Thursday, 25 February 2016

Some interesting information on the OROP tables

Modalities for Calculations for OROP

Clarification sought by PCDA (P)
Guidance provided by MoD
It may be clarified whether average of minimum & maximum pension is to be determined separately for three Services and the highest among them be allowed or average of minimum and maximum pension is to be determined with reference to entire data of three services.

Issue may be dealt in reference to suggestion at para 1 above. Average of minimum and maximum may be determined with reference to entire data for three Services.
Where rates of proposed pension at lower qualifying service is higher than the rates for higher qualifying service in same rank/group?
In case of such anomalies, pension of higher qualifying services would be stepped up to the level of pension of same rank/group with lower qualifying service.

Where proposed rates of pension in higher ranks is lower than the rates in lower rank(s) with same qualifying service?
In case of such anomalies, pension of higher rank/group with same qualifying service may be stepped up to the level of pension of lower rank(s) with identical group) with same qualifying service.

Where retirees for any rank/Group is not available for lower qualifying service but available after certain length of service?
Where data in a rank is available but the same is not available for certain lower qualifying service, pension for lower service may be determined allowing cut of 3% (compounded) for each completed year to the first rate available for any qualifying service in the particular rank/group. The reduction will be subject to protection  with rates of pension determined for lower rank(s)/Group(s).

From 1.9.2008 onwards, JCOs/ORs are getting 3 financial upgradations in scale of higher rank under MACP scheme. These upgradations are allowed after 8/16/24 years. However, rank of the personnel doesn’t change. A confirmation is required whether these data of pensioners is to be considered with reference to the rank held or is to be taken with reference to grade pay drawn after financial upgradation.

Specific cases from data of 2013 available be segregated with reference to GP and not with reference to rank last held. Thus, personnel who retire with higher grade pay due to financial upgradation may be considered with higher rank for determining revised pension.
In terms of recommendations of CSC-2012, JCO/OR pensioners are allowed pension based on highest notional pay across the 3 services. A confirmation required whether the proposed pension is to be determined with reference to entire data across three services for both JCO/OR and Commissioned Officers or otherwise?
The present policy for pre-2006 JCO/OR retirees viz., across three services may continue. As the pre-revised/revised pay structure for Commissioned Officers across the Services were same, such dispensation was not considered for them earlier. It is now proposed that pension for JCOs/ORs/Offrs may be determined with reference to entire data across the three services.

A methodology needs to be adopted for determining proposed pension for ranks/groups where there are no retirees in calendar year 2013.
When data in a rank is not available, protection in pension be allowed with reference to lower rank(s). Where data in Gp X for a rank is not available, pension may be determined by adding Rs 700 (50% of X Gp pay)in Gp Y Pension subject to protection with rates of pension determined for Gp X in lower rank.

Methodology be adopted for certain types of pension viz Liberalised family pension/2nd life awards, where cases are not available in calendar year 2013 data or data available is very less.
CSC-2012 established linkage between rates of all kind of family pension with rated of service pension in respect of JCO/OR pensioners may continue. Similar dispensation may also be adopted for rates of family pensions in respect of Commissioned Officers.

For post 2006 disables cases, rates for disability/war injury element linked with pay last drawn which is reduced pro-rata for lesser percentage of disability. Methodology to finalise rates of these awards for each rank/group and qualifying service may be required.
Rates of disability/war injury element be linked with rates of revised retiring/service pension. The rates of disability element shall be 60% of retiring/service pension in each qualifying service for 100% disability. The rates of war injury element shall be 120% of retiring/service pension (discharge cases) and 200% of retiring/service pension (invalidment cases) in each qualifying service for 100% disability.
Method for revision of PSU absorbees who had opted for 100%commutation of pension as policy for 100% commutation is withdrawn from April 1996 and no such retirees exists in 2013.
Pension of such retirees be revised based on revised pension determined for regular ranks. However, existing restored amount of pension shall continue as the methodology for the same has been finalised with reference to Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment.

