Facing the truth about the 3rd Central Pay
Commission
Did it really reduce Defence Personnel’s pensions to
50%
Instances like these make me wonder
why I seek to obtain and publish facts and truth about matters concerning ESM.
In the past few days, I have been at the receiving end
of a vitriolic attack for suggesting that those perpetrating the myth that the
3rd CPC reduced our pensions from 70% of last pay drawn to 50% after
the victory of 1971 must own up before all ESM get tarnished with the same brush
that we were all either ignorant, but more damagingly, we spoke an untruth and continue to repeat it.
My errors, if I may, were that I searched for the 3rd
CPC Report to vindicate that stand and, more importantly, provide the
documentary proof of the above repeated assertion.
One ESM officer, an office bearer of an organisation,
queried my disagreement for the method and manner of each of those myth
perpetrators, as well as the philosophy of the organisation by using an untruth
to increase the sense of injustice among ESM. He countered that many have
received “diluted” OROP and have not queried it. Does that justify uttering and
repeating an untruth?
I am more shaken that even after placing that Chapter
53 of the 3rd CPC Report on this blog not many of the more vociferous
readers and commentators have questioned things like these: -
If you study this carefully, it may be a sinister plan something
similar to the 3rd CPC.
Why OROP is not
‘unconscionable’
The armed forces have got a raw deal in
terms of pensions and pay since Independence
Earlier,
armed forces personnel drew 70% of their last salary as pension while civilian
government servants drew about 30% or so of last pay drawn, a practice that was
in vogue the world over. The 3rd central Pay Commission (CPC), in 1973, made
the pension percentage equal for both, reducing the armed forces personnel’s
pension from 70% to 50 %, and increasing civil pension to 50%, on the logic
that the armed forces would soon get pension under a new design—One Rank One
Pension (OROP) — but that is yet to be implemented, 42 years later!
The
discontent among the armed forces started in 1973 when the Indira Gandhi
government decided to reduce pension as a part of the Third Pay Commission and
aligned it to the civilian pension structure. Till then officers were entitled
to 50 per cent of their last salary as pension, while in the case of jawans and
junior commissioned officers the amount rose to 70 per cent of last drawn
salary.
Thus
the Government ingeniously cut a soldiers pension from 70% to 30% of pay at the
same time enhancing the civilian pension from 30% to 50%.
A SYSTEMATIC DEGRADATION
OF INDIAN ARMED FORCES!
Aug 23, 2015
While so much has
been shared on OROP, I would like to highlight certain facts,that MUST BE KNOWN
to the Citizen of India.
Till 1973, the pensions of Armed Forces were 70% of the last pay
drawn, while of the civilians, it was 30% of the last pay drawn.
The
Facts (and the truth) from the 3rd CPC Report (in italics) is this (emphasis supplied): -
The person associated with
the 3rd CPC Report was I. M. Lal and not M. B. Lal as quoted by one
of the worthies above.
Officers
2. The
existing pension code for the Services is based on the recommendations of the
Armed Forces Pension Revision Committee (AFPRC) which submitted its report in
1950. The introduction of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCR Gratuity)
Scheme for Servicemen in September 1970 is the only significant change that has
taken place since the Post-War Pension Code was introduced with effect from 1st
June 1953 on the recommendations of AFPRC. Before formulating its
recommendations, the AFPRC enunciated certain general factors for determining
the entitlement to and assessment of pensions. The AFPRC viewed pensions and
other terminal benefits as a reward for good service which should vary with the
length and quality of service rendered; as an inducement to the right type of
men to undertake continuous service; as compensations for early termination of
career, liability to recall and for disabilities, if any, attributable to
military service; and as an element towards the maintenance of those discharged
and as support for the members of the family of deceased personnel.
3. The
Services have, in their proposals, generally endorsed the principles enunciated
by the AFPRC. They have also stated that Service pensions should take into
account the peculiar conditions of service and the hierarchical set-up of the
Services. They have added that an element on account of compensation for early
retirement and liability to be recalled to service should be specifically
provided when determining the pensionary benefits. In the case of death or
disablement, the Services have proposed that compensation should be graded
depending on the type of casualty ad degree of disablement. They have also
proposed that pensioners should be protected against future inflationary
trends.
