Friday, 17 June 2016

Point by Point Rebuttal



Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it.”


- G. K. Chesterton

This is a point by point rebuttal of Cdr Pathak’s email of 13 Jun 16.

 Cdr Pathak wrote: -

 It was indeed sad to find your mail reaching me via someone else. It was expected that at your Rank and seniority you would have the courtesy of at least sharing your valuable pearls of wisdom with those whom you accuse of inability to think. May be we would have been made to rethink.

Rebuttal: -

In the post, at the very beginning,  it was stated that it was not for those who are supporters of IESM/Maj Gen Satbir Singh nor was the post for accusers of wrongdoing by IESM. The reason was one lot would be biased in favour, the opposition would be biased against.

The post also stated that it was for rational and knowledgeable and well-informed readers who may or may not agree with me. There have been 1500 such readers of that post and 28 comments till now.

   
 
Cdr Pathak wrote:  Yes sir you are right .The Koshiyari Committee, the KP Singhdeo Committee (Original introducer of concept of OROP), the GOI when it declared the definition of OROP in Parliament (emphasis supplied) as the exact one to what Koshiyari Committee had given and of course the service Hq which made the DGL were all incapable of thinking, for all of us stood at the end of the queue when god dished out the capability to think. Yes i saw you heading the queue no wonder we all got nothing. Amazing the number of people you think are incapable of thinking.

Rebuttal: - The definition of OROP was not declared in Parliament and it is “the exact one what Koshyari Committee had given.” Only closing the gap for all retires in all ranks and acceptance of the principle of One Rank One Pension was announced in Parliament in the speech by then Finance Minister. Here is the extract from the Min of Fin website: - 

Interim Budget presented by Shri P Chidambaram on 17 Feb 2014 (source: www.indiabudget.nic.in/budget2014-2015(I)/ub2014-15/bs/bs.pdf)

One Rank One Pension

56. Hon’ble Members are aware of the long standing demand of the Defence Services for One Rank One Pension (OROP). It is an emotive issue, it has legal implications, and it has to be handled with great sensitivity. During the tenure of the UPA Governments, changes in the pension rules applicable to the defence services were notified on three occasions in 2006, 2010, and 2013. As a result, the gap between pre-2006 retirees and post-2006 retirees has been closed in four ranks (subject to some anomalies that are being addressed): Havildar, Naib Subedar, Subedar, and Subedar Major. There is still a small gap in the ranks of Sepoy and Naik and a gap in the ranks of Major and above. We need a young fighting force, we need young jawans, and we need young officers. We also need to take care of those who served in the defence forces only for a limited number of years. Government has therefore decided to walk the last mile and close the gap for all retirees in all ranks. I am happy to announce that Government has accepted the principle of One Rank One Pension for the defence forces. This decision will be implemented prospectively from the financial year 2014-15. The requirement for 2014-15 is estimated at Rs 500 crore and, as an earnest of the UPA Government’s commitment, I propose to transfer a sum of Rs 500 crore to the Defence Pension Account in the current financial year itself (emphasis supplied).

Budget 2014-2015: Speech of Arun Jaitley Minister of Finance July 10, 2014 (source: finmin.nic.in/fmspeech/fm_budgetspeech_july2014.pdf)

One Rank One Pension

140. We reaffirm our commitment to our brave soldiers. A policy of “One Rank One Pension” has been adopted by the Government to address the pension disparities. We propose to set aside a further sum of Rs 1,000 crore to meet this year’s requirement (emphasis supplied).

Budget  2015-2016: Speech  of Arun Jaitley Minister of Finance February 28,  2015
(Source: indiabudget.nic.in/budget2015-2016/bspeecha.asp: - There was no mention of OROP.

The definition of OROP was given by then Raksha Mantri not in Parliament but in a meeting chaired by him in MoD, with FA (DS), CGDA, Vice Chiefs. It was committed to paper vide MoD ID No. 12 (01)/2014-D (Pen/Pol) dated 26 Feb 14. It is recorded, inter alia, as follows: -

3. It was noted that “One Rank One Pension” 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. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to past pensioners.”    

Cdr Pathak wrote: Now coming to the some of the points raised by you.

 First in all when quoting a plethora of court cases and judgements you forgot to mention that there is also a concept also introduced by court which says Pension is deferred wage. Am i right? If you have doubt pls raise a RTI and find out.

Rebuttal: - The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced “Deferred Compensation” not ‘Deferred Wage.’ The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed this on 17 Dec 1982 in D S Nakara & others vs UoI, quote, Para 3 (ii) “The pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered” unquote.

