In a reply to MoD/DESW letter
dated 28.3.2019 on equalisation/revision of OROP, the O/o CGDA had provided a
sample survey stating that OROP x 2.57 is more than the pensions of those
retired after 1.7.2014 (effective date of OROP) or 1.1.2016 (effective date of
7th CPC.
1
|
Lt Colonel
|
|||
2
|
Standard Qualifying Service
|
24
|
||
3
|
Pay (4th CPC)
|
Min Pay
|
Max Pay
|
|
4
|
Pay
|
3900
|
5100
|
|
5
|
Pension
|
4th CPC
|
2208
|
2772
|
6
|
Pension under 5th CPC under consolidation
|
w.e.f. 1.1.1996
|
5953 to 7286
|
|
7
|
Pension under modified parity 5th CPC
|
w.e.f. 1.1.1996
|
7093
|
|
Range
|
01.01.96
|
7093 to 7286
|
||
8
|
Pension under 6th CPC by multiplication method
|
w.e.f. 1.1.2006
|
16032 to 16487
|
|
9
|
Pension under Modified Parity
|
w.e.f. 1.1.2006
|
26265
|
|
10
|
Revision under OROP
|
w.e.f.1.7.2014
|
32428
|
|
11
|
Revision in 7th CPC (Col 10 x 2.57
|
w.e.f 1.1.2016
|
83340
|
|
12
|
Revision if he had not been granted OROP (Col 9 x 2.57)
|
w.e.f.
1.1.2016
|
67502
|
|
Post 1.7.2014 & 1.1.2016 Retirees
Time period
|
Lt Col *
| ||
Total No. of pensioners with QS 24 years
|
Pensioners drawing less than OROP rate
|
% of pensioners drawing less than OROP
|
|
1.07.2014 to 31.12.2015
|
246
|
232
|
94.3
|
01.01.2016 onwards
|
514
|
401
|
78.02
|
* Majority of Lt Col who have retired after 2014 are currently
drawing less pension than OROP
|
|||
This however does not appear to be correct. Please see the
table below.
Rank
|
QS
|
OROP from Cir 555
|
7th CPC Pension
Column C x 2.57
|
Pay in 7 CPC Pay matrix for QS
|
Add MSP to E
|
Total E+F
|
Pension @ 50% of E
|
Pension in 7 CPC 50% of G
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
I
|
Wg Cdr
|
13
|
25211
|
64793
|
121200
|
15500
|
136700
|
60600
|
68350
|
14
|
25990
|
66794
|
124800
|
15500
|
140300
|
62400
|
70150
|
|
15
|
26385
|
67809
|
128500
|
15500
|
144000
|
64250
|
72000
|
|
16
|
26385
|
67809
|
132400
|
15500
|
149700
|
66200
|
74850
|
|
17
|
26385
|
67809
|
136400
|
15500
|
151900
|
68200
|
75950
|
|
18
|
26385
|
67809
|
140500
|
15500
|
156000
|
70250
|
78000
|
|
19
|
26385
|
67809
|
144700
|
15500
|
160200
|
72350
|
80100
|
|
20
|
31305
|
80454
|
149000
|
15500
|
164500
|
74500
|
82250
|
|
21
|
31713
|
81510
|
153500
|
15500
|
169000
|
76750
|
84500
|
|
22
|
32428
|
83340
|
158100
|
15500
|
173600
|
79050
|
86800
|
|
23
|
32428
|
83340
|
162800
|
15500
|
178300
|
81400
|
89150
|
|
24
|
32428
|
83340
|
167700
|
15500
|
183200
|
83850
|
91600
|
|
25
|
32775
|
84232
|
172700
|
15500
|
188200
|
86350
|
94100
|
|
26
|
32813
|
84330
|
177900
|
15500
|
193400
|
88950
|
96700
|
|
27
|
33225
|
85388
|
183200
|
15500
|
198700
|
91600
|
99350
|
|
28
|
33225
|
85388
|
188700
|
15500
|
204200
|
94350
|
102100
|
|
29
|
33225
|
85388
|
194400
|
15500
|
209900
|
97200
|
104950
|
|
30
|
33918
|
87169
|
200200
|
15500
|
215700
|
100100
|
107850
|
|
31
|
34303
|
88159
|
206200
|
15500
|
221700
|
103100
|
110850
|
|
32
|
34765
|
89346
|
212400
|
15500
|
227900
|
106200
|
113950
|
|
33
|
34765
|
89346
|
212400
|
15500
|
227900
|
106200
|
113950
|
From table provided in reply to DEXSW/50600 &
CGDFA/50380
1
|
Brigadier
|
|||
2
|
Standard Qualifying Service
|
28
|
||
3
|
Pay (4th CPC)
|
Min Pay
|
Max Pay
|
|
4
|
Pay
|
4950
|
5100
|
|
5
|
Pension
|
4th CPC
|
3075
|
3150
|
6
|
Pension under 5th CPC under consolidation
|
w.e.f. 1.1.1996
|
7993 to 8105
|
|
7
|
Pension under modified parity 5th CPC
|
w.e.f. 1.1.1996
|
9550
|
|
Range
|
01.01.96
|
9550 to 9550 (?)
