Friday, 10 June 2016

On the Press Release



“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true;
The other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
Søren Kierkegaard

From numerous, unsolicited chain emails exchanged between “faith in Satbir Singh” and non-believers is this the latest one: -

SPECIAL PRESS RELEASE 04 JUN, 2016: JANTAR MANTAR

1.  Maj Gen Satbir Singh had one to one meeting with Justice Reddy on 03 Jun, 2016. Meeting was held in very cordial environment and it lasted for one hour instead of scheduled half an hour as Justice Reddy evinced keen interest in all the points put up by Maj Gen Satbir Singh.

2. Gen Satbir explained in ample measures the four major anomalies viz firstly equalization of pension every year instead of every five years, secondly fixation of pension at top of the bracket instead (of) the average, thirdly implementing it from 01 Apr 2014 instead of 01 Jul, 2014 and fourthly the base year to be top of financial year 2013-2014 instead average of calendar year 2013 thus unfairly denying one increment to soldiers. Changing the very definition of OROP to periodic intervals from passing on any future enhancements in pension to past pensioners thus killing the very soul of OROP was also a topic of keen discussion

Here is my educated, informed analysis.

This post is for wiser and discerning ESM. It is not in support to those who are either full of faith in Maj Gen Satbir Singh/IESM or for those who accuse him/IESM’s governing council/body for alleged malfeasance. In other words, this write up is for readers who can also think for themselves and come to a rational conclusion, not necessarily in agreement with facts presented (once again!) in this post. 

First, equalization of pension every year instead of every five years: - The equalisation of pension, whether annually or five yearly is like the vices of one of the witches of Macbeth - create confusion and chaos. So let us eliminate confusion and chaos.

Pension Regulations for the Army, Part I (2008), Chapter 1, Section 1, General at Para 2 (c) states: -

The day on which an individual is retired or is released or is discharged or is allowed to resign, or is invalided out from service or dies in harness, as the case may be, shall be treated as his last day in service. Provided that in the case of an individual who is retired prematurely or who retires voluntarily, the date of retirement shall be treated as a non-working day (emphasis supplied).

We may also read the following two judgments (of the many available on line): -
           
In WP (C) No. 2449 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi in New Delhi on 16 Nov 2015 quoting a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court [Source: (lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SDS/judgement/17-11-2015/SDS16112015CW24492014.pdf) ]: -

“Increment” has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jaswant Singh Kanwar 2013 (9) SCALE 671, wherein it has been held as under:

"Increment" has a definite concept in service law Jurisprudence. It is an increase or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a scale. As noted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad and Anr. 1972 3 SCC 595, under the Labour and Industrial Laws, an increment is when in a time scale of pay an employee advances from the lower point of scale to the higher by periodic additions. In other words, it is addition in the same scale and not to a higher scale. Increment is an incidence of employment and an employee gets an increment by working the full year and drawing full salary (emphasis supplied).

In Honourable Andhra High Court by Principal Accountant General and others  vs C. Subba Rao on 27 January, 2005, Equivalent citations: 2005 (2) ALD 1, 2005 (2) ALT 25, Bench: B Nazki, V Rao, P Narayana; Judgment: V.V.S. Rao, J [Source: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1005408/]: -

7…….If a retired Government servant is allowed to draw another increment after retirement, it would be contrary to Pension Rules as well as Fundamental Rules. He would then urge that as per F. R. 26, an increment can be drawn only when an employee is on duty and an employee who retires on the last working day of the month ceases to be Government employee and therefore no increment can be sanctioned to him.
Xxxx                xxxx                xxxx   