Deferred compensation is an arrangement in which a portion of an employee's income is paid out at a later date after which the income was actually earned. Examples of deferred compensation include pensions, retirement plans, and employee stock options” (source: Wikipedia)  
 Cdr Pathak wrote:         Equalization every five years. So your argument seems to suggest that the government was not thinking when it notified the definition of OROP and asked the DESW and CGDA to work and prepare tables. Thanks for showing your faith in your own GOI (emphasis supplied). Having notified the definition as "Implies that uniform pension be  paid to  the Defence 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”

Rebuttal: - The task of preparing the modalities and the methodology for implementing the OROP was given to a Joint Working Group (JWG) chaired by then CGDA, representatives of MoD, Chairmen and members of PARC/Navy Pay Commission Cell, Army Pay Commission Cell, and Air Force Pay Commission Cells. Services HQ had the option of consulting with ESM organisations/associations, which it never exercised. The alleged DGL (shown to be dated 24 Apr 2014 in the version emailed to me), and different editions were supposedly worked out by Service HQ. But on 24 Apr 2014, minutes of the JWG indicate that there was no clarity on many points of differences e.g. Definition of OROP (whether what the Finance Minister announced in Parliament of closing the gap or what the Raksha Mantri implied is the last word); Interpretation of the term “uniform pension,”; Interpretation of length of service (is it total service or service in the rank); and modalities for automatically passing on benefit of future enhancements in rate of pension when the above differences were resolved. JWG held five meetings and never met after the presentation by CGDA and Services HQ on 12 Jun 2014 in the office of then Defence Minister, who advised both to resolve the issue mutually.

My (lack) of faith in the GoI is not the issue neither the contradiction that I am toeing the GoI’s line (he has used ‘towing’ (sic). 

 Cdr Pathak wrote: - can you pls let the world know through your RTI knowledge how the definition changed to

Rebuttal: - Replies to RTI requests provide information not knowledge. Correlating replies with other documented facts provide knowledge. Obviously, Cdr Pathak has never accessed all the information on Aerial View.

Cdr Pathak wrote: Of course the Koshiyari Committee of 31 MPs (emphasis supplied) cutting across all political parties were not capable of thinking and where blind followers of Gen Satbir Singh. How very convenient to condemn one while towing (sic) the GOI line (emphasis supplied).

Rebuttal: - The Koshyari Committee on Petitions was an ad hoc Committee and comprised the Chairman and 9 members. The Committee on Petitions will examine every petition referred to it. The recommendations of the Committee on the Petition are presented in the form of a Report to the Rajya Sabha where after the recommendations receive the consideration of the appropriate Ministry of the Government of India. This process is monitored by the Committee on Petitions. The accompanying piece below lists the members of the Committee on OROP. It may also be verified from the Committee Report available on the internet. The Committee did not consist of 31 MPs  as the news report below will prove beyond any reasonable doubt. It also shows that till 13 Jun 2016  Cdr Pathak has never read the Koshyari Committee Report.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Bhagat Singh Koshyari on OROP: - Where is discipline? Veterans behaving like labour unions:

 

Bhagat Singh Koshyari, former Uttarakhand Chief Minister and veteran of the BJP and RSS who submitted his committee's report on OROP in December 2011 to the Parliament, today broke his silence in an exclusive interview and lashed out at veterans for the poor manner in which they, in his opinion, had conducted themselves.


Bhagat Singh Koshyari

For
He is one politician whose name emerges on every occasion when there is a discussion on vexed issue of One Rank One Pension (OROP). As the protesting veterans and representatives of the government lock horns, it is definition of OROP framed by this veteran, in his earlier stint in Rajya Sabha, which lies at the heart of the battle. When Bhagat Singh Koshyari, former Uttarakhand Chief Minister and veteran of the BJP and RSS submitted his committee's report, in December 2011 to the Parliament, it was hailed for its pro-soldier stand in support of OROP. Today, he broke his silence in an exclusive interview and lashed out at veterans for the poor manner in which they, in his opinion, had conducted themselves.

In remarks which may irk the protesting veterans, the septuagenarian at his Lodhi Estate residence in the heart of New Delhi said, "May be some in the agitation are thinking just because the government is listening to them they should squeeze out as much as possible. Greed may be playing a part. I can't rule out that there may be political motivations to this issue as well after all a party has ruled for six decades almost and we didn't see such things and this government is barely a year old and you are upping the ante in this form!" The protesting veterans have maintained that their agitation is apolitical and had in fact disallowed Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi when he tried to address them at Jantar Mantar on August 14. "They say once a soldier, always a soldier. Discipline is their defining attribute. Yet see how they are conducting them selves. If they continue like this, like how ordinary people or labour unions do, I can only say they will end up damaging the stature of the armed forces," he added.

According to him the government had walked more than '99 per cent' on its promise. "Need for showing flexibility and open mindedness is now for the protesters. A great soldier always knows that sometimes he may have to retreat to get to his main goal," he said.

While the protesting veterans have more than once alleged that the bureaucrats have undone the OROP, Koshyari confirmed this. "When we were listening to all stakeholders over OROP, we did come across strong opposition from large number of government employees, including senior bureaucrats. However we over-ruled them in favour of our soldiers because OROP is needed," he said.

