (2 days ago)
to IESM_GovBody, me          We have to understand that 'Future Enhancements' are NOT related only to 7th- 8th CPC.          Definition of OROP clearly states ' ALL FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS'           This very much includes the 3% YEARLY increments given to those in Service-- & hence 1.5% increase EVERY YR to Veterans.            If that is Not so, then it is NOT OROP            Let us not perceive / interpret things which are CRYSTAL CLEAR in themselves.
Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com>	4 Nov (2 days ago)

to Ravindra Sir, Please read definition of increment. It means 3% increase for every additional year of service i.e Active Service. That is why definition of increment states (in SNI 1/S/2008 and 2/S/2008 states increment on Pay in the Pay Band + Grade pay + 3% of the two.  For example Cdr Pathak with 25 years of service will get 3% increment if he serves the 26th year. But if Cdr Pathak  retired with 25 years of service, will he get the same pension of the serving officer with 25 years of gets 3% increment for serving in the 26th year of service. Rhetorically, if  an ESM lives to the ripe old age of 125 years and has 105 years of service, his pension will be infinite @ 3% increase.
Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com>	4 Nov (2 days ago)

to Aditya Dear General, Every rank has a start for the Pay Band. Increment is for every additional year of being in service ie Effective. The moment one retires say at 25 years his pension will be the same as the pension of an officer with 25 years service who retired in 2013, 2023, 2033 etc. That is future enhancement - not 3 % increase because then you want the officer with 25 years service to get 3 % increase for the next year which is 26 years of service.

Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com>	5 Nov (1 day ago)
to Aditya, Ravindra Dear General and Commander, Further to the above line of my thought. 5th CPC fixed the pay scale for Maj Gens at Rs 18000-500-22400 & for Commanders at Rs 13500-400-17100 + Rank Pay of Rs 1600. If we follow your line of argument of annual increase, then  pension slips should be showing an increase of basic pension till 31.12.2005 @ 50% of Rs 500 for Maj Gens and @ 50% of Rs 400 for Commanders. But pension slips do not show any increase in basic pension except for the DA revised every six months. Because by definition pension for 5th CPC  was 50% of last Pay drawn + Rank Pay if applicable. Similarly,the MoD letter dated 12.11.2008 defines reckonable emoluments for officers as  Pay in the Pay Band+Grade Pay+MSP + NPA, if applicable, last drawn. There is no mention of increments. It also states that Pension for officers is calculated at 50% of average of reckonable  emoluments drawn in the last 10 months but for PBOR (word used in the MoD letter) it is 50% of reckonable emoluments last drawn.   Therefore, I wish to re-state that increment is paid for every additional year of service rendered. Once we retire we do not render any additional service. So, the 3% or 1.5% annual increase in pension, and hence annual review, is not factually correct. Thank you for your patience. With Best wishes

Ravindra Pathak	09:18 (23 hours ago)
to me No sir the definition means I will get 3% till I reach top of band that should be in 3 to 4 yrs and then it will stop much like the serving officers will. Pls see attached document. I think he has understood the case better

Aditya Jaini		09:41 (23 hours ago)
to me Seen, Sir, & Thanx,        While U have a Valid point -- it is only a matter of 'Interpretation'.        Taking the example that U have given, I am NOT at all saying that a Veteran who has rendered 25 yrs Service be given the Pen of a SERVING Offr having 26 yrs service.        What we are insisting on is a different Perception, that is:-          * In 2015 a retd Offr with 25 yrs is drawing (say) 25/=.           * Same time in 2015 a Serving Offr with 24 yrs is drawing 24/=.          * Next yr, in 2016 THIS Offr  who earlier had 24 yrs will now have 24+1=25 yrs & will draw 24/= + 3% increase in PAY. He will, consequently get that increased pension by 1&1/2%, if retires in 2016.         *   So, that Retired Offr above, who will, obviously, still continue to have the same 25 Yrs should now in 2016 get the same 'Increase'.         * i.e. He must get 50% of Pay that THIS Serving Offr -- who earlier had 24 yrs but now retires at 25 yrs service, will get if he retires in 2016.          THAT, is the logic.           Pl consider. With Regards Gen Jaini IESM

Continued below

Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com> 09:58 (0 minutes ago)
to Aditya Dear General, The officer with 24 years service cannot draw more pay than the officer with 25 years of service. Year 2015 (corrected from 2014): - Reckonable emoluments for  officer A with 24 years service drawing Pay in the Pay Band (say Rs 25000) + Grade Pay (say Rs 8000) +MSP Rs 6000 = Rs 39000.  Pension for serving 24 years will be 50% i.e Rs 19500. So all retired officers  (say B, C, D, E etc) of  A's rank and 24 years service will get Rs 19500 as pension for retiring in the 24t year of service. Year 2016: If  officer A continues to serve into the 25th year he will get 3% increment for serving one additional year ie. 3% of 25000+8000 i.e Rs 990. So the same officer will get Pay in the Pay band of 25000+990 = Rs 25990 + GP 8000+ MSP Rs 6000 = 39900. His pension @ 50% will be Rs 19995. So all officers (G, H, J, K) of A's rank but 25 years of service will get Rs 19995 as pension more for retiring with 25 years of service. But B, C, D, E will continue to draw Rs 19500 as pension for serving 24 years. Year 2017: If officer A continues in service he will have 26 years of service. He will get another 3% increment for serving one more year. His Pay in the pay Band will Be Rs 25990+8000+33990+increment Rs 1020+ MSP 6000. His new pay in the pay band in the 26th years will be Rs = 27010+GP 8000+MSP 6000=Rs 41010. His pension at 50% will be Rs 20505 for retiring with 26 years of service. All officers (P, Q, R, S, T) of this A's rank and 26 years of service will get Rs 20505 as pension. But G,H, J, K will draw Rs 19995  because they have served only 25 years. i.e one year lesser than A. And B, C, D, E will draw Rs 19500 as pension because they have served only 24 years i.e 2 years lesser than A. If, as per your contention,   officers B, C, D, E  with 24 years  get a 3% (or 1.5%) increase in 2016 because you will equalise their pension with the pension of an officers G, H, J, K  of the same rank but 25 years of pension. Similarly, no 3% (or 1.5%) increase for the officers  G, H, J, K  who retired with 25 years pension or you will give them pension of the officers P, Q, R, S, T of the same rank who served 26 years. Please run the above figures in consultation with the  Army Pay Commission Cell to verify your version or mine.  I consulted the Air Force Pay Commission Cell, which has Accounts Branch officers to draw the tables and verify my opinion that pension cannot increase annually or 5 yearly because any (R) any retired personnel does not render additional year(s) of service after retirement. In Air Force terminology, as it might be in the Army, a retired personnel is Non-Effective.   ​With Best Wishes​