16. As per Fundamental Rule (F. R.) 17, extracted hereinabove, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post until he ceases to discharge those duties. "Pay" as defined in F. R. 9 (21) (a) means, the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant which also includes the increment given at an anterior date. Therefore, after retirement, a person will not be entitled to any pay including the increment that may be due from the posterior date. F. R. 22 regulates the initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post in time-scale and F. R. 24 and F. R. 26 regulate the sanction of increment to a Government servant, who is on duty. A reading of various Fundamental Rules extracted hereinabove would show that a person appointed as a Government servant is entitled to pay in time- scale of pay. He is also entitled to draw the increment as per time-scale of pay as a matter of course as long as such Government servant discharges duties of the post and such Government servant shall not be entitled to draw the pay and allowances attached to the post as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. In other words, as per F. R. 17 read with F. Rs. 24 and 26 annual increment is given to a Government servant to enable him to discharge duty and draw pay and allowances attached to the post. If such Government servant ceases to discharge duties by any reason say, by reason of attainment of age of superannuation, such Government servant will not be entitled to draw pay and allowances. As a necessary corollary, such employee would not be entitled to any increment if it falls due after the date of retirement, be it on the next day of retirement or sometime thereafter (emphasis supplied).

            More explicitly, having retired, an ESM ceases to be employed at the stage of the qualifying service rendered on the date of retirement.

            Next, as you read and understood from the above judgments, an increment is paid for an additional year of service. If the start for a pay band for Lt Col was Rs 38530 on 1.1.2006, the start would the lower i.e Rs 37400 for Lt Cols promoted on or after 1.1.2006, or in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014.

Please see from the table below that every serving officer starts from the same Pay in the Pay Band i.e. Basic Pay, irrespective of the year he is promoted. And every officer get an increment for every additional year of service rendered till he/she reaches the top of the appropriate Pay Band/Pay scale. Pension means the ESM is no longer in service and hence not entitled to any increment.

QS
Major
15600 -39100
 +6600 +6000
Lt Col
37400 - 67000
 + 8000 + 6000
Col
37400 - 67000
+ 8700 +6000

Basic
Total
Pension
Basic
Total
Pension
Basic
Total
Pension
7
21630
34230
17115
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
22480
35080
17540
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
23360
35960
17980
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
24260
36860
18430
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
25190
37790
18895
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
26150
38750
19375
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
27140
39740
19870
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
28160
40760
20380
37400
51400
25700
-
-
-
15
29210
41810
20905
38770
52770
26835
-
-
-
16
30290
42890
21445
40180
54180
27090
-
-
-
17
31400
44000
22000
41630
55630
27815
-
-
-
18
32540
45140
22570
43120
57120
28560
43120
57820
28910
19
33715
46320
23160
44660
58660
29330
44680
59380
29690
20
34925
47530
23765
46240
60240
30120
46290
60990
30495
21
36170
48780
24390
47870
61870
30395
47940
62640
31320
22
37470
50070
25035
49550
63550
31775
49640
64340
32170
23
38800
51400
25700
51280
65280
32640
51390
66090
33045
24
39100*
51700
25850
53060
67060
33530
53200
67900
33950
25
-
-
-
54900
68900
34450
55060
69760
34880
26

-
-
56790
70790
35395
56980
71680
35840
27
-
-
-
58740
72740
36730
58950
73650
36825
28



60750
74750
36370
61010
75710
37855
29



62820
76820
38410
63110
77810
38905
30



64950
78950
39475
65270
79970
39985
31



67000#
81400
40200
67000#
81700
40850


QS
Colonel
37400 -67000
 +8700 +6000
Brigadier
37400 - 67000
 + 8900 + 6000
Maj Gen
37400 - 67000
+10000

Basic
Total
Pension
Basic
Total
Pension
Basic
Total
Pension
18
43120
57820
28910






19
44680
59380
29690






20
46290
60990
30495






21
47940
62640
31320






22
49640
64340
32170






23
51390
66090
33045
53220
68120
34060



24
53200
67900
33950
55090
69990
34994



25
55060
69760
34880
57010
71910
35955



26
56980
71680
35840
58990
73890
36945



27
58950
73650
36825
61030
75930
37965
61090
71090
35545
28
61010
75710
37855
63130
78030
39015
63230
73230
36615
29
63110
77810
38905
65290
80190
40095
65430
75430
37715
30
65270
79970
39985
67000
81900
40950
67000
77000
38500
31
67000
81700
40850
67000
81900
40950
67000
77000
38500
32



67000
81900
40950
67000
77000
38500
33






67000
77000
38500
34






67000
77000
38500

*    Pay Band Rs 15600 - 39100
#    Lt Col/Col/Brig/Maj Gen Pay Band Rs 37400 – 67000

Are we to understand that every serving officer will have a different starting pay in every succeeding year for the same ranks and therefore we need equalisation?