According to Koshyari, the prevailing impasse is only and only because of the 'rigidity displayed by the ex-servicemen' (emphasis supplied). "I have no advice to give to the government. Both the PM and Defence Minister want it and bureaucracy is no longer a hurdle. Re-think over the issue is required by the veterans. They should withdraw," he concluded (emphasis supplied).

What was the Koshyari committee and what did it say on OROP?

From 2010, Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions deliberated on the issue of granting OROP to armed forces and submitted its report on December 19, 2011. While it was chaired by Koshyari, it consisted of nine more members including Ram Vilas Paswan, Nandi Yellaiah, Rajeev Shukla, Avinash Pande, Bal Apte, P Rajeeve, Veer Pal Singh Yadav, Paul Manoj Pandian and Rajaram (emphasis supplied for the Cdr Pathak’s attention). It went through over 200 submissions from different organizations including the armed forces. Among its findings:

- Finance Ministry's concern that if granted to armed forces, OROP may be sought by other govt employees was unconvincing

- Unconvinced by the hurdles which the MoD portrayed existed in the implementation of OROP

- Decision of third pay commission to bring down the pay and pension of armed forces on the pattern of civilians was not a considered decision.

- OROP should be implemented at the earliest.

- Separate commission should look into the issues of pay and pension of the armed forces.

(Source – India today)  

Equalisation or the periodicity is not one of the finding! For more on the Committee of Petitions. Website http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/rs_rule/rulesdrpscs.asp gives details of the nature of the reports and the further action by concerned Ministries.    
 Rebuttal: -       Two Committees of  14th and 15th Lok Sabha Committees’ demand for implementing reduction to promotion time frames and ages of Armed Forces have been selectively implemented.   

Cdr Pathak wrote: It is said and quoted that the service as having accepted 5 year equalization. Kindly go through the Koshiyari committee report extract reproduced below  

He (Army Rep) further submitted that there is administrative difficulty on the part of the Ministry that pensioners cannot be given increment every year. So, perpetually they will never be at par with current retirees. As a way out, he suggested fixing a period of five years or every Pay Commission to Pay Commission, for bringing all pensioners at par. He suggested a similar exercise for the family pensioners also. Even the Air Hq agreed with the above statement of the Army HQ. Having heard the service Hq where the committee recommended the definition as below: -

“Implies  that uniform pension  be  paid to  the Defence 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”

 After noting the above and the obvious DESW statement of administrative  difficulties it was stated that  "The  Committee is not convinced with the hurdles projected by the  Ministry of Defence (D/o Ex-Servicemen Welfare) in  implementing of OROP for defence personnel. They have  categorized the hurdles into administrative, legal and  financial. The financial aspect has already been dealt with
 by the Committee. So far as the administrative angle is  concerned, the Committee is given to understand that all the  existing pensioners/ family pensioners are still drawing  their pension / family pension based upon the lawfully  determined pension / family pension. In that case, revision  of their pension / family pension, prospectively, as a one  time measure should not pose any administrative
 hurdle. Of course the Koshiyari committee members were not thinking.

Rebuttal: -  Neither of the demands, annual or five yearly equalisation are in the recommendations of the Koshyari Committee Report at Para 11.
 
Cdr Pathak wrote: -Now when the definition was given to the Reddy committee were any reason on administrative grounds, put forward to change to 5 years or the administrative difficulties being faced. No sir. But of course what do we know who are incapable of thinking or understanding. 

Rebuttal: - Reddy Committee’s functioning will be subject of the judgment of the Honourable High Court of Delhi in the S P Singh Vs UoI case admitted on 01 Jun 16. No comments are offered.  

Rebuttal - Equalisations: -     


The definition is at Para 3 and preceded the submissions of different stake-holders and not after hearing the stakeholders.

Yes, the Army (quoted at Para 6.4) suggested fixing every 5 years or every Pay Commission to Pay Commission for bringing all pensioners at par.

The Air Force representative  (quoted at Para 6.5) “submitted that to bridge this gap the suggestion regarding fixation of pay in five year period or Pay Commission to Pay Commission was a good one and informed the Committee that the long pending issue may be sorted this way.”

Nowhere in the findings in Para 10 or Observations/Recommendations in Para 11, has the Koshyari Committee suggested any equalisation.

While on the subject of equalisation, yearly or five yearly, or Pay Commission to Pay Commission, Cdr Pathak may wish to read Para 3 of the Koshyari Committee Report where the definition is and where no periodicity is mentioned/specified, but also Para 11.5 wherein it states, inter alia, “….In that case, revision of their pension/family pension, prospectively, as a one time measure (emphasis supplied) should not pose any administrative hurdle……”   

The need for equalisation due to bunching (based on the bunching happening in the transition from the 4th CPC’s integrated pay scale to rank based pay scales of the 5th CPC)  appears to have been voiced by Services representatives to the Koshiyari Committee (in 2010-11). It had already been taken care of vide Section II, Para 7 of SAI/SNI/SAFI 2/S/2008 and in Annexure I to SAI/SNI/SAFI 3/S/2008. The re-fixation ensured that bunching did not take place at more than two consecutive stages in the transition from 5th CPC’s pay scales & Rank Pay to the 6th CPC’s Pay Bands, Grade Pay, and Military Service Pay. The tables (from App ‘C’ to SAI/SNI/SAFI 2 /S/2008 and revised tables for Lt Cols from Annexure I to SAI/SNI/SAFI 3/S/2008) are appended below: -

