Please treat with caution as there are no
signatures of the Jt CGDA (Pension) in the info received by email and WhatsApp
(Received from Brig V
Raheja, Sigs (retd)
Office of the CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt-10
Sub: Re-fixation
of pension under OROP – reg
Ministry
may kindly refer to their ID No. 1(1)/2019/D(Pen/Pol) dated 28.03.2019
forwarding a copy of TRIPAS letter No. C/7026/VII CPC/84/OROP dated 11.03.
2019. However, copy of ibid TRIPAS letter has not been found enclosed. It is
requested to kindly forward the same.
2. Further, vide Para 3 of ibid ID, Ministry has requested to
start preparatory work for re-fixation of pension under OROP as per para 3 (v)
of MoD letter dated 7.11.2015. In order to begin this work, Ministry if
requested to clarify the following:
(a) With reference to Para 3 of GoI, MoD letter dt 07.11.2015, it
may be confirmed whether the same methodology is to be employed for calculating
OROP rates viz. average of minimum and maximum pension. If so, the year from
which data of current retirees is to be used may be specified.
(b) OROP was implemented w.e.f. 01.07.2014. Similarly date of
effect of this next round of revisions may kindly be intimated.
(c) It may be recalled that several issues and anomalies
regarding OROP implementation had been raised earlier. Government had referred
three (03) major categories of these issues to a One Man Judicial Commission
appointed vide No. 12(01)/2014-D (Pen/Pol) dated 14.12.2015. Various ESM
associations had also made reference to this OMJC. The report of the OMJC is
pending with the Ministry. It may be clarified whether any of the
recommendations of the OMJC are to be factored into the new calculations.
3. It may be mentioned here that there have been several
developments since the issue of OROP orders in 2015-16. The most significant is
the implementation of the recommendations of VII CPC. The impact of these
recommendations with respect to revision of defence pension was not factored
into the OROP orders. As per the VIIth CPC orders, pension revision is to be
undertaken by two methods as pension disbursed by the more beneficial of the
two. The first method requires multiplication of pension as on 31.12.2015 by a
factor of 2.57. This has been done by PDAs. The other method requires notional
revision of pay across subsequent Pay commission scales to arrive at a notional
pay (an pension) under VIIth CPC scales. This revision has raised the following
issues:
(a) The notional pay formula brings all past pensioners to
current rates, almost as if they were serving under VIIth CPC. This is also the
formula used in various Court judgments seeking to equate past pensioners with
current retirees. For example Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in SPS Vains vs.
UOI (2008) case and in DS Nakara case. As such it is a matter for consideration
as to whether any logic exists to initiate the process of OROP revision once
the pension of past and current pensioners has been equated w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
(b) The notional pay based revision in respect of defence
pensioners has just commenced. The final pension of past pensioners (as on
1.1.2016) is not available until this is completed. Therefore, data for
comparing past pensioners with current pensioners is incomplete to that extent.
(c) Ministry may also kindly refer to WP No. 419 of 2016 – Indian
Ex-Servicemen Movement and others vs UOI. While preparing to brief the Ld ASG,
Ministry requested to compare pension under various Pay Commissions. The result
was forwarded to Ministry vide this HQ UO dated 23.08.2018 (copy enclosed). The
sample study indicated that application of multiplication factor to OROP
pension has created an anomaly whereby past pensioners are drawing higher
pension than those who have retired between 1.7.2014 and 31.12.2015 and post
1.1.2016 retirees. It may be recalled that Service HQ have also forwarded
proposals citing this anomaly and seeking protection of pension of current
retirees with respect to OROP pension. If this anomaly turns out to be
widespread, the logic of revising pension of past retirees to bring them to the
level of current of current pensioners would not subsist.
4. Ministry is requested to give directions of how
to proceed further in view of the points mentioned above.
Sd/----------------
(Kanwaldeep Singh)
Jt CGDA (Pension)
Shri Pudi Hari Prasad, Joint Sec (ESW)
MoD, Deptt of ESW
South Block, New Delhi
5699/AT-P/OROP-2/Vol-I
dated 05.04.2019
Copy to:
1. Shri R K
Karna IDAS, MoD (Fin), South Block, New Delhi – For information w.r.t. above
2. PCDA (P)
Allahabad - For information with request
to compile data in r/o/para 3 (c) above.
Sd/----------------
(Kanwaldeep Singh)
Jt CGDA (Pension)
Please treat with caution as there are no
signatures of the Jt CGDA (Pension) in the info received by email and WhatsApp
MSP to MNS & OFFICERS is Twice & Thrice of JCOs /OR, is a INCENTIVE to them to undertake 5-years Training to adorn the Rank of ONE STAR /2 LT. It cannot be equated to JCOs /OR Training. So equal MSP for JCOS, OR, MNS, OFFICERS is baseless
ReplyDeleteJCOs /OR Training Period is 9-months.So their Basic Presumption of Equality in MSP with Officers is absurd.