As per existing formula applicable topre-2006 retires, pension is determined up to maximum terms of engagement for JCO/OR and up to 33 years of service for Commissioned Officers despite of the fact whether they have rendered service beyond that limit. Confirmation required whether the same has to be continued in proposed formulation of OROP or proposed pension of each personnel retired in calendar year 2013 irrespective of qualifying service has to be notified to allow this benefit for past pensioners.

Rates of pension may be determined up to the terms of engagement only and maximum pension determined for rank/group shall be allowed for higher QS. However, in case of officers of the rank of Major General and above which gets their rank at a higher qualifying service, first available rate of pension of qualifying service with 33 years or more may be treated as rates for 33 years of service subject to pro-rata reduction for lower qualifying service.
While reviewing the data of post- 2006 retirees at different points of time in the past it has been observed by Ministry that out layers should be removed from the data to determine revised pension. Methodology in this regard would be required.
It is suggested that out layers be excluded by identifying cases getting benefit of higher pension due to various Court decisions extra increment/out of turn promotions earned by individuals, cut in rates of pay/pension due to punishments, direct entry in higher ranks. PSAs may identify minimum/maximum cases for each rank/group /qualifying service from their data base and get it confirmed from respective Record offices/Pay Account offices to exclude these cases from relevant data.

As per the announcement made by the Government for OROP, personnel retire voluntarily/on his own request are to be excluded from these benefits. Confirmation would be required whether cases of voluntary retirement/retire on own request has to be excluded from the data of 2013 before determining revised pension.
Decision awaited


  1. Is this a new decision that voluntary retirees pre-2006 will not be entitles to OROP benefits

    1. The decision is that all Pre-mature retired officers will get OROP as long as they quit before 07 Nov 15.

      However, newspapers report that the RM has made an amendment to his announcement that in the interest of the Army, PMR will be permitted and they would be entitled to OROP.

      So it could be another case of CMLA (not Chief Martial law Administrator as the neighbouring nation used) or Cancel My Last Announcement.

  2. A fundamental doubt has risen in my mind as to whether Rank can be equated across three Services when terms of condition are different specially for the lower ranks
    This may specially assume significance specially if it is proved that the average pesnion across three services is less than average pension for a single Service for a partuclra rank or all ranks
    Even including non commissioned service (as is the case with Officers who have been soldiers earlier) may be required to fall in a different category of Rank
    I do feel that the government may have got into a legal trap by going for average pension for OROP calculations
    If it can be proved that there was malafide intention on part of the govt to adopt a course of action,then it is in big trouble

    1. If the highest across the services for the rank and qualifying service logic is used, then there is benefit. If the 20y service Capt (Navy) got Rs 30000, and the Col or Gp Capt got Rs 26000, then the average Rs 27333.3333333333 would he higher than Rs 26, 000!

    2. If i ma not mistaken it is average of the highest & lowest
      In that case the naval Captain (from your example) would get less & only the Army Col would benefit(presuming that the lowest of Naval Capt is higher)
      How were even with out going into actual ,the rule seem to be against natural justice & hence may be bad in law

    3. You may want to read, again, Para 3 (iii) of the 07 Nov 15 order about protection of pension, if higher.

    4. I am talking about cases of pension for a particular rank & length of service from a particular Service alone being higher than the pension when calculated across three services
      Hence from a legal/natural justice point of view ,higher of the two methods (individual Service & across three Services ) may need to be adopted

  3. At the outset , i salute you sir for keeping readers duly informed about the issues of pay & allowances & pensions . role , views and handiwork of various agencies and executives involved , including their mindset (read hidden agenda). I have never found myself empowered and loaded with so much of authentic information & philosophy behind all this , althoug , i used to wonder , whout would be the rationale and mechanics behind this.
    For a change MoD has given Forces Friendly replies to the smart & genuine queries of PCDA. If they (both ) had shown this attitude earlier , things would not have precipitated to this level.