Annexure I to SAI 3/S/2008

Rank – Lt Colonel
Pre-revised Scale
Revised Pay Band PB-4+ Grade Pay + MSP
13500-400-17100
Rs 37400-67000 + Rs 8000 + Rs 6000
Pre-revised Basic Pay
Revised Pay
Pay in the scale
Rank Pay
Pay in the Pay Band
Grade Pay
MSP
Total Revised Pay
13500
1600
38530
8000
6000
52530
13900
1600
38530
8000
6000
52530
14300
1600
39690
8000
6000
53690
14700
1600
39690
8000
6000
53690
15100
1600
40890
8000
6000
54890
15500
1600
40890
8000
6000
54890
15900
1600
42120
8000
6000
56120
16300
1600
42120
8000
6000
56120
16700
1600
43390
8000
6000
57390
17100
1600
43390
8000
6000
57390
17500
1600
44700
8000
6000
58700
17900
1600
44700
8000
6000
58700
18300
1600
46050
8000
6000
60050


Rank – Colonel (Time Scale)
Pre-revised Scale
Revised Pay Band PB-4+ Grade Pay + MSP
15100-450-17350
Rs 37400-67000 + Rs 8700 + Rs 6000
Pre-revised Basic Pay
Revised Pay
Pay in the scale
Rank Pay
Pay in the Pay Band
Grade Pay
MSP
Total Revised Pay
15100
1600
40890
8700
6000
55590
15550
1600
40890
8700
6000
55590
16000
1600
42120
8700
6000
56820
16450
1600
42120
8700
6000
56820
16900
1600
43390
8700
6000
58090
17350
1600
43390
8700
6000
58090
17800
1600
44700
8700
6000
59400
18250
1600
44700
8700
6000
59400
18700
1600
46050
8700
6000
60750

App ‘C’ to SAI 2/S/2008

Rank – Colonel
Pre-revised Scale
Revised Pay Band PB-4+ Grade Pay + MSP
15100-450-17350
Rs 37400-67000 + Rs 8700 + Rs 6000
Pre-revised Basic Pay
Revised Pay
Pay in the scale
Rank Pay
Pay in the Pay Band
Grade Pay
MSP
Total Revised Pay
15100
2000
40890
8700
6000
55590
15550
2000
42120
8700
6000
56820
16000
2000
42120
8700
6000
56820
16450
2000
43390
8700
6000
58090
16900
2000
43390
8700
6000
58090
17350
2000
44700
8700
6000
59040
17800
2000
44700
8700
6000
59400
18250
2000
46050
8700
6000
60750
18700
2000
46050
8700
6000
60750


Rank – Brigadier
Pre-revised Scale
Revised Pay Band PB-4+ Grade Pay + MSP
16700-450-18050
Rs 37400-67000 + Rs 8900 + Rs 6000
Pre-revised Basic Pay
Revised Pay
Pay in the scale
Rank Pay
Pay in the Pay Band
Grade Pay
MSP
Total Revised Pay
16700
2400
43390
8900
6000
58290
17150
2400
44700
8900
6000
59600
17600
2400
44700
8900
6000
59600
18050
2400
46050
8900
6000
60950
18500
2400
46050
8900
6000
60950
18950
2400
47440
8900
6000
62340
19400
2400
47440
8900
6000
62340


Rank – Maj Gen
Pre-revised Scale
Revised Pay Band PB-4+ Grade Pay + MSP
18400-500-22400
Rs 37400-67000 + Rs 10000
Pre-revised Basic Pay
Revised Pay
Pay in the scale
Pay in the Pay Band
Notional MSP
Total in Pay Band
Grade Pay
Total Revised Pay
18400
44700
6000
50700
10000
60700
18900
46050
6000
52050
10000
62050
19400
46050
6000
52050
10000
62050
19900
47400
6000
53440
10000
63440
20400
47400
6000
53440
10000
63440
20900
48870
6000
54870
10000
64870
21400
48870
6000
54870
10000
64870
21900
50340
6000
56340
10000
66340
22400
51850
6000
57850
10000
67850
22900
53410
6000
59410
10000
69410
23400
0
55020
6000
61020
10000
71020
23900
0
56680
6000
62680
10000
72680

Would there be bunching when the dynamic pay in the Pay band + Grade Pay (and 3% annual increments thereon) + MSP as prevailing in 2013 is taken as the datum?