Intelligent readers would recall that if an officer was already in the rank on 31.12.2005, his pay in the 6th CPC regime w.e.f 1.1.2006 was fixed after adding once increment. For Lt Cols it was Re 38530 against a start of scale of Rs 37400. Now look at the table below when thinking of equalisation: -

Rank

In the rank on 31.12.2005
Promoted on or after 1.1.2006 
Pay
GP
MSP
Total
Pension
Pay
GP
MSP
Total
Pension
Captain
18600
6100
6000
30700
15350
16860
6100
6000
28960
14480
Major
23810
6600
6000
36410
18205
21630
6600
6000
34230
17115
Lt Col
38530
8000
6000
52530
26265
37400
8000
6000
51400
25700
Col
43120
8700
6000
57820
28910
40890
8700
6000
55590
27795
Brig
55080
8900
6000
69980
34990
53220
8900
6000
68120
34060
Maj Gen
63000
10000
-
73000
36550
61090
10000
-
71090
35545

So is the demand for equalisation of pensions of those promoted after 1.1.2006 (hence with lesser QS) with the pensions of those who were in the specific rank on 31.12.2005 and consequently more QS, and in receipt of one increment on transition to 6th CPC?

So, intelligent ESM, where is the equalisation required, whether annually, or once in 5 years? To my mind, when the Govt accepts, approves, and implements the recommendations of the next Pay Commission or any other authority it may appoint for the purpose of review of pay scales etc the next equalisation would be appropriate.

Second ‘anomaly’ i.e. ‘fixation at the top of the bracket (band?) instead of the average’ is neither in the much quoted Koshiyari Report nor in earlier demands by IESM or any other ESM.

As intelligent readers are aware, there are just the following pay bands (bracket?) and Grade Pay: -

PB-3: - For Lts to Maj (and equivalent) the pay band is Rs 15600-39100 with GP for Lt Rs 5400, Capt 6100, Maj Rs 6600 plus a standard MSP of Rs 6000.     

PB-4: -For Lt Cols to Maj Lt Gens the pay band is Rs 37400 – 67000 with Grade pay of Rs 8000 for Lt Col, Rs 8700 for Cols, Rs 8900 for Brig and Rs 10000 for Maj Gen. MSP is applicable to Lt Cols to Brig and notional on promotion to Maj Gen such that his pay is higher than a Brig’s.

HAG: - For Lt Gens Rs 67000 -79000 & HAG+: - Rs 75500 – 80000 respectively.

So, what does IESM demand? That Lt, Capts and Maj have their fixation at Rs 39100 (+GP+ MSP)? That Lt Cols to Maj Gens (even Lt Gens in HAG at Rs 67000) have their fixation at Rs 67000 (+GP + MSP where applicable)?   

Third ‘anomaly’ is for implementation from 01.4.2014 instead of 1.7.2014 (with a resultant loss of 3 months arrears of OROP).

Maj Gen Satbir Singh was a co-petitioner in Maj Gen SPS Vains & Others vs UoI. He must have been made aware of that in D S Nakara Vs UoI, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: -

With reference to selection of the date this Court observed as under: "The choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of the reasonable mark"(emphasis supplied).

Fourth ‘anomaly’ is of computing the pension for Calendar year 2013 results in a loss of one increment [due in July 2013?].

Intelligent ESM know that the calendar year 2013 commences in January and ends in December while the FY 2013-4 commences in April 2013 and ends on 31 Mar 2014. Whether in AY 2013 or FY 2013-14 the next increment would be due in July 2013.

In the fifth ‘anomaly’, i.e. “passing on any future enhancements in pension to past pensioners, brings all ESM to the foundation of the OROP matter. Inclusion of the clause supports a very strong groundswell that MoD has deleted the clause, either without proper application of the mind, or worse, in a moment of pique. This anomaly needs to be removed for the sake of fairness and the promises made by the political executive.