|
||
8
|
Pension under 6th CPC by multiplication method
|
w.e.f. 1.1.2006
|
21583
|
|
9
|
Pension under Modified Parity
|
w.e.f. 1.1.2006
|
29145
|
|
10
|
Revision under OROP
|
w.e.f.1.7.2014
|
36420
|
|
11
|
Revision in 7th CPC (Col 10 x 2.57
|
w.e.f 1.1.2016
|
93600
|
|
12
|
Revision if he had not been granted OROP (Col 9 x 2.57)
|
w.e.f.
1.1.2016
|
74903
|
|
Post 1.7.2014 & 1.1.2016 Retirees
Time period
|
Brigadier
|
||
Total No. of pensioners with QS 28 years
|
Pensioners drawing less than OROP rate
|
% of pensioners drawing less than OROP
|
|
1.07.2014 to 31.12.2015
|
97
|
8
|
8.25
|
01.01.2016 onwards
|
239
|
1
|
0.42
|
The above does not appear to be correct. Please see tables
below
Rank
|
QS
|
OROP from Cir 555
|
7th CPC Pension
Column C x 2.57
|
Pay in 7 CPC Pay matrix for QS
|
Add MSP to E
|
Total E+F
|
Pension @ 50% of E
|
Pension in 7 CPC 50% of G
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
I
|
Air Cmde
|
28
|
36420
|
93600
|
187200
|
15500
|
202700
|
93600
|
101350
|
29
|
36425
|
93612
|
187700
|
15500
|
203200
|
94350
|
101600
|
|
30
|
37275
|
95797
|
193300
|
15500
|
208800
|
96650
|
104400
|
|
31
|
37280
|
95810
|
199100
|
15500
|
214600
|
99500
|
107330
|
|
32
|
37280
|
95810
|
205100
|
15500
|
220600
|
102550
|
110300
|
|
33
|
37570
|
96555
|
211300
|
15500
|
226800
|
105650
|
113400
|
|
34
|
37570
|
96555
|
217600
|
15500
|
233100
|
108800
|
116550
|
Note 1: The OROP amounts for other years have been taken from
PCDA Circular No. 555 dated 4th February 2016.
Note 2: Revision of Pension of
pre 1.1.2016 retirees for multiplication of Basic Pension before commutation as
on 31.12.2015 by IoR of 2.57 is as given
in Para 5.1 of MoD F No. 17(01)/2016/D (Pension/Policy) dated 29th
October 2016. No fitment into 7th CPC Pay matrix + MSP, if any,
with reduction to 50% of the Pay + MSP (for pension) has been given in the
letter.
Note 3: Concordance tables for
Notional Pay based fixation of pension are available in MoD F No.
17(1)/2017(02)/D (Pension Policy) dated 17 Oct 2018.
Note 4: Revision of Pension post
1.1.2016 retirees is based on methodology given in MoD F No. 17(02)/2016/D
(Pension/Policy) dated 4th September 2017.
Note 5: 24 years QS for Wg Cdr
(Lt Col) and 28 years QS for Air Cmde (Brig) and related pension figures are
taken from the tables provided by O/o CGDA in the reply to
CGDFA/R/2019/50380.
Note 6: Calculations have not
been made for Gp Capt (Col) as sample figures have not been provided by O/o
CGDA.
* * * * * * *
Sir, if this is an official calculation from CGDA, it may need to be pointed out to them that column "H" is meaningless. Pension of a Wg Cdr retiree post 01 Jan 2016 would be the one in Column "I". As can be readily seen, the pension in column "I" exceeds the one determined by 2.57xOROP for older retirees with equal service, as shown in Col D.
ReplyDeleteMust read carefully before you pull the trigger. The upper table is from the O/o CGDA.