Cdr Pathak: - Averaging of Min and Max. You have given a well thought out thesis on the subject. Of course we are incapable of thinking so we don't understand how after averaging those above the average get protected and those below are upgraded to average and this becomes one rank one pension. Sorry but a silly question from someone who is not capable of thinking? One can go on but this is enough to expose your mind and thinking. We all know you also put these points to the special meeting you had with RM .We hope the  Reddy committee will be able to think correctly even if you  do a presentation to them.

Rebuttal: - Since the Reddy Committee’s functioning is subject of the case in  the Honourable High Court of Delhi in the S P Singh Vs UoI case admitted on 01 Jun 16, no comments are offered.  

Cdr Pathak:  Sir i had held you in high esteem but you have proven that i was wrong. I have a request if you are not interested in OROP as accepted by the UPA and  NDA originally  and promulgated and announced in the  parliament so be it. But please don't interfere in efforts of those who wish to ensure that OROP as promulgated is given for the benefit of the larger ESM community.

Misrepresentation about lowering of pay and pensions by 3rd CPC (forwarding an email from a Capt (IN) Bala)

The 3rd CPC in its report states that Armed Forces Pension Revision Committee 1970 granted Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to Armed Forces PBORs in September 1970. DCRG (maximum of Rs 24000) was available on to the Govt’s civilian employees till then. In keeping with the methodology followed for Govt’s civilian employees, a proportion of the PBORs pension was reduced to offset the DCRG.

Cdr Pathak had sought documents from anybody, with bcc to this author, to prove that the pension of PBORs was reduced from 70% to 50%. Mistaken by his apparent turning over a new leaf, I sent pdf copy of Volume III of the 3rd CPC’s Report by email. He does not appear to have informed any one of those suffering from the disease induced by Cdr Pathak’s economy with the truth, the contents of Paras 38, 43, 44 of Part II of Chapter 53 of the 3rd CPC Report which state as follows: -       

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 (emphasis supplied). The emoluments for calculating pensions comprise basic pay and other items reckonable as pay, e.g. good service pay, as also the notional value of the home saving element which varies according to rank. The pension amounts have, however, been worked for each rank in the various pay groups for different lengths of colour service and not separately for individual Servicemen. The Serviceman is entitled to the pension of the rank held by him for at least two years prior to the date of retirement whether in acting or a substantive capacity, but marginal shortages in the qualifying service or in the rank can be condoned.
   ……………..

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 (emphasis supplied).      

44.    As for the emoluments to be taken into account for the purpose of determining pension, the existing practice is to include basic pay, rank pay, increments of pay, good service pay, dearness pay and the notional home saving element. With the introduction of the revised scales, rank pay and dearness pay will cease to exist. Basic pay is taken as the maximum of the scale except that in the case of Army personnel below JCO rank, the basic pay is taken as the mean of the lowest and the highest class of the concerned pay group. We suggest that for purposes of pension, the emoluments in the case of the personnel below officer rank should include the maximum of the pay scale of the rank on the concerned pay group and the notional amount of the home saving element. In regard to good service pay, we feel that the right approach would be to include two rates i.e. Rs 8 in the case of Naiks and three rates i.e Rs 12 in the case of Havildars. In the other two Services, one rate i.e. Rs 10 for Leading Seamen and Corporals and three rates for Petty Officers and Sergeants and above should be included in the emoluments reckoned for pension. In the Army, personnel below JCO rank also have the opportunity of earning additional pay on improving their class in the pay group to which they belong. In line with the existing practice, we recommend that half the maximum amount that can be earned by a serviceman in the form of class pay in his pay group should also be included in the emoluments reckoned for pension.  

Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in D S Nakara Vs UoI as follows: -

The First Central Pay Commission (1946-47) recommended that the age of retirement in future should be uniformly 58 years for all services and the scale of pension should be 1/80 of the emoluments for each year of service, subject to a limit of 35/80 with a ceiling of Rs. 8,000 per year for 35 years of service, which the Government of India while accepting the recommendation raised to Rs. 8,100 per year which would earn a monthly pension of Rs. 675 at the maximum.

The Second Central Pay Commission (1957-58) re-affirmed that the age of superannuation should be 58 years for all classes of public servants but did not recommend any increase in the non-contributory retirement benefits and recommended that if in future any improvement is to be made, it was the considered view of the Commission that these benefits should be on a contributory basis.

The Administrative Reforms Commission ('ARC' for short) set up by the Government of India in 1956 took note of the fact that the cost of living has shot up and correspondingly the possibility of savings has gone down and consequently the drop in wages on retirement is in reality much steeper than what the quantum of pension would indicate, and accordingly the ARC recommended that the quantum of pension admissible may be raised to 3/6 of the emoluments of the last three years of service as against the existing 3/8 and the ceiling should be raised from Rs. 675 p.m. to Rs. 1000 p.m. Before the Government could take its decision on the recommendations of the ARC, the Third Central Pay Commission was set up.

One of the terms of reference of the Third Pay Commission was 'death-cum- retirement benefits of Central Government employees'. The Third Pay Commission did not examine the question of relief to pensioners because in its view unless the terms of reference were suitably amended it would not be within their jurisdiction to examine this question and on a reference by them, the Government of India decided not to amend the terms of reference.