In conclusion, in its exuberance of the meeting with Justice Reddy, it does not appear to have occurred to the think tank of IESM that solicitous remarks about the honourable Judge, about his brother and “the empathy” could encourage demands for recusal by the Judge; some on grounds that he may be sympathetic to ESM, others on the ground that he has let the brother’s case come in the way of “favourable” recommendations?    

28 comments:

  1. Your opinion is hundred percent correct. The misguided veterans are wasting their breath unnecessarily beating around the bush. Only the fifth ‘anomaly,' “passing on any future enhancements in pension to past pensioners,” requires correction as accepted by both houses of the Parliament long ago.

    ReplyDelete





























  2. Air Mshl Sir, I fully agree with your views. However, a raw deal has been accorded to PBOR in issuing the OROP Orders (PCDA Circular 555). Total Service rendered in IAF by WOs/MWOs/HFOs has been ignored. Instead a hypothetically created 'TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT" has been created to count pension of (say) Hony Fg Offr as 30 yrs while the fact is that no WO/MWO is promoted to HFO after rendering a qualifying service of 35 to 40 yrs. Pl refer Circular 555, Annexure X page 15 (For terms for engagement). Also, is it not against Natural Justice to deny pension for Actual Service render in IAF ? Instead of actual service rendered in IAF, we HFOs are sanctioned pension for so-called 'TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT" WHICH IS 22 TO 32 YRS of service. Why deny pension of total service rendered in IAF. Needless to mention that our petition to H.Justice Narsimha Reddy is assigned to dustbin. And from where MOD/DESW has invented Terms of Engagement of PBOR? Can they quote any IAF Rules/Regulations? Just ponder Sir, Sincerely HFOBLKalra


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir, I am not qualified in law to give an opinion but there are Regulations in the Defence Pension Regulations which are statutory in nature which may be referred to, particularly, Regs 8, 9, Sction 2, Reg 17, 27, etc and a few judgments of the Courts regarding reduction of pension below minimum pension fixed by Govt. You may wish to request someone with legal acumen to challenge the order of 03 Feb 16 in the AFT or a Court.

      Delete
  3. Your analysis is correct. In our over enthusiasm on OROP we somehow refuse to accept reason.only the fifth anomaly as mentioned by you needs rectification

    ReplyDelete
  4. very true sir.We seem to have missed the woods for the trees.
    The last ie fifth anomaly requires to be reconsidered.Rest appears reasonable.
    Ramani

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sir a very true analysis.Fifth anamoly needs to be correct which is inherent in OROP.
    However the second anamoly too needs to be corrected.ESM never demanded top of the bracket of pay band they only demanded maximum pension on real data of 2013 drawn by an esm of same rank with equal qualifying service which sounds very demanding in case of pbors as evident from orop tables because of groups and no uniform or time scale promotions before 1.1.2006.It sounds absolutely illogical when Sgt of Y group 21 yrs of QS is getting pension 7795 which is quite lesser than a cpl of X group of 15 yrs QS pension 8355 ( table no 7 circular 555). This is the reason esm demanding the maximum pension of a rank with equal QS across three services.Average of min and max for pbors is just an indirect refusal of prop.Top of the bracket of pay band is not an anamoly ever projected by any esm
    I would love to be corrected if noticed for any adverse comments thank u sir
    N S Chauhan Air Veteren

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sir, a very timely analysis.

    Most of the issues stem from a failure to define and clarify the precise logic of the ongoing process of, if one may call it, "protests, negotiations and representations".

    To be fair, in relation to observations on the "first anomaly", the primary misgiving can be on account of the possibility of a person in the same rank with equal service getting higher pension than a veteran in the same rank and with the same service who retired a year or two previously, thus leading to the protest about "one rank five pensions" etc. As you have so clearly pointed out, the matter of increments need not be a concern for veterans as long as OROP pension is the same pension for all who retired in the same rank with equal service. But IESM should consider publicly sharing the basis of their precise calculations which prove that such a thing as "1 Rank 5 Pensions" will actually happen if equalization is not done every year.

