Latest on OROP hearing this morning (WP Civil 419 of 2016)
https://www.firstpost.com/india/no-point-revising-one-rank-one-pension-scheme-centre-tells-supreme-court-govt-says-move-will-be-burden-on-exchequer-4833911.html
So what is the next step?
Friday 27 July 2018
Latest Report on today's hearing on OROP in the Apex Court
Latest on OROP hearing this morning (WP Civil 419 of 2016)
https://www.firstpost.com/india/no-point-revising-one-rank-one-pension-scheme-centre-tells-supreme-court-govt-says-move-will-be-burden-on-exchequer-4833911.html
So what is the next step?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TIT FOR TAT
ReplyDeleteSir,
ReplyDeleteThe argument put forth by the Govt through ASG doesn't hold the water. Giving DA/DR to Govt employees/pensioners is also burden on exchequer. Should they stop giving DA/DR in future. Secondly, challenging policy decision of the Govt before the hon court reportedly another reason. If Govt issues wrong policy, should the sufferers accept it blindly bcoz it is Govt Policy decision? Any one in his right frame of mind shouldn't give such argument before the hon court. Again, it is also illogical and arbitrary.
Sir, I am awaiting a cogent reply to the table that @taazakhabar sent a couple of months ago and are in this blog elsewhere.
DeleteHe stated that in his course, just like in many other courses, they were promoted to the rank of Col at different time frames. They retired at the same age. So what happens to Col A who has 10 increments (promoted as Select Col in 18th year) but Col X promoted in 26th year and has two increments. Do they get the same pension because they have the same rank on retirement even if Col A was in the rank for 11 years and Col C in the rank for just two years?
Sir,
DeleteIn my opinion both Cols(same course) irrespective of their different numbers of increments should get the same pension provided they retire on same month. It is not the fault of Col C who got promotion late and got less number of incr bcoz of service conditions. Definition of OROP as approved justify my opinion given above.
Sir, for same years of service the Select Col as well as the TS Col (both from same course) will be at same scale i.e have same basic pay in level 13 on retirement. Although the TS Col will be getting one increment less than the select Col from 18 to 26 th year. It's because Select Col will get one additional promotion increment on 18th year and nil promotion increment on 26th year whereas the TS Col will get nil promotion increment on 18th year but catch up with select Col because of one additional promotion increment on 26th year.
DeleteRegards
MK
Here is the link to a live example provided. Hope to see your comments
Deletehttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5780881198603853530#editor/target=post;postID=6555636916208998700;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=2;src=postname
Sir, As I had submitted previously, progression of notional pay based on QS would resolve a great many anomalies affecting 7 CPC pensions for older, esp pre VI CPC pensioners, keeping in view the time-bound basis of ranks of Officers currently retiring from service.
DeleteBut, a pre-requisite of such rationalisation is removal of anomalies that related to OROP based on which 7CPC pensions have been calculated.
The previous post referred by you was from another follower of the blog. It also based its queries on the minimum and maximum criterion which would come into play only in 2019 when OROP is scheduled to be revised.
In this regard I can only repeat my misgivings about this whole “minimum/maximum” data on which OROP was originally based and will be again in 2019. I had tried to illustrate possible flaws in implementation in several linked blog posts (tag: OROP on my blog).
In specific reference to the press item, the subject of this blog post, one thing that immediately comes to my mind is that if periodicity of OROP review and basis of calculation (max/min) are represented to be “policy decisions”, then the most important thing for those leading the legal drive ought to be to highlight how some of these “policy decisions” are discriminatory in nature.
I’d mentioned it here https://twitter.com/ashwanisarda/status/1022832014834237440?s=21
Sir,
DeleteThe Govt of India has submitted in the Apex Court that there is no change or revision in the OROP. Firstpost also reports that the Apex Court is not inclined to intervene as OROP is a policy matter.
2. I have not been able to understand what revision is expected in 2019. There has already been a revision in 2016 bringing on par with 7 CPC pay matrix using the OROP x 2.57 Index of Rationalisation. Once the Concordance tables are issued then the pension based on the pay matrix of 6.7.2017 will be arrived at.