With regard to the future pensioners the Third Pay Commission while reiterating that the age of superannuation should continue to be 58 years further recommended that no change in the existing formula for computing pension is considered necessary (emphasis supplied). The only important recommendation worth noticing is that the Commission recommended that the existing ceiling of maximum pension should be raised from Rs. 675 to Rs. 1,000 p.m. and the maximum of the gratuity should be raised from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 30,000.

On May 25, 1979, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, issued Office Memorandum No. F-19(3)-EV-79 whereby the formula for computation of pension was liberalised but made it applicable to Government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retire from service on or after that date (specified date for short). The formula introduced a slab system for computation of pension. This liberalised pension formula was applicable to employees governed by the 1972 Rules retiring on or after the specified date. The pension for the service personnel which will include Army, Navy and Air Force staff is governed by the relevant regulations. By the Memorandum of the Ministry of Defence bearing No. B/40725/AG/PS4-C/1816/AD (Pension)/Services dated September 28, 1979, the liberalised pension formula introduced for the government servants governed by the 1972 rules was extended to the Armed Forces personnel subject to limitations set out in the memorandum with a condition that the new rules of pension would be effective from April 1, 1979, and may be applicable to all service officers who become/became non-effective on or after that date (for short specified date) (emphasis supplied).

Cdr Pathak: - Kindly keep your valuable views to your self and don't damage the efforts to get the real OROP as promulgated.

Rebuttal: -        What is the meaning of the word promulgate? Dictionaries define promulgate as to officially put a law into effect. MoD has promulgated implementation of OROP vide its letter dated 07 Nov 2015.

Damage has already been caused by those referred to earlier by no less a personage than Shri Koshyari, whose report is quoted profusely, has expressed his opinion. Further damage has been done by wrongly claiming that the Koshyari Committee definition of OROP as “same rank, same years of service, same amount of pension” was announced in Parliament because what was announced in Parliament was bridging the gap between past and present pensioners. It is in Para 2 of the implementation order dated 07 Nov 2015.  

By fearing invective and keeping silent, I will only embolden them to force, threaten, coerce, and hold us hostage to accept their and only their point of view, opinion and become their slaves in an independent, sovereign republic of India. If other ESM agree with the views expressed in the email, it is as much their right to do so, as much as it is my right to bring up documented facts.

In concluding, I quote Justice B N Srikrishna who wrote “People who pursue the truth single-mindedly must of necessity tread the lonely path beset with travails and tribulations bereft of expectations of help from anyone except their own conscience to guide them.”   

Avtar Singh wrote : - On 14 June 2016 at 09:48, avtar singh <billuk47@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

The Air Marshal is, unfortunately, also supporting the 7CPC rec (emphasis supplied) of changing the disability pension of Service pers  from %age basis to a fixed amt outlinig disadvantge at lower ranks ie sep-nk/ capt-maj .This will eventually result in reduction of dispen for all ranks due to the fact that almost all pers are/will retire at the higher ranks where %age basis will give them higher dispen than fixed basis.Also as & when DA is merged with basic pen it will further correspondingly  increase the dispen of all ranks due to being on %age basis. Ther will be NO increase if it is on fixed basis.
AS

Rebuttal: - This is what I wrote but Avtar Singh quoted me out of context exposing his self-interest.  