    Your observations on the "second anomaly" of "top of scale" again reveals the vagueness of statements made by representatives of ESM bodies on the issue. I also feel that taking an average of pensions is not the way to implement OROP. In the context of OROP, as defined, OROP pension should be the highest pension fixed for a pensioner in the same rank and with equal service retiring in the base year, presently calendar year 2013. That would ensure it would be "One Pension" for all retirees in that rank and with as much service. But phrases like "Top of the scale" have not helped to clarify these matters. The problem does arise when we think of the possibility of there being no retiree in Calendar year 2013 for a certain rank with a certain number of years of service.

    In such an event, the only rational calculation can be one based on highest pension that could accrue to a person serving in the base year (2013) in that rank with as much service as a past retiree. This pension would certainly be based on the actual stage of the pay-band the serving person was drawing pay in 2013. But this "top of the scale" argument serves to confuse issues.

    Then, the biggest anomaly of all, never clearly and fully dealt with by any ESM body, is of older pensioners with a fixed amount of service in ranks for which there can be no parallel in base year (2013). An example is an older permanently commissioned Sqn Ldr/Major/Lt Cdr retiree with 20 years of service. No one with a PC and 20 years of service would have served or retired in 2013 in those ranks. All officers with PCs and 20 years of service would have normally retired as Wg Cdr/Lt Col/Cdr in 2013, the ranks bring given on time-bound basis in both cases. So on what basis has the OROP of the older retirees been fixed when no one retired in the same rank and equal service in 2013? That is a point of principle never quite highlighted amid the protests heard since the implementation of OROP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apropos "a veteran who retired two years earlier in same rank and same service," the veteran would have started say at Rs 37400 and got the same number of increments as the later one with same rank and same service because he too would have started at Rs 37400.

      Re "second anomaly," please refer to the tables. In discussion with RM on 08.10.15, I had pointed out with tables (elsewhere in this blog). As for no retiree in 2013, I am sure those wizards of IDAS have heard of extrapolation i.e start the Lt Col at 14 years service Rs 3700 + 8000 + MSP and add increments on PB + GP every year till they arrive at the figure for the desired number of years. Please see table above.

      Ditto tables for past pensioners who were not benefited by AVSC. For example a Mjor peaks at Rs 39100 in the 24th years and so all earlier Veteran Majors will have the maximum of the pension of 24 years Major of 6th CPC vintage as on 1.7.2013.

      Delete
    2. Sir, It is absolutely clear what you have stated about increments. My point is, if the ESM bodies have very specific proof based on real arithmetic that "1 rank 5 pensions" will come about, then they should explain it to all concerned.

      As far as "extrapolations" go in relation to pre AVSC pensioners, then the only correct "extrapolation" or "notional progression" can be one based on reality and not some fanciful, rule-of-thumb "imagineering" by IDAS personnel. As an example, the only "notional progression" for fixing the pension of pre AVSC Sqn Ldr pensioners would be at the level actually attained nowadays (in base year 2013 for OROP), on time-bound basis, by an Officer retiree with equal service viz. at the level of pension of a 2013 Lt Col retiree with equal service.

      There is a simple logic to approach this. Why is there no Sqn Ldr retiree in 2013 with 20 years of service? Because they all became Wg Cdrs before retiring in that higher rank. It is their pension that should be the basis of the older Sqn Ldr's OROP pension and not some "extrapolated", "notional", imaginary level calculated in the pay-band applicable to Sqn Ldrs by an auditor. Nowhere in the Govt letters does the definition say anything about an "extrapolated pension".

      Delete
    3. Sir,

      The definition is just - same years of service, same rank, same pension amended to same rank, same years of service, average pension with pension above the average protected.

      Modalities is where the 'extrapolation' comes in. Please read Modalities for Calculation posted on this blog in March 2016 and Circular 557.

      Delete
    4. Sir, I had interacted on some of the blog-posts of March 2016, which if I recall correctly, related to 7 CPC.

      However Circular 557 was studied when it was first issued and was found to have no clarification on the anomaly I had mentioned. Item 8 under para 3 of the circular merely serves to highlight the gross anomaly of even dividing pensioners in Maj rank into several classes, those who retired with 21 years of service on or after 01-01-96 and those with the same service who had retired previously. The qiestion that is raised by this is whether such a differentiation, under OROP and nothing less, even rational?

