Future of this blog

(F)Utility of this Blog

The greatest deception men suffer is from their opinion.

-          

-         Leonardo da Vinci

A few of the recent events have led to serious introspection on the (f)utility of posting authentic information. To readers of this blog, I leave the choice. Should this blog post authentic information or revert to pre- Feb 2013 status when speculation was king?

OROP Vs Standard Rates of Pensions

     In the OROP matter, a venerable naval veteran (Cdr Pathak) started his personal, and sarcastic, email stating that there were 31 members of all parties in the Koshyari Committee (of Petitions) whereas there were just 9. His email revealed that he had relied on information supplied to him, probably by word of mouth, and exposed his lack of knowledge of the Koshyari Committee report’s findings and recommendations. It is also misinformation that One Rank One Pension prevailed before 3^rd CPC in the definition of same rank, same number of years of service same amount of pension.

However, there was a standard pension i.e one pension for one rank irrespective of number of qualifying years of service. Para 6 of Chapter 53 of Vol III of 3^rd CPC report states as follows: -

 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…………….

13.     After much deliberation, we have reached the conclusion that the most appropriate method of providing a compensatory element in pension rates would be to add a certain number of years of service to the period of qualifying service prescribed for earning full pension for the various ranks and applying for each year of service the rate of 1/80 of the maximum pay fixed for that rank. In the context of our conclusion that the standard rate system for the pension of Service officers should be continued, the weightage of additional years cannot be added to the length of service actually rendered but it has to be added to the minimum period prescribed for earning pension of the rank. Our calculations show that the two benefits in combination, viz., (a) taking the maximum of pay of the rank and (b) adding a period of 5 years, subject to the total not exceeding 33 years, would provide a reasonable degree of compensation. This approach can be adopted only for officers retiring in the rank of Brigadier or below. Further, in the case of Lt Colonel, we have found it necessary to give additional weightage in order to maintain comparability in the order of increase proposed over the existing pension rates in the Armed Forces and on the civil side. Thus, we have added an extra year for officers in the rank of Major and two years for officers in the rank of Captain or below. It is to be noted, however, that the chances of a Service officer retiring below the rank of major on a normal pension are remote and these rates have relevance mainly for determining the amounts of disability and invalid pensions. For senior officers, the pension will have to be determined on the basis of reasonable differential because in their case the pay of the rank exceeds the maximum of the emoluments reckoned for pensions on the civil side.   

14.     In accordance with the above principles, we recommend the following standard rates of pension for Service officers after provision of the DCR Gratuity: -

TABLE V

Rank	Minimum length of qualifying service	Proposed pension (Rs p.m.)
Subaltern	20 years	325
Captain	20 years	500
Major	22 years	625
Lt Colonel	24 years	700
Colonel	26 years	850
Brigadier	28 years	1000
Maj General	30 years	1050
Lt General	30 years	1100
General	30 years	1150

Based on reasonable differentials, we recommend for the officers on the Special List in the Army and on the Special Duties List of the Navy, the following standard pension rates:

TABLE VI

Rank	Minimum length of qualifying service	Pension (Rs p.m.)
		Existing	Proposed
Subaltern	20 years	247	300
Captain	20 years	352	475
Major	22 years	457	600
Lt Colonel	24 years	537	650
Colonel	26 years	588	800

15.     In view of the revised scales proposed by us for officers of the Military Nursing Service, we recommend the following rates of standard retiring pensions:

TABLE VII

Rank	Minimum length of qualifying service	Pension (Rs p.m.)
		Existing	Proposed
Captain	20 years	150	325
Major	22 years	238	425
Lt Colonel	24 years	321	525
Colonel	26 years	378	625
Brigadier	28 years	483	725

Who Cut the Pensions Down?

Rumours and undocumented suspicions were fanned that for Armed Forces PBOR pensions were reduced from 70% to 50%. Cdr Pathak asked for some document to support his stand but there is none as subsequent paragraphs will show.

Pensions were 50% from ancient times. Please read below: -

Source: - http://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-pensions.html

Pensions were introduced by employers - in particular in the armed forces and then the civil service - in order to facilitate the retirement of older less efficient workers so as to make way for younger fitter men. The very existence of such schemes then encouraged employers to recruit younger fitter people who would work for many years before drawing their pensions.

The first pensions appeared in the late 1600s in the public sector. Before then, it was the custom for serving naval, Customs officers etc. to sell their office for a lump sum or annuity. The first known civil service pension was awarded in 1684 when a senior Port of London official became too ill to carry on, and his successor was appointed on a salary of £80pa on condition that £40pa of this was paid to his predecessor. And so began the first 50% pension, paid out of the salary of a younger employee.