Disability Benefits – Percentage Vs Slab Rate
22.    In the case of lower ranks the slab rate disability element is beneficial because 
(a)     A Havildar will get Rs 12000 from the slab system while in percentage terms he will get Rs 10320.
(b)     A Lieutenant will get Rs 27000 in slab system compared to Rs 21480 @ 30 %of BP.
(c)     A Maj with BP + MSP of Rs 84900 will get Rs 27000 in slab system while he will get only Rs 25470 if paid @30% of BP.
(d)     The losers, if one may term it that, due to slab rates will be the General/Flag/Air ranks. 
23.     At Chapter 10.2.41, the 7th CPC avers “Armed forces personnel retired with disability attributable to or aggravated by such service and assessed at 20 percent or more are awarded disability pension. Those invalided out with any disability attributable to or aggravated by such service are also awarded disability pension.”
24.     At Chapter 10.2.54, 7th CPC states “While the number of officers retiring with disability element has shown a significant increase at levels of Brigadier and above in recent years, it is notable that since 2010-11, no officer in these ranks has been invalided out.”
25.     7th CPC’s analysis is flawed in its concept as it betrays a lack of the Pay Commission’s reputed holistic view for the following reasons: -
(a)     Invalidment is as per the Guide to Medical Officers issued by DGAFMS. It applies uniformly to all affected personnel, especially as there is now recourse to the AFT and higher Courts for redress.
(b)     As per Chapter III, Regulation 58 (b) of the Army Pension Regulations, “low medical category personnel who are retired/discharged for want of alternative employment compatible with his low medical category is eligible for invalid pension.” So, why should the Armed Forces invalided out those who are otherwise fit for alternative employment?
(c)     Further, Chapter IV, Regulation 82 gives examples like heart and renal diseases, prolonged illness, accidents while on leave etc and,
(d)     Regulation 85 holds that award of disability element of pension otherwise admissible may be withheld or be granted at a reduced rate …..if the personnel unreasonably refuses to undergo an operation or other medical treatment which in the opinion of the service medical authority would cure or reduce the disablement” (emphasis supplied).
(e)     Surely it is not imputed that a Brig or Maj Gen, even Lt Gen with, say heart or renal problems or psychological bi-polar disorder and unfit for alternative employment, is not invalided out while an OR or a JCO with the same disability is? And worse, there has been no appeal by OR(s) or JCO(s) with the same affliction who has/have been invalided out?
26.    Let us look at just the disability but not invalided out category for officers including and above the rank of Lt Col for year 2013-14 (apropos statistics provided by CGDA), at Chapter 10.2.51 & 10.2.52: -
 Rank
Strength
( from CDM except ORs/JCOs )
Disability and superannuated (%)
Actual number with disability but superannuated
Lt Gen & equivalent
132
14.3
19
Maj Gen & equivalent
284
16.5
47
Brig & equivalent
1176
17.6
207
Colonels & equivalent
4100
21.1
865
Lt Col & equivalent
6776
20.8
1410
JCOs/ORs & equivalents
13,19, 481
7.2
95003
27.     Nowhere, right from Chapter 10.2.40 to 10.2.55, there is any mention of any call for information and taking of such evidence from Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) who provides, guidelines to Armed Forces Medical Officers for deciding disability, reviews and approves or rejects the recommendations.  
28.    That begs the question affecting the larger number of ORs/JCOs who are entitled to disability benefits - just because a larger proportion, but lesser number of senior officers with disabilities is not invalided out, does the 7th CPC seek to punish the ORs & JCOs by introducing the slab basis?
29.   However, the silver lining in the case of lower ranks is that the slab rate disability element is beneficial.
(a)     A Havildar or equivalent in the slab will get Rs 12000 while in percentage terms only Rs 10320.
(b)     A Major or equivalent with BP + MSP of Rs 84900 will get 27000 in slab system while he will get only Rs 25470 if paid @30% of BP.
(c)     A Lieutenant of equivalent will get Rs 27000 in slab system compared to Rs 21480 @ 30 %of BP.
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 13/6/16, Ravindra Pathak raviwarsha@gmail.com [exservicemen-INDIA] <exservicemen-INDIA@yahoogroups.co.in> wrote:
 Subject: [exservicemen-INDIA] Uncalled for Tirade against IESM/Gen Satbir Singh and others
 Date: Monday, 13 June, 2016, 12:59 PM
Thanks Avtar Sir.
Here is another response
Dear Ravi
I have always had my reservations about interpretations of Savur on OROP. These are the self styled experts who sit at home and think that they are full of wisdom and others in field are only creating hype.
I remember explaining to him this concept of one year and five yrs on phone and he took full 45 min to understand. He said that he has understood but I had my doubts and he has proven it that his concept is all cock eyed.
You have given a suitable reply to him.
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM

Rebuttal: - Gp Capt V K Gandhi (retd) has never spoken to me to explain anything, let alone for 45 minutes.

The only time I read his name was in an email cc: to me when Cdr Pathak sent him the tables I submitted to RM and asked for his comments. If Gp Capt Gandhi made any comments, I did not receive them directly or through Cdr Pathak or any one else.        

6 comments:

  1. Sir, that means we have been fed bilge (a term that Cdr Pathak (R) will understand.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sir,

    Apropos the rebuttal on "Equalizations" and the table furnished there, the reason I had mentioned, in a previous comment, the need for a clarification from those quarters that have voiced concerns over "1 rank 5 pensions" was, the SAI 2008 tables do not provide a direct link to the OROP pensions as actually tabulated in Circular 555. So it is not at all clear from the pay-bands whether or not there will "1 rank 5 pensions". ( The link is https://sharad10525.blogspot.com/2016/06/on-press-release.html?showComment=1465709598267#c9004107250021267260 )

    It is also not possible to say how the OROP figures have actually been calculated in said Circular 555 and the tables taken from SAI do not link the pay fixation to years of service. So it becomes a bit difficult to say what the OROP pension is, as an example, for a Lt Col with 29 years of service by just reading the table of SAI, and, equally importantly, whether it will stay constant over the next few years.

    That, logically, on basis of the SAI tables there should be no grounds for variations in OROP from year to year, whether due to bunching or whatever other reasons, is clear enough from a study of your views and the SAI tables. But as the actual OROP fixation can't be explained in absence of transparent data from PCDA, it is best left for ESM bodies to demonstrate the exact reasons for the concerns over "1 rank 5 pensions". The entire veteran community will be clearer about the matter.