3. The 3% increment applies only for every additional year of effective service rendered. Once we retire we are non-effective and there is no increment. This is confirmed by a judgment of the AP High Court in Principal Accountant General Vs C Subba Rao delivered on 27 Jan 2005. This judgment was not challenged and so it is a settled law.
4. Everyone starts at the beginning of the scale for the rank i.e. Maj to Lt Col would start at Rs 37400 in the 6 CPC and Rs 121200 in 7 CPC (Rs 96000 being Maj's BP in the 12th year). Will any other Maj promoted to Lt Col start at a higher (there being no lower) index?
5. The argument that 3% is necessary to reach the top of the Pay Band or Pay matrix is incorrect if one retires and the pension in Rule 36 of Pension Regulations is clear - 50% of the average of 10 months reckonable emoluments (PIPB+GP+MSP in 6 CPC or Index pay + MSP in 7 CPC) or last emoluments drawn, whichever is beneficial.
6. As for periodicity of revisions, please see Para 6 and Para 11 of the Koshyari Committee report.
Just some figures from the 6.7.2017 pay matrix for your consideration from the AVSC time frame up to Gp Capt (TS)
Delete1. Fg Officer (QS 1) Rs 56100, QS-2 Rs 57800
2. Flt Lt QS-3 61300; QS 5 Rs 69000
3. Sqn Ldr QS-6 Rs 69400; QS-12 Rs 82800
4. Wg Cdr QS 13 Rs 121200; QS-15 Rs 128500; QS-25 Rs 172700
5. Gp Capt (Select) QS-16 Rs 130600; QS-26 Rs 175500
6. Wg Cdr QS-25 Rs 172700; Gp Capt(TS) QS-26 Rs 175500
Sir, the letter 12 (1)/2014/D(Pen/Policy)-Part II dated 7th Nov,2015 provides for a five yearly revision of tables calculated and issued subsequently vide Circular 555.
DeleteThe "revision" of 2.57xOROP from 01 Jan 2016 may be less, equal to or more than a recalculation of OROP based on pensions of retirees in 2019. No one can ever be sure till the actual task of revision takes place.
What the First Post article, mentioned by you, means by "Policy Decisions" is far from clear. If revision at 5 years is a "policy decision", or calculation of OROP based on average of "maximum and minimum" pensions of those retiring in 2013 is a "policy decision", then the arguments in litigation may need to proceed on lines that a "policy decision" can't be the basis of discrimination.
Most of the anomalies resulting from the manner of calculation of OROP, as circulated vide Circ 555, are related to discrimination. So those anomalies have also affected 2.57xOROP and will again affect pensions if and when OROP is revised in 2019, based on the same criteria that were used in 2015.
Besides, even the defined criterion of "average of maximum and minimum pensions" has been translated into the circular 555 tables in a non-transparent manner and has led to volumes of representations to OMJC.
Tha 7 CPC Matrix is an ideal basis for fixing pensions of those Officers who retired in the regime of 6 CPC. In fact, it'd be a more rational basis for fixing 7CPC pensions, for those Officers who retired in regime of 6 CPC, than the "notional pay" confusion created much later. For earlier, pre 6 CPC retirees, it would be fairer and more just than the concept of OROP based on average of maximum and minimum pensions of retirees in a particular year.
But it is for the pre VI CPC Officer retirees that a QS based "progression model" has to be established so that, for equitable pension parity, those earlier retirees are placed at the correct stage and level of the matrix taking into account their QS, again, for only ranks that retirees now attain on time bound basis.
The figures from the matrix quoted by you do highlight the QS for currently serving/retiring Officers, but the matrix itself mentions only stages for each level. So for a 7 CPC pension fixation of pre 6 CPC Officer retirees, as I have understood from what I have also read elsewhere as well, a consideration has to be applied at what stage and level of the matrix they would have been as related to their QS. That is the kind of "notional progression" that would appear to meet the requirement of being non-discriminatory.