DeleteThe lower table is prepared by me using inputs received. There is a purpose for Col H - that purpose is that the these are the figures quoted in the Concordance tables where MSP has not been taken into consideration. The reason I requested you to look at the Civilian tables is that figures from there have been copy/pasted with minor modifications and appears that Rank Pay/MSP has not been added.
My point is that pensions of post 1.7.2014 or post 1.1.2016 retirees cannot be lesser than the OROP. I wonder how TRIPAS arrived at that conclusion.
Sir, I will go over Concordance Tables for civilians. But at first glance, the Concordance Table for Wing Commander appears to equate the starting point of pay-scales for the rank in regimes of IV and V CPC @ 3900/- and 13500/- respectively. The corresponding figure for VI CPC is 46530/- which includes Grade Pay of 8000/- (The, by now, famous Minimum Pay In Pay Band of 38530/- with GP 8000 added to it). Thus the footnote to the Concordance Table, about rank pay having been included though not shown separately, appears in order for transition from VI to VII CPC only to the extent of Grade Pay of VI CPC having been taken into account.
DeleteIf memory serves me right, rank pay of IV CPC was factored in while fixing starting point of pay-scale of V CPC and also for transition from V CPC to VI CPC. In that regard, the Concordance Table may be in order as well.
One other thing to note is that for initial fixation in 7CPC Matrix as well as in Concordance Table for Wg Cdr, initial fixation now being with revised IOR 2.67 and not 2.57 (to clarify, the latter still being the fitment factor as in 2.57xOROP), VII CPC notional pay 121200 fixed in the Concordance Table (and level 12A of Matrix) for Wg Cdr is 2.67 x ( minimum of VI CPC payband+ VI CPC GP) ie [{2.67 x (37400+8000)}=121200] (rounded off). Why they did not start with 2.67 X (minimum pay in pay band+8000) i.e. [{2.67x(38530+8000)}=124240] is not at all clear. This is the kind of issue that had originally caused VI CPC pension for Wg Cdr to be fixed at the lower level of minimum of pay band, later revised to minimum of pay in pay band level.
But the matter of MSP mentioned by you does not appear to affect initial fixations in the matrix or the concordance tables. I have tried but haven't been able to see an issue there. MSP plays a role in pension fixation based on pay but, so far, I can't find a role for it in inter-CPC pay fixation. However, I'll continue my search.
But a need for further study may well be in order if we look at the number of increment stages during IV and V CPCs, starting at QS of app 18 years and ending at QS of app 30+ years, and view these against increment stages for VI and VII CPC, starting at a QS of 13 years, with some of the multiple IV and V CPC stages being counted against a single VI and VII CPC stage, and also the fact that the last V CPC pay-scale stage at QS (30+) is placed in the Concordance Table against VII CPC matrix notional pay of 140500 corresponding to a VII CPC Wg Cdr QS of 19 yrs.
At the risk of sounding over-repetitive, these mis-matches in QS/increment-stages may be the reason why a notional pay based pension for veteran Wg Cdrs is much less than their 2.57xOROP, which itself is much less than the equivalent pension of a Wg Cdr retiring in 2016 (and later) with equal QS.
There may well be a need to establish reasons through RTI or enquiries as to why there is a mention in official notings of Wg Cdrs, retiring after implementation of OROP, getting less pension than those getting OROP in regime of VI CPC and 2.57xOROP in regime of VII CPC. To me it does not sound logical. It can't be due to their pension having been calculated without factoring in grade pay and MSP in regime of VI CPC or the MSP during regime of VII CPC. I doubt if pensions would have been calculated in that manner.
Sir, I may be mistaken, but in the table for Brigadier equivalent rank, you have posted figures of matrix salaries that I could not find in the Resolution dated 22 June 2017.
ReplyDeleteLevel 13A for the rank begins at 139600/- and ends at 217600/-. This level should start at a level of 25 years and the figure of 187200/- (the actual amount is 187700 in the table I have) would be close to a service of 35 years.
As I mentioned, I could be wrong.
Sir, the Resolution 1 (E) and 2 (E) were published on 5.9.2016.
DeleteAmendment to Pay Rules 2017 for Army Officers and Air Force Officers as well as Amendment to Pay Regulations 2017 for Navy Officers were published on 6.7.2017.
Sir, the amount used is based on the actual payment to Air Force officers. An online RTI appn has been filed on 13.7.2019 to confirm their pay is correct. Responses (negative?) of two CPIOs is in the latest post elsewhere.