    I now recall I had also mentioned the discrepancy between a SAI table based OROP pension and the one actually implemented in circular 555.( The link is https://sharad10525.blogspot.com/2016/05/keeping-armed-forces-young-to-defend.html?showComment=1462338834341#c442347580487078027 )

    So, in view of your rebuttal, if there are still genuine concerns for grounds for more frequent "equalizations", then the associations voicing those concerns can consider sharing the detailed basis. At present there is a lot of vagueness regarding the matter.

    I think the focus should now be on making the 7 CPC increment system fool-proof so that the need for more frequent equalizations is done away with from 01 Jan 2016. I had made a mention of this in a previous comment. ( The link is https://sharad10525.blogspot.com/2016/05/keeping-armed-forces-young-to-defend.html?showComment=1462331937783#c3874968237774871159 )

    IMHO

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the fog of the battle, we seem to have forgotten Para 2 of the MoD letter dated 07 Nov 15 (bridging the gap between rates of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals) to which Circular 555 is more relevant than our quoting Para 3 (same rank, same years of service, same amount of pension) of the Koshyari Committee and believing it to be what the MoD orders states.

    As it is, read, without missing the trees for the woods, 555 is for bridging the gap between past pensioners with those in that rank and with that much of service in AY 2013 (say Sep 2013, when the OROP hopes were given speed at Rewari). After Dec 2004 there will be no Capt with more than 6 years, Major with more than 14 years and Lt Col with more than 26 years of service.

    The datum (2013) for OROP being just 6 years after SAI/2/S/2008, and 20 years for full pension coming into effect, almost all officers entitled to pension in 2013 would have been promoted to their present rank after 1.1.2006. Hence they will start at the beginning of the pay scale and not as given in the SAI 2/S/2008 and SAI 3/S/2008 tables.

    The re-fixation tables for 6th CPC stopped the “5 years bunching for one increment” but there was a bunching of 2 years as witnessed that Pay scale (of 5th CPC) of Lt Col of say Rs 13500 with 14 years of service was bunched with Rs 13900 of a Lt Col with 15 years service as both drew Rs 38530 + 8000 + 6000 = 52530. That continued for 16th and 17th (Rs 53690), 18th and 19th (Rs 54890), 20th and 21st (Rs 56120), 22nd and 23rd ( Rs 57390), 24th and 25th (Rs 58700) and only 26th (Rs 60050) was spared the bunching, for that was the maximum of the pay scal and on completion of which he was promoted Col (TS).

    Statement of ‘one rank five pensions’ would not be correct because we need to enter the third parameter, years of service. Using an excel sheet with a colleague’s expertise, it appears that whoever prepared the tables has taken guidance from another set of circulars (500, 501, 547 and 548), obtained the maximum and minimum for a rank across the 3 services, and arrived at the average. Then the “Scrooge” entered to ensure a targeted amount is not exceeded by deducting 3% compound increment for those below the maximum for the rank & service in AY 2013 but not increasing by 3% compounded where personnel have years of service above the 2013 datum.

    As pointed out, both sides are looking at their own sides of the picture. MoD is looking at the definition as given by then RM in Feb 2014 and the intention conveyed by two Defence Ministers in 2014-15. The other side is looking at what the Koshiyari Committee stated in Para 3 but glossing over the fact that the Committee did not include the “definition” in its findings or Observations/Recommendations.

    Almost all ESM are in the fog of what, why, how was projected to the MoD, or has been projected to the Justice Reddy Committee.



    ReplyDelete
  4. Sir, "Fog" is absolutely the best way to describe the matter.

    Though concerns being voiced on basis of Koshiyari Committee might have issues based on context and relevance, at the same time the real concern is/should be the total lack of clarity on how much, if at all, contents of circular 555 ( DESW letter of 03/02/16) actually conform to definitions in letter of Nov '15 issued by the same set-up.

    The first hint is when there are no actual pensioners in 2013, and cannot be, in a certain rank-cum-service years combination (e.g. Maj w more than 20 years) what is the official basis for figures in such rank-service combinations? Just because some excel experts have come to conclusions about how the calculations were made does not at all mean the manner of calculations are based on correct principles. Besides, why should excel experts do this work at all when the basis of that data can be made transparent officially?

    Frankly, ESM bodies should be insisting on data based clarifications on such very tangible issues in addition to, if not in place of, diffuse matters such as "top of scale", "1 rank 5 pensions" etc.

    In that sense, even if the dialog is on issues that can be argued against, it does, very correctly, tend to keep the basis of 555 data from being given a clean bill of health.

    Till such time the anomalies projected to the judicial commission are duly processed, some form of continuing interaction between the Govt and ESM bodies may actually be healthy as far as genuine interests of veterans are involved and prove to be beneficial for rationalizing real anomalies.

    Some definitely exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tangents divert from the issue. The excel experts, are not from the MoD or CGDA or Services HQ.

      I am still waiting for your 'principles' Come on share with ESM instead of trying to make it Hitchcock sounding!

      Till I get those principles, it is better I shut up.

      Delete