      Item 7 under para 3 of the circular merely reaffirms the "principle" I had mentioned but for that there have to be actual retirees in that rank with the same rank in (base year) 2013.

      As has been mentioned on several other blogs, the real anomaly relates to all Maj retirees with 20 years of service or more who would have no equivalent corresponding retirees in base year (2013). The more I have read about this on other online forums the more convinced I am that the only rational, non-discriminatory and principle-based "modality", "extrapolation" or "notional progression" is to have the pensions of older Maj rank pensioners, with 20 years of service, based on the average of min and max pensions (if not the max pension) of actual Lt Col retirees with equal service in base year (2013). There are several established legal principles and precedents involved here and I aim to submit those on my blog in the coming weeks.

      It is not just the class of pensioners in rank of Sqn Ldr that is affected. There is a set of broad principles, with wider ramifications, at stake.

      Delete
    5. Please provide a link to your blog. Thanks

      Delete
    6. May I also be provided links to, quote "several established legal principles and precedents" and "the broad principles with wider ramifications, at stake."

      A query that I raised in 2014-2015 has never been replied in on the modalities of the demand for Lt Col's pensions for Maj with 20 or more years of service, but not Col's pensions for Lt Cols with more than 26 years of service, and Brigs pensions for Cols with 30 years or more of service. I hope you will be able to provide a comprehensive write up on your blog.

      Delete
    7. Sir,

      I'll certainly attempt to link up all relevant material which I have kept in raw draft stage in order not to pre-maturely comment on issues without collecting all relevant links or to seem to be blogging opinions on processes which are still ongoing and far from finalised, such as the deliberations of the one man judicial commission on OROP, various AFT cases on related matters filed by bodies such as TSEWA and also, now, the most current OROP litigation as reported on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColTekpal/status/742449003703345153


      I will go through your previous blog-posts that you have referred to in order to understand the context of what you have called "demands" of pensions for higher ranks.

      Sometime ago, I had come across some online legal initiative for equating pensions of retired LtCols(Select Grade) with pensions of Col(Select) pensioners, presumably without any co-relation to years of service put in by the LtCol(select grade) pensioners. I could not make head or tail of the logic advanced. I had expressed my "lack of understanding" of the issue in this blog post https://ashwanisarda.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/voodoo-math-of-lt-colsg-col-select/



      But in the case of the OROP related anomaly applicable to SqnLdr/Maj pensioners I have mentioned in my previous comments, the basis is that no one with a PC retired as SqnLdr/Maj with 20 years of service in base year 2013. All PC Officers who had been SqnLdr/Maj had become WgCdr/LtCol on time-bound basis before retiring in 2013. There is no such consideration applicable to older Gp Capt/Col retirees as officers with their years of service would have retired also in GpCapt/Col ranks in 2013, and on the same lines as my query in my blog-post relating to LtCol(SG) (linked to above), what would be the basis for fixing pension of an older Col pensioner equal to the pension of a 2013 Brig pensioner when the Col pensioner was not selected for promotion to rank of Brig before retirement?

      Also, as I understand it from past online discussions on the subject, the concept of fixing a pension equal to that of a higher rank can have a basis in the case of ranks given on time-bound basis and keeping in view the same years of service even though in different time-bound ranks. The older Maj pensioners' entitlement to pension of a 2013 Lt Col pensioner arises out of the fact these are both time-bound ranks and both have the same number of years of service to their credit with the same type of commission.

      The same sort of consideration seems to apply to older Lt Col (both select or time-scale) pensioners who had served for as many years as 2013 pensioners in GpCapt(TS)/Col(TS) ranks.

      If at some stage even higher ranks such as that of Brig become time-bound, in some fashion or the other, perhaps older Col retirees with the same years of service could have a case for equal pension under OROP on the basis of years of service. That is not to argue against their "demand" being met in the present based on some other unknown criterion acceptable to the Government.

