The Honourable Supreme Court passed an order on 01.5.2019 to the Govt of India, MoD, DESW to file a comprehensive rejoinder affidavit in reply to certain submissions made by IESM in addition to its Original Petition No. 419 of 2016.
The link below is to access and read the Comprehensive rejoinder Affidavit (262 pages).
Of particular interest would be Para 13 regarding the powers of the hon'ble Court, which appear to have been misinterpreted by certain newspapers leading to a lot of fretting, fuming and flogging the MoD.
Attention is also drawn to the amounts indicated in PCDA (P) Circular No. 555 being the weighted average of the minimum and maximum pension for a certain rank and specific years of QS.
It also lucidly explains that there would be many earning pensions above the weighted average.
Comprehensive Affidavit by UoI/MoD/DESW
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EtpHjGn8VS0VFqurH4wV843Xdl_tC5UH/view?usp=sharing
Enjoy
Sir, in-spite of the repeated assertions to the contrary in the Affidavit, there appears to be no justification in the respondents' claim that OROP, as fixed from 01 July 2014 for pre 01 July 2014 veterans, and I quote from para 34, "has ensured the principle of uniformity with the same rank and qualifying service is honoured”.
ReplyDeleteHow can there be "uniformity" when some of the pre 01Jul2014 pensioners drawing more than the fixed OROP (average of min and max pension for the same QS and rank) will continue to draw more than the average based OROP? A simple resolution would be for petitioners to furnish tables for some ranks displaying the range of pensions fixed for different ranks (of pre July 2014 retirees) at distinct QS intervals to demonstrate the lack of uniformity.
Uniformity can only be ensured if instead of the average of min and max pension of 2013, OROP is fixed at the max pension of 2013 for the same QS and rank.
Also, even if the maximum value of pension of 2013 for the same rank and QS is taken as the basis for OROP, the aim of it being made "uniform" may not be met unless the one year period ending 30 June 2014 is used for calculating OROP based on max pension for the same QS and rank.
Then, there are the old issues of anomalies for time-bound ranks such as the one I had mentioned on one of your previous blog-posts ---> bit.ly/2SAhXXN
As for arbitrariness of fixation of OROP and drawing up the tables (especially Table 1) of Circular 555, doubts can never be cleared unless the questions asked here are unambiguously answered --> bit.ly/2Mio1mx .
By what legal means can you lower the pensions of those earning higher than the average?
DeleteThere are several laws that mandate improving earnings, quality of life but you are suggesting bringing down the pensions of those earning more for"uniformity"?
By uniformity do you mean all incl AMC should get the same amount of pension?
Time bound ranks meaning Maj with 21y to get Lt Col pension? Or Lt Col with less than 26 years service to get pension of a Col? What is the legal basis?
I am surprised that you have not filed a case (like Maj S K Jain did) so that anomalies pointed out by you could get a legal solution.
"...you are suggesting bringing down the pensions of those earning more for "uniformity"".
DeleteSir, that is not the case at all.
For uniformity, the requirement is that OROP be fixed at max pension of 2013 for same QS and for same rank for all pre July 2014 pensioners. That would only cause an increase in those pensioners drawing less than the max pension for the same QS and rank. I can't see anyone's pension being decreased as a result of that.
If the max limit is not the basis for OROP, uniformity would not be achieved for pre July 2014 veterans.
As for AMC, separate tables would be followed as before. The principle of uniformity is not at the expense of removing those separate norms that were followed in tables for Circ 500.
As for the basis for 20 yrs (and not 21, which was a different matter) pension-equalisation for Maj and 26 yrs for Lt Col, cases are already in AFTs, a gist of the rationale I had provided in the old comment I had linked to.
I hope that would clarify.
In other words all those who earned promotions and increments more than their contemporaries i.e. same years of service were STUPID, for OROP would compensate those who did not earn promotions!
DeleteIn other words, no incentive to work harder to earn promotions earlier and get more increments so that on retirement pension is higher kyon ki OROP se mera pension un gadhon jitna hi ho jayega?
But, Sir, that is what OROP is. By definition. If there are ESM opposed to the concept, then, I’m sure they would approach the judiciary to seek the whole OROP matter be jettisoned.
DeleteHere, the issue ishtatam OROP is not ”uniform”, contrary to what the affidavit states. That appears to be the basis for the litigants seeking OROP be fixed at max of pension drawn in 2013 (or in fin yr 2013-14, as they seek) and not at the “average” of max and minimum.
This earning of promotions issue is not catered for at all even with OROP in its current form.
Sir, I will refrain from adding my logic till I get the raw data from PCDA (P). CGDA has ordered PCDA (P) to provide the raw data.