Significant further developments occurred in the 1760s and 70s when contributions and pensions were extended to junior officers in the armed services etc., and again in the 1847 when the Admiralty decided to face the fact that 200 senior captains were never going to sea again, promoted them to Rear Admiral, and put them on half pay as a form of retirement pension. Shortly afterwards, in the 1850s, Northcote and Trevelyan recommended that "good service pensions" should be extended into "the ordinary Civil branch of the public service" (Northcote Trevelyan Report - see in particular pp 21-22). A Royal Commission reporting shortly after Northcote & Trevelyan then separately recommended that retirement from the civil service should be possible at age 60 and compulsory at age 65. And there were parallel developments in the private sector, as railway, gas and other large companies developed similar schemes to attract and retain better staff.

Fact that pension was reduced by the Armed Forces Pension Review Committee, with Services members in Sep 1970 also laid bare that lie. Fact of MoD introducing Pension rules in Sep 1979 akin to Civilian pension rules were quoted from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in D. S. Nakara vs UoI confirmed that 3^rd CPC was unnecessarily pilloried.

This rumour was sought to be dispelled by publishing Chapter 53, Volume III of the 3^rd CPC report, obtained after trawling through the internet for over two years. Aspects such as weightage for pension for truncated careers being introduced by the 3^rd CPC were also published.

Were ICS/IAS Officers equated to Armed Forces Officer for Pay purposes

Like hydra (a many-headed serpent in Greek mythology), another rumour showed its next head. Another venerable Veteran relied on his ‘personal knowledge’ that it was a fallacious statement that the 3^rd CPC stated that Armed Forces pay was never on par with the IAS and that comparison was first with British officers and PBOR and later with Indian Police Service. Apparently his personal knowledge not being correct was not palatable to him and he then produced a post that quoted from Para 2.3 of the 6^th CPC report that confirmed that Armed Forces officers pay was always compared with the pay of IPS. Providing the venerable Veteran with extracts from the 3^rd CPC report was dubbed Govt’s provision of incorrect information under RTI so now he has been provided with all 69 pages of Vol III of the 3^rd CPC Report.

The RTI Act, 2005 has been a boon in providing information that was hitherto hidden between secure covers of Govt files. Section 20 (1) on Penalties is clear, and repeated here: - Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information, or has not furnished information within the  time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.         

Section 20 (2) also recommends disciplinary action for the above misdemeanours. Hopefully the venerable veteran is wiser now and that ‘from personal knowledge’ head of the hydra is laid to eternal rest!

Finality in Judicial Terms in the Rank Pay case

Some Pay Commission Cells continue in a blind skirmish for higher Entry pay because of “artificial depression” of Rank Pay. They are either unaware of the following events, or just fishing, necessitating a chronological repetition.   

              

Chairman, CoSC wrote to the RM in Nov 2013, PC-4-PA/5437 dated 18 Jan 2013 and Air HQ/99141/7/AFPCC dated 27 May 13 (on the ‘faulty’ implementation methodology being adopted by the MoD after the Honourable Supreme Court order of 4 Sep 2012. Chairman, CoSC raised the following points: -

In compliance with the order of the Honourable Court, MoD must pay arrears to all entitled officers w.e.f 1.1.1986 and not as MoD intended to officers who were entitled as on 1.1.1986.  

Due to the restoration of the deduction of Rank Pay, fixation of the minimum of a Captain (and equivalent) must be increased from Rs 2800 to Rs 3000 i.e. by the quantum of Rank Pay of Rs 200.

Due to the restoration of the deduction of Rank Pay, fixation of the minimum of a Brigadier (and equivalent) must be increased from Rs 4950 to Rs 6150 i.e by the quantum of Rank Pay of Rs 1200.

         

The order of the Honourable Court should be applicable for 4^th and 5^th CPC where Rank Pay was deducted.

Due to conflict on view points with MoD, the RM at the urging of the Chairman CoSC for a speedy resolution permitted the CoSC to project its case to the Learned Attorney General of India independent of the MoD, which would present its viewpoint simultaneously. It is a documented fact that the Ld AG opined on 03 Sep 13 vide MLJ No. AG/15/2013-ADV.‘C’ dated 14 Aug 13 and AG DY No. 326/AG/OPIN datd 14 Aug 13 as follows:-

          Restoration of deduction to be for entitled officers w.e.f 1.1.1986

Neither was a case made out for increasing of the minimum of pay for Capt (and equivalent) nor is it contained in the order of the Honourable Court.

Neither was a case made out for increasing of the maximum of pay for Brig (and equivalent) nor is it contained in the order of the Honourable Court.

      

Restoration of deduction is applicable for 4^th and 5^th CPC and wherever Rank Pay has been deducted.

While the Ld AG was still in the process of offering his legal opinion, Lt Col N K Nair & RDOA, the premier litigants in the Rank Pay case filed a Contempt Petition in the Honourable Supreme in Jul 2013.

       

Modified orders incorporating the Ld AG’s opinion were issued by MoD on 24 Jul 14.