DeleteMSP is not paid as per the number of years of training before induction to service what a foolish argument
DeleteSir, the "logic" sought to be advanced in para 3(a) of the "letter", where it states, "The notional pay formula brings all past pensioners to current rates, almost as if they were serving under VIIth(sic) CPC", seems not to be accurate and does not address the successive dilutions of the principle of "inter temporal equity" cited in the report of VII CPC.
ReplyDeleteThe dilution-process comprised of, firstly, the recommendation of VII CPC itself which based pension-fixation in the Matrix based on increments and then, again, by the equally flawed "notional pay" concept actually implemented. Both did not address requirement of a rational notional progression for pre 2016 veterans taking into account their qualifying service (QS).
The VII CPC can deliver a nearly non-anomalous fixation of pensions for pre 2016 veterans provided a rational notional-progression of pensions of pre 2016 veterans to stages and levels in the matrix is put in place co-relating these to QS of older pensioners.
I have tried to outline the need for an omnibus approach to addressing ESM pensions here (some clicking would be required) bit.ly/2WPqsTp.
Would have understood you better if you used simpler language/terms.
ReplyDeleteNotional Pay based pension would take into account more number of increments earned by those promoted earlier than the lesser number of increments earned by those promoted later - providing the same rank and same years of QS on date of retirement. That would essentially knock the teeth out of OROP?
Sir, the first link in the blog-post, that I had linked to in my previous reply, leads to a table that seeks to demonstrate how an older veteran stand to lose out, on pension fixation based on notional fixation formulae, in comparison to someone with the same rank and QS retiring in the regime of VII CPC. The notional pay method would thus appear to put older veterans at a disadvantage.
DeleteThe second link in the blog-post, that I had provided a link to in my previous reply, has a table that seeks to bring out how QS needs to be linked to matrix stages and levels for a fair and equitable notional progression for older pensioners.
As for OROP as mentioned by you, a progression on those lines would iron out most of the anomalies presently hobbling the concept of OROP.
The logic suggested in those tables could be subjected to a scrutiny to see if these could in fact provide for a fairer VII CPC fixation.
I still feel the concept of the matrix is quite good if some modification is applied in relating the QS, and in some cases the type of commission, of older pensioners to the stage and level of the matrix they need to progress to in terms of pension fixation.
Can we have actual amounts i.e. Rank, QS and Pay in the Pay Matrix as on 1.1.2018 or 1.7.2018 depending on when the next increment was paid?
DeleteYour friends in the IAF may be able to provide that info.
DeleteAs per PCDA Circular 555, the OROP for a Brig/Cmde/Air Cmde with 30 years QS is Rs 37275. This is the average of the minimum and maximum for that rank and QS.
If one multiplies that by 2, one gets Rs 74550 as the notional pay in 6th CPC.
If one goes to the Concordance table for Brig/Cmde/Air Cmde, there is a minimum of Rs 73040 and maximum of Rs 75210 given into which Rs 74550 fits in.
If one multiplies Rs 73040 by 2.57 one gets 188713 + MSP 15500 = 204213 and 50% of that is Rs 102106.
Similarly, if one multiplies Rs 75210 by 2.57 one gets Rs 193290 (rounded off to next rupee) + 15500 = 208790 and 50% of that is Rs 104395.
Therefore, is it correct to arrive at minimum pension for Brig/Cmde/Air Cmde with 30 years QS as Rs 102106, maximum as Rs 104395?
Therefore the average pension may be Rs 103250?
One understands from sources that as on 01 Jan/Jul 2019 (annual increment month), the actual Pay in Pay matrix for Brig/Cmde/Air Cmde with 30 years QS is Rs 193300. Add MSP of Rs 15500= 208800 i.e. pension Rs 104400.
May be with your circle of friends you could work out the same for other ranks.
DeleteSir, attempts to co-relate actual pay of serving Officers with their QS can certainly be made, provided they are willing to part with that information. I hope to come back with some information on those lines.
DeleteHowever, the issues I had attempted to address in my previous replies (and the blog-post I had linked to) relate primarily to concept of time being the chief determining factor (along-side type of commission) in fixation of pensions for veteran officers who retired in ranks that are presently time-bound.
The logic being that with the same type of commission and with equal QS, older veterans need to have pension parity with present day pensioners in terms of stage and level in the matrix that those presently serving, with the same type of commission and QS, progress to, based on passage of time alone. This would address most anomalies of AVS-I, VI CPC, OROP and VII CPC.
With that in mind, what you have suggested could throw light on pay of a PC Officer in the rank of Wg Cdr in the QS range of, say, 20 years to 25 years, the range being determined by pensionable service of 20 yrs at the lower end and the upper limit being determined by QS at which the time-bound rank of Gp Capt (TS) would be given. Figures thus obtained would certainly provide some basis of comparison of notional pay for older retirees in time-bound ranks.