4. By
and large, the principles followed by the AFPRC continue to be valid. Our
examination shows that it would not be proper to adopt the civil pension rules
in the case of Service personnel because it would fail to take into account the
peculiar hierarchical structure of the Services and the operational requirement
of ensuring that the vast majority of the personnel in the armed forces be
young and in sufficient good condition to cope with the rigours of Service
life. We think that the grant of pension should be regulated as to enable
Servicemen to earn full pensions at a relatively younger age compared to
civilians. Further, the length of service beyond a point should not be allowed
to influence pension rates, as that would induce these personnel to stay on in
service in order to earn higher pensions even after they have ceased to be
useful. We accept the need for providing an element of compensation in the
pension rates for early retirement in the Service interest and we feel that
this should be done in as explicit a manner possible. In formulating our
recommendations with regard to the non-effective benefits, we have not
considered it necessary to suggest changes in such matters as the age of
retirement, the period of tenure prescribed for senior ranks, the periods of
qualifying service for pension, and certain other conditions attaching to the
grant of these benefits.
6…………………… The standard rates of pension
for officers of the three Services in force from time to time are given in the
table below: -
TABLE IV
(in rupees)
|
Rank
|
Between
1-6-53 and
16-4-56
|
Between
17-4-56 and
30-9-61
|
From
1-10-61
|
Post DCR
Gratuity pension after 10-9-70
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
|
2nd Lt/Lieut
|
275
|
275
|
300
|
272
|
|
Captain
|
350
|
350
|
425
|
377
|
|
Major
|
475
|
475
|
550
|
482
|
|
Lt Colonel
|
625
|
625
|
675
|
587
|
|
Colonel
|
675
|
675
|
750
|
638
|
|
Brigadier
|
725
|
800
|
825
|
696
|
|
Maj General
|
800
|
875
|
875
|
735
|
|
Lt General
|
900
|
900
|
900 (975
from 12.10.1970)
|
819
|
|
General
|
1000
|
1000
|
1000
|
840
|
The amounts in columns (4) and (5) of
the above table are current rates of pension; rates in column (4) pertain to
the amount of pension admissible where no DCR Gratuity is payable and those in
column (5) to pension admissible in conjunction with DCR Gratuity.
7. Although
the Services favour the continuance of the existing standard rate system, they
have pointed out that the pension earned by a Service officer is related to the
minimum prescribed for the rank and is not increased if the actual period of
qualifying service rendered by him is more. They have also proposed that the
rate of earning pension after the provision of the DCR Gratuity in the case of
Service officers should be higher than that prescribed for the civilians. The
Services have criticised the manner in which the compensatory element for early
retirement has been provided in Service pensions and have pointed out that this
element fixed in 1953 has not undergone any change despite subsequent revisions
in pay scales and pensions.
Personnel Below Officer Rank
38. The
AFPRC had broadly followed the civil pension rules in making recommendations on
pensions for personnel below officer rank, without providing any compensatory
element in pensions for early termination of career. However, they allowed the
full benefit of the civil pension formula to only those Servicemen who were
able to complete 25 years or more of colour service. Thus, while they suggested
the minimum period of 15 years colour service for earning pensions, the minimum
pension was calculated on the basis of 13/60 of emoluments and not 15/60.
This depression was removed on the recommendations of the Kamath Committee in
1968. Since then, the only change that has taken place is the provision, in
September 1970, of the DCR Gratuity on the civilian pattern for the personnel
below officer rank also. After the provision of DCR Gratuity, the pension
rates have been reduced by 11% to partially offset the cost of providing the
DCR Gratuity.
43. After
detailed consideration, we have reached the conclusion that the right course
would be to adopt the same approach for determining the pensions of
personnel below officer rank as we have commended in relation to Service
officers, viz., adding a weightage of 5 years to the prescribed length
of qualifying service, subject to the total length of service reckonable for
pension not exceeding 33 years, and applying the formula of 1/80 of
emoluments as on the civil side for calculating the pension amount in
conjunction with DCR Gratuity. We also proposed that the maximum of the pay
scale prescribed for various ranks should be taken into account for calculating
the pension of the rank. The addition of 5 years in cases where the period of
qualifying service prescribed for earning pension of the rank is less than 20
years is a substantial benefit, which, we feel, provides adequate compensation
for the liability to recall and the problems occasioned by early release from
the Services, such as the transition from military to civil life, and the
attendant uncertainty about securing suitable civil employment. We would again
emphasise that the Government’s efforts should be viewed as a whole, and the
adequacy of the 5 years weightage should be judged in the light of the package
of other measures for the resettlement of released personnel from the Armed
Forces.
Finally,
any one interested in the pdf version of the Volume III of the 3rd
CPC Report is welcome to either go to Digital Library of India or, take a short
cut and email me for it.