The matter was sub-judice when the Armed Forces were preparing and submitted the Joint Services Memorandum (JSM) to the 7^th CPC on 28 Aug 14. Hence it was a justifiable argument to include in the JSM at that point, but on 18 Aug 2015, the Honourable Court dismissed the Contempt Petition but allowed any one with a grievance to approach competent authority for redress. So, subsequent to the dismissal of the Contempt Petition that decision stands unless some one files a petition and the Honourable Court reverses its decision.     

JSM vs misinterpretation of information 

The most secretive document appears to be the JSM, though much of it is quoted in the replies/comments by MoD to 7^th CPC and by the 7^th CPC itself in its report. In Dec 2014, PPOC denied information under the assurance that presentations would held on the JSM in various Command HQ. Though Chairman PARC suggested that the JSM be made public, till date that has been a hollow assurance leaving almost 18.5 lakh Veterans including widows and the disabled pension beneficiaries are in the dark.

It is rumoured that the JSM proposed bringing all PSOs on par with Army Cdrs (and equivalents). Egalitarian recommendation? Applicable retrospectively?

Another issue raised (in the print media) is that the MSP of JCOs should be higher than Rs 5200. Only the JSM will reveal what the Armed Forces proposed originally and how much lesser is the amount recommended by the 7^th CPC.

We are aware that 7^th CPC just, mechanically multiplied all non-DA indexed amounts by 2.57 or thereabouts, DA indeed amounts by 1.5 and rationalised other allowances by multiplying by 0.8 (Chapter 8.2. of the Report). So, the moot point is whether the 2.57 factor brings the MSP for JCOs/ORs to Rs 5200 or an amount that should be higher. 

Another venerable Army veteran (May their tribe increase!) interpreted my analysis on the errors with the CPC’s recommendations on disability benefits as my support for the 7^th CPC. I wish he had read all the paragraphs wherein I have stated that: -

20% of Cols and above (2000 in number) who constitute the disability benefits enjoyed till superannuation are hardly any number compared to 7.2% of the JCOs/ORs, who would be 95000 in number who continue in service till discharge/retirement,

7^th CPC has taken the figures from CGDA/Shri Rai, IDAS and placed them without asking for comments from the DGAFMS for reasons why these personnel continued in service, and

7^th CPC has not read the Defence Pension Regulations on classification of disabilities, on proportionate disability benefits, disqualifications from entitlements to disability benefits, and Guidelines to medical officers wherein personnel with certain disabilities are permitted by the Govt of India to continue in service etc.

It was stated, from the mathematical point of view, that the slab rate was more beneficial for up to Havildars and for Lt to Majors and that it was not beneficial for JCOs and Lt Cols and above.

Insofar as NFU is concerned, the MoD is aiding and abetting non-payment of Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) to AFMS officers on the plea that Services HQ has taken the stand of Command & Control issues. The cue, as per file noting was from Deptt of Expenditure to obtain from CoSC as assurance that there would be no command & contrl issue if DACP is approved. This author also asked how is it there aren’t any command & control issues when the DGAFMS, who is not an Army Cdr, draws Rs 85000 but an Army Cdr 9and equivalent) draws Rs 80000 and when about 26 Brig (and equivalent) draw Rs 81900 (Rs 67000+8900+6000) which is more that what Army Cdrs (and equivalents) draw?

NFU was recommended by 6^th CPC and implemented in 2009. With the implementation of the AVSC only Cols and above are affected. Do the Armed Forces have a common policy for implementing NFU, if the Govt grants it? It is common knowledge that within the Army itself officers commissioned on the same day but allocated to Arms, Combat Support and Services are promoted on a consideration year 0+1+2 time frame respectively. So what will be the determinant for grant of NFU? What will the determinant be for inter-Services with Navy and Air Force having different time frames?              

More Downgrading and No noise?

          There was much back-slapping and glee that, vide Para 6 of the Cabinet’s decision), the Defence Pay matrix now has three additional stages (indices) for Lt Cols and Cols, two additional stages (indices) for Brig and the rationalisation factor for the latter is now 2.67 as for CAPFs ‘in order to bring parity with Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). But weren’t Armed Forces officers on par with IPS, an All India Service (AIS)? And aren’t CAPF not All India Services (IAS, IFS, IPS and IFoS)? An apprehension is that if that be so, then if after all the “anomaly” pointing regarding Special Duty Allowance for AIS being 30% of Basic pay and for all others 10%, will it not degrade the allowances of Armed Forces officers, who have been given parity with CAPFs?         

In Conclusion

         

One of the reported demands is a Defence Covenant. Is there a covenant for Veterans introduced by the Armed Forces? Then why such a hue and cry about the ECHS facilities and against the entire file pushing by the DG ECHS with Zero effect?    

Analysis, backed by documented facts are not to aid the Govt/babus, as reportedly stated by a PSO, and quoted by a venerable Army Veteran, but to increase the awareness of those interested in the Armed Forces.