      Regards

      Delete
  7. The two anomalies which are contentious are fixing pensions in the spirit of the definition of orop which states" same rank,same service, same pension" and passing all future enhancements "automatically" to the pensioner. While not being so explicit in the definition, it is assumed that the pension being so fixed is the highest in the same rank, same service(in this case pensions of 2013).The latter does not say yearly, as interpreted, but as and when a difference arises, pensions are equated. Now if the former requirement is met and the latter fulfilled, the question of yearly equalisation is only mandatory if a difference arises. The two conditions are interlinked. The term equalisation needs to be understood for fixing of pensions. Surprising is the manner in which the figures have been derived. Could anyone tell me how figs for pension in any one rank have been derived? The tables above show a very large difference in the pensions given in orop tables. This difference will further widen as and when 7cpc is implemented. Difference into the fitment factor....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @batsy, MoD has denied me the information on methodology of calculations for the OROP tables quoting Sec 8 (1).

      The table above is a simple derivative from 50% of PB + GP + annual Increment on PB & GP + MSP.

      Delete
    2. @aerial view. My firm view is that automatic tfr of enhancements does not mean yearly,but it cannot b taken to be five years. A live example Brig SM retd on 31.12.2015 with a pension of 40500. I as a 30jun 2006 retiree am at 37570(orop).As and when 7 CPC is implemented,the diff in our pensions will be a multiple of the fitment factor? In 2018, Brig SM Murari coursemates who retired,day, in Jan of 2016, may have more pension than him. Brigs pension say in 2018 or any rank for that matter will be more than OROP pensions. My calculations say that diff would be around 15000!!
      @@@ Sir do you remember a mail re my own pension fixation in 2006? Sought some views from you. May I send you the mail again?

      Delete
    3. Sir,

      Do you have the same number of years of QS as Brig SM when he retired, and in the same rank?

      if I presume, only for the sake of discussion, Brig SM had 33 years of service when he retired and drew a pension amount mentioned. Any course mate of his who retires after him if he has more service will draw 50% of his PB + GP + MSP, plus an increment if it is more than 6 months since the last increment on that date of retirement.

      Sir, I will not speculate on what will happen in 2018, because I don't know when and in what shape 7 CPC recs will be approved and, more importantly, implemented.

      Delete
    4. @aerial view. I retd in the pre 06 era in force. Weightage factor,stag increments applicable. Late promotion,i picked up brig rk at 29. Yrs, SMM picked up at 26, I retd with two stag increments. SM had a running scale. I did 5.5 yrs as brig. SMM must have done 9-10 yrs at least. How do you reconcile pre 06 with post 06?

      Delete
  8. Sir, I agree with your analysis, especially of increments. While reading or listening to Maj Gen Satbir Singh, it is felt that he is driven more by sentiments than facts. However, I am sure that the OROP in its present from is only due to the untiring efforts by he and his team.

    Major beneficiaries of OROP are SD/SL officers. Because of QS is taken for pension against the earlier rule of commissioned service, they get a big jump. Most SL officers serve till superannuation and hence have maximum QS. Now a Sl Lt.Col get more pension than a Col or even Brigadier who took PMR. Even among SL officers, there is discrepancy. A SL Lt.Col retired in Jun 2013 with a QS of 35 years but with a commissioned service of 18 years will get much more pension than another SL Lt.Col with 18 is commissioned service retired in Dec Jul 2014 or later because, OROP is not applicable to those who retired in July 2014 or later as of now. This is ridiculous. Commissioned officers pension has to be based total commissioned service in a particular rank and not based on QS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir(s),

      I will not question your opinion on what the General did or did not do,but suffice it to state that there were, to my knowledge others who played their silent roles.

      All SD/SL/BC officers have had their service in the ranks taken into consideration for pension even before OROP came into existence. It was 1/3, then 2/3 and finally full service. I know because service in the ranks had not been taken into consideration for a BC officer and the PPO was corrected and an arrears of Rs 1.6 lakh paid.

      Post 1.1.2006, pensions are based on 50% of the average of total emoluments of last 10 months. So those who retired in AY 2013 and with whose pension OROP is being evaluated and implemented could have a scale to compare. Only difference being, pension paid after 1.1.2006 is the actual 50% and not an average of all those who retired in the same rank and with same QS i.e. those retiring before completing less than 6 months from last increment will one increment less in the total reckonable emoluments.