Delete2. But just a matter of curiosity - if in year 2013 the maximum for Lt Col of 23.5 years QS is Rs 35600 and in year 2014, the maximum is Rs 35000, what happens? Will the annual revision then be that pension of Lt Col with 23.5y will be brought down to Rs Rs 35000?
Sir, at present, as pensions drawn in 2013 are the basis for OROP, then 35600/- (or whatever was the max pension for a Wg Cdr with 23.5 years retiring in calendar yr 2013) would apply.
DeleteMy impression is, IESM seek that the max pension of a retiree in fin yr 2013-14 be the basis for OROP for older pensioners in the same rank and QS. So, if that comes about, whatever is the max pension of a retiree in that FY would be the basis for OROP.
But is it likely that max pension for a specific rank-QS combination of a retiree in a subsequent yr would be less than max pension for the same rank-QS combination of a retiree in a previous year? If OROP arrived at is less the previously drawn pension by one or more pensioners with the same rank-QS, then such numbers are likely to be insignificant and they'd continue to draw the higher pension. But the resulting OROP would have a great deal more uniformity than in the present situation of taking the average value.
This adoption of the max value, theoretically, should make OROP uniform for all Pre OROP date(presently 01 Jul 2014) ESM pensioners as then there would be no variation from average to max values for the pre OROP date pensioners.
This may have very little bearing on the earlier promotions matter you had expressed a concern about. Most of the promotions would be in the time-bound category. In any case, at the end of V CPC, pre-OROP pensions were equalised regardless of promotion date etc. I recall reading that it is by design as successive pay commissions tend to smoothen out vagaries and variations of earnings during service.
Certainly, in the case of OROP, variations could arise after the OROP implementation date for personnel retiring, say in August 2014 onwards. Some may draw less pension than OROP, some even more than OROP. These variations would then again be equalised at the next OROP revision five years later, though IESM want it to be at shorter intervals.
But the most important issue that, I think, needs attention is the exact basis of determining max and min pensions of retirees in 2013 based on which Circ 555 was prepared. I had provided a link in my first comment on this blog post.
That issue is not so much about AVS-I as the need to rule out possibility of there being some arbitrary basis for fixing OROP. The question there is, "How and from where did these figures come from?"
Best regards.
Learned Air Marshal,
DeleteIn civil life, officers are promoted batchwise. Almost everyone gets the higher pay scale/promotion.
In Defence, only few people get promoted. Most of the people retire at middle/lower levels in the hierarchy.
OROP was meant to compensate this disadvantage also (in addition to early retirement).
OROP concept treats a Col of first board equally with a Col of third board. This is quite justified. Defence Service often rejects the most brilliant people who would have reached the top had they joined the civil service. In civil service, everyone gets the pay of Major General after 20 years thanks to the NFU.
Nobody have ever mentioned regarding injustice with Commissioned Captains. Their OROP has been fixed on the basis of pension data of JCOs granted Honorary Captains. That is why at present an Honorary Captain is drawing Rs 51450/- Without DA and a Commissioned Captain getting Rs 43716/- without DA. The diference in pension is Rs 7734/- without DA and Rs 9050/- with DA.
ReplyDeleteSir has this matter been taken up in Court?
Delete@Capt Gurdas Singh
Delete"Nobody have ever mentioned regarding injustice with Commissioned Captains".
Well, now you have mentioned it and we are all the wiser. But when I attended the OMJC Hearings , if I recall correctly, this issue was represented upon by those affected.
Would it be possible to share the QS you have in mind? The particular 7 CPC pension of 43716/- for Capt veterans that you have mentioned corresponds to OROP (Table 1 Circ 555) of 43716/2.57 = 17010/-. That relates, as per the table, to a QS right from 28 years to 33 yrs and above.
That again comes back to the simple question, how did DESW get figures for min and max pension for commissioned rank of Army Captain retiring in 2013 to fix OROP amounts in that table? Did any Officer of your cadre/specific type of commission even hold the rank of Captain at QS from 28 years to 33 years in 2013?
Nowadays, I am informed, such Commissions are described as "Short Service Non-Optees". All Officers with such Commissions, please correct me if I am wrong, would be in the rank of Maj at a QS of 6 yrs and above.
For reasons that I have never understood, some veterans get very alarmed at the mere suggestion that the older rank pensioner should have pension parity with the OROP pension of someone retiring in 2013 in the higher time-bound rank. Some judgements that do not relate to OROP at all get quoted as a counter argument to such parity. So even if that parity-notion is not acceptable, then how have such OROP pensions been fixed at all, when no one retired in a certain rank with a particular QS in 2013?
These issues may need to be resolved in the ongoing OROP case --> https://bit.ly/2I8EVTK .
@Capt Gurdas Singh
DeleteA little clarification on my previous post.
The OROP mentioned by you