  4. Sir , i wish to seek your opinion on an issue that effects many pre 1996 pensioners and family pensioners.
    Prior to 2004 , pre AVSC , Lt Col was a selection grade rank . In services (ASC, AOC , EME ) it used to take more than 23 yrs to get promoted to this rank . Many of the offrs who joined as Emergency Commissoned or ACC , would retire before even getting a consideration look . case in point is of my father . He was enrolled as an OR in EME (in 1957) after completing class X. completed his graduation , privately , after Emergency Commisson , became an officer (1964) and got permanent commisson in 1969 , in ASC. At the time of retirement with 22 yrs of commissoned service and 22.8 yrs of qualifying service he Retired as a Major , although he was approved for Lt Col , but most unfortunately , could not pick up his Rank , due to non availability of Vacancy , upto the dt of his Retirement(Chain vacancy linked to wastage , due to retirement was coming up only on 31 Dec 19830 .He retired on 30 Sep 1983.
    Sir , all those who retired in the rank of Major (with 13 yrs of commissoned service ) from 1 Jan 1996 onwards, have been awarded the notional pay of Lt Col , for the purpose of fitment of pension . Is their any provison for pre 1996 retirees also or is there any litigation or case in process to provide parity to them also. If No , may i seek your advise on how to go about it to make an attempt . Who are the concerned and competent authorities for such cases. A suitable reply will be highly appreciated.
    Col OP Singh

  5. I think these queries are old - asked by PCDA (P) when they were told to compile data for preparation of the OROP tables. These don't look like queries for the implementation of the OROP tables that were issued on 3rd Feb.

    1. No comment. You are entitled to your thinking. I am only placing facts received through RTI.

  6. I,have no comment till I get the my revised pension

  7. Sir I have retired 2010 after completion of 24 yrs. I have served 15 yrs in Havilar rank. After retirement government granted
    Have (ACP 1). what pension will be fixed as per govt orders of OROP.

  8. Sir, you have made so much detailed analysis available, it leads individual veterans to the next logical step, of trying to get specific anomalies rationalized as they emerge from information now being placed in the public domain.

    The real issue now is, how can an individual veteran, or even associations, take up matters with the Judicial Committee on OROP? The notification speaks of only "references received from Central Government".

  9. The MoD has issued the implementation order and tables. Obviously, MoD will not have anomalies because it would feel that it is right.

    Only Veterans would feel that there are anomalies. So if individual Veterans or Assn raise them in a cogent and logical manner, will there be resolutions.

    Hysterics and histrionics and misinformed positions will not be of any use.

  10. Sir,Veterans Associations should put up relevant points in very clear and concise manner to the Defence Minister.

  11. Will the pre 2006 Majors pensioners with 20 years service get the Lt Col pension as is the case with those Majors with 21 years service? It is obvious from the explanations given by you that all pre 2006 Majors pensioners with 20 years service will be given Lt Col pension, but the PCDA (P) circular 555 doesn't speak about this. Kindly advice.

  12. Sir,
    I have not stated "all pre-2006 Majors pensioners with 20 years service will be given Lt Col pension."

    I have quoted earlier the 5th CPC recommendation that was accepted as a one time exception that Majors with 21 years of service will get pay of Lt Cols but rank pay of Majors in their 22nd year of service.

    By inference, if the Major is drawing a Lt Col's pay in his 22nd year, he will have to get a Lt Col's pension.

    You may wish to consider this as the reason why Circular 555 has not given 20 year Majors the pension of Lt Cols.

  13. There is ambiguity in the dates related to period of arrears. These should be 1.7.14 to 3.2.16(latter date corresponds to date of the govt letter. Even circular 555 is dated 4.2.16. But banks have given arrears for Feb 16 also. Circular 557 issued by pcda pensions does clarify the period of arrears in Para 3 note 3 as 1.7.14 to 2.3.16(latter date wrongly given in circular 557) ; it shd be 3.2.16. How can this be corrected?

    1. Arrears are paid till date of credit into your account as clarified by a Bank's CPPC.