Since Sqn Ldr rank is now attained at a QS of 6 years, getting data for that rank may not have that much of a bearing on pension fixation for PC Officers.
The issue of the select rank of Air Cmde you have mentioned is more intricate as time is not the sole or chief basis for determining parities for older and current pensions. QS would vary for the same stage in the matrix level for Air Cmde.
Also would multiplying the circ 555 OROP by 2 yield a notional OROP based 6 CPC basic pay? I could be wrong, but as 6 CPC pension was 0.5*(Basic+GP), the GP for Air Cmde may have to be subtracted from the 2XOROP figure to get the corresponding BP.
I had made a table for trying to co-relate OROP based notional pay with QS for Wg Cdr a couple of years back based on those assumptions. I will try to make one for Air Cmde as well, though co-relating QS with stage of matrix may be a little more complicated for select ranks. The link to the Wg Cdr table is accessible through this link http://bit.ly/2XqvzJL
Best regards.
Wg Cdr - 16 years, BP Rs 128500; Gp Capt (S) 16 years BP Rs 130600; Gp Capt (TS) 27 years Rs 175500; Air Cmde 31 years Rs 199100; AVM 35 years Rs 218200.
DeleteThank you, Sir. That should make it possible to have some sort of comparison with how much a current pensioner would draw as pension with equal service and the same rank.
DeleteFollowing on the previous reply, I had attempted to use OROP for Air Cmde rank as a basis for arriving at estimates as to how it could correlate with "notional" pay of VI CPC and VII CPC. At first glance, it appears, the actual notional pay formula for VII CPC may be a little better than the OROP based VI CPC notional pay.
That is, of course, if I had made the correct assumptions. I had posted a table here
bit.ly/2xwtpJl
Well, well, well! That is the result of adding the number of increments before one retired. Say Gp Capt in 2006 will have more increments in that rank, hence higher pay than his course-mate becoming Gp Capt in 2010 but retire with same QS.
DeleteSir, that scenario does not apply in the table for pensions for the air rank of Air Cdre I had drawn out based on a VI CPC notional pay derived from the QS based OROP. It is not a case of batchmates picking up the rank at a different points of time.
DeleteThe OROP fixation, in-spite of all its shortcomings, did at least attempt to equalise pensions of older retirees on the basis of QS. The notional pay method used for drawing up concordance tables for VII CPC, on the other hand, has not indicated anywhere what would be the QS of an Air Officer in the rank of Air Cdre retiring in 2017 as compared to the QS of a pre 2016 retiree in Air rank of Air Cmde given the same pension (as the VII CPC regime retiree) on the basis of the concordance tables.
As for using number of increments for pension fixation, my impression is the original method specified by VII CPC of counting number of increments in pay-band of older retirees for fixing their pensions with the help of the matrix was as close to a genuine OROP as is possible with a few riders.
The first issue was, especially in case of armed forces officer veterans, that using the matrix increment-method would have been close to ideal for older veteran officers who had retired between 01 Jan 2006 and 31 Dec 2015 for the simple reason that their pay-bands, promotion stages and QS etc were common with those retiring after 01 Jan 2017.
But, if we use the matrix-cum-increment method for officer veterans who retired prior to 01 Jan 2006, especially those who retired prior to 16 Dec 2004, then serious anomalies would arise as there were no "pay-bands" before 01 Jan 2006. The number of increments in 5CPC (or earlier) payscales for the same rank varied greatly from those for VI CPC-regime retirees. QS for the same time bound rank was much higher in the case of older retirees.
But instead of resolving this matrix based anomaly, the notional pay method of inter CPC fixation formulas (used for making the concordance tables) made the issue even more difficult to address as the parity matter was rendered totally opaque by the latter.
Though it related to time-bound ranks, this post had attempted to highlight how a more rational working of the matrix based fixation could have evolved out of the original VII CPC recommendation http://bit.ly/2KRW0AD
The CGDA letter mentioned above is in response of my RTI. I got the mail on 1st week of June and today I received the hard copy by speed post.
ReplyDeleteMahananda Biswas. mahanandabiswas@gmail.com. Mob. 9883316217
Thank you, Sir for a copy by WA!
Delete(1) There are 14500 Officers shortage is there in Armed Forces. So there's a strong case that MSP for Officers need to be increased to Rs 30,000 Thirty Thousand per month from present Rs 15000, so that youth of India find it attractive to join Officers Cadre in Armed Forces instead of IT Sector. (2) JCO / OR there's no such deficiency, so their MSP should remain at Rs 5000. (3) JCO /OR with just Matric Qualifications are being paid adequately (4) Comparing with Matric Qualifications, Security Guards in Malls being Paid Rs 8000 per month salary.
ReplyDeleteMSP for Officers is Rs 15500 and not as you state. With decreasing number of squadrons, why do we keep saying we have a shortage?
Delete