      Your wish, of service in the particular rank, has been fulfilled by the average pension, which may are not happy with. It takes into consideration who has the highest period in a rank, hence highest pay/pension and the lowest period in a rank and therefore lowest pay/pension for the same number of years of service.

      Delete
    2. Considering past service was making sense pre 2006.But,now with 50% last drawn salary as pension, it's irrelevant. Though past service was considered prior to 2006, the pension was based on the last drawn salary. As per your chart, a SL Lt.Col with 18 years of commissioned service is supposed to get a salary of 57120. So, maximum pension of that SL officer retiring now will be 28560 where as another SL Lt.Col retired before July 2014 with 18 years commissioned service is getting around 35000 as his OROP pension which is around 60% of the salary of a serving SL Lt.Col with 18 years of commissioned service which in my opinion is undue benefit.

      Delete
    3. Sir,

      May I request you to read Defence Services Regulations, Defence Pension Regulations No. 17 Note 4 reproduced below: -
      "Note 4: - Full pre-Commissioned service rendered under the Central Government whether in a civil department or in the Armed Forces, shall be taken into account for working out the qualifying service for earning pensionary benefits subject to fulfillment of other conditions. This will also be counted for determining the minimum qualifying service indicated in Regulation 34, 47 & 168 of these Regulations for earning retiring/service pension."

      Delete
    4. 'Veterans' Sir, what is that "undue benefit?" We serve many years in the ranks, much more than you do in NDA/IMA to earn that service. We also undergo tests for fitness to be considered for SL, the same Selections Boards, and are found fit to be commissioned. How can you deprive us of our rights assured by DSR, DPR - 2008 etc? Also you are showing your arrogance by disregarding Supreme Court ruling that there cannot be sub-classes within an officers cadre.

      Delete
    5. Taaza Khabar - I think you have misunderstood. I am not commenting on the capability or lowering the status of SL officers. But, I wanted to emphasize that as per OROP, same pension for same rank and same number of years of service so that no junior can earn more pension than senior. With QS is taken instead of commissioned service, junior can earn more pension than senior. This is against the principle of OROP. Earlier, when maximum pension (50%) was applicable to those who have a QS of 33 years, there was some meaning in considering the lower deck service. Now, with 50% of last drawn pay being the pension for both civilians and us, taking lower deck service is not relevant. So, pension regulations itself needs to be amended.

      Delete
  9. Sir…… The orop fixation of 15 yrs. gp x Sgt is 8585..now a gp x Sgt retiring in year 2013 must have got recruited in year 1998 hence his basic pension as on 2013 should be as per his promotion from lac to Sgt which can be worked out from promoted to next rank to lac cpl and sgt and can be worked out as 15/07/98 lac,15/07/2003 cpl,01/12/2011 Sgt with basic 17240 and final basic in 2013 18090/2= 9045..
    So how orop basic 8585 is fixed ... and there is no rationale to it and mod has denied the information under rti act section 8(1)..
    So top of the scale is possible way out (the pensions of pbor are fixed at top of the scale/notional maximum)...if not average of min/max in year 2013…( it seems there is where the issuance of payment instruction for delinking of 33 yrs payment circular is delayed between notional maximum/mgp)
    The annualization can be beneficial in above case bcz in subsequent yrs there can be a scenario that a same placed Sgt may have earned more increment resulting in higher fixation of orop basic…
    so defense veterans are being tossed between myth and truth and finally getting fooled by the system..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir,

      To be honest, we can be rational and think clearly if only we get out of that "getting fooled by the system" syndrome.

      If you read Circular 501 of 17.1.2013, pension was to be paid from 24.9.2012 on the "notional maximum across three services."

      Then came the judgment reverting the pension arrears date to 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012. With that circular 547 changed to the "minimum of the fitment table," like it is for civilians and for officers.

      In your search you will find some ESM filed appeals based on the judgments for the above arrears. And the rest is history.

      Has any one requested why the change took place when it was approved by the Govt, based on CSC Recommendations, that it would "notional maximum"? Your reply would throw some light.

      Issue of orders for payment without pro-rata deduction is, as per DESW, with MoF/Deptt of Expenditure for concurrence.

      Delete