Such a concept of "notional progression" does away with the need for annual or five yearly revisions or for verifying what was the maximum and minimum pension was in a particular year. This is what 7 CPC had envisaged and later thrown into confusion with the argument that it would not be possible to establish the number of increments for older retirees.
1. For pre-2016 Civilian pensioners, the contents of P& PW OM No. 38/37/2016-P&PW (A) dated 12.5.2017, Deptt of Exp OM No. 1(13)/EV/2017 dated 23.5.17 (Para 4A(i) and Concordance tables issued vide P&PW OM of even reference dated 6.7.2017 and amendments thereafter may be referred.
Delete2. In case of pre-2016 Defence Pensioners, Paras 3, and 5 of PCDA (P) Circular 585 may be referred. It clearly states notional pay fixation under intervening Pay Commissions based on the formula of revision of pay including where applicable Rank Pay, MSP, NPA and in case of PBOR adding the Gp X pay and Classification allowance on date of retirement or death.
3. The payment made in November 2016 is based on the Option A formula of the 7 CPC viz. existing pension i.e.OROP where applicable multiplied by IoR of 2.57.
4. As indicated in an RTI reply by DESW the formula for Final revision of pension for pre-2016 pensioners will be notional pay (plus the where applicable components spelt out above) multiplied by IOR of 2.57 and finding a place in the pay matrix at or above that amount, then 50% being the pension. For this purpose the MoD has to issue the Concordance tables which are still floating between MoD (Fin) and Deptt of Exp.
There is no mention of OROP!
Sir, as to why concordance tables for ESM were not issued may possibly have to do with the QS related anomalies of older ESM pensioners (as in the case of pre VI CPC Officer retirees in what are now currently time-bound ranks).
DeletePerhaps such anomalies did not apply to civilian pensioners. My impression is, with the application of the notional fixation component, older civilian pensioners have now probably obtained a 7CPC pension fixation much closer to an ideal version of OROP. If the actual methodology of 7 CPC is adopted for fixing pensions based on increments in the matrix, civilian pensioners may further improve on what has already been given through concordance tables based on notional fixation.
The version of OROP implemented for ESM pensions (from 01 July 2014) given in regime of 6 CPC falls well short of this manner of OROP. In relation to the subject of this blog-post, viz., litigation on OROP, what appears possible is for the petitioners to bring out the discriminatory aspects of the actual implementation in 2015 even within constraints of what may well be argued by the Govt legal team as being "policy decisions".
As I had mentioned in my previous post, If fixation in the matrix as per the concept in original 7CPC recs, or even with the "notional progression" approach, is rational and non-discriminatory, keeping in mind the relationship between QS, stage and level, perhaps the pension fixed post 01 Jan 2016 would be the actual OROP and there may well be no need for a periodic review based on average of max and minimum pensions in a particular year, whether the review is done on an annual or five-yearly basis. In such a case, OROP would actually not need a separate mention.
But, presently, such a happy state is not in view at all. The best hope for the immediate future can be OROP anomalies get resolved thus improving the OROP pensions from 01 Jul 2014 to 31 December 2015 wherever applicable and the 7CPC pensions post 01 Jan 2016 (2.57xOROP pensions) get rationalised as a result.
The subject of the post, the OROP litigation, may not apply to notional fixation or concordance table matters of 7 CPC, even though rationalisation of OROP, through the litigation under reference or by unilateral implementation of OMJC recommendations, would have some positive effect on 7 CPC pensions till such time 7 CPC pensions are rationalised to automatically harmonise with the concept of OROP, through a rational approach to either fixation in the matrix based on QS related stages/levels or application of notional pay concepts again based on QS for determining stage/level in the matrix.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteImpending concordance tables not taken into consideration for the time being, highest pension of pre-2016 retiree Wing Cdr QS >32 yrs is 89347 where as post 7th CPC, same rk QS>25 yrs will get pension of 94100(172700+15500=188200/2=94100). In 2019 OROP revision, all pre 2016 Wing Cdrs of QS 25 and above would also get 94100 thus benefited by 4753. In case concordance tables comes with same amount ie. 94100 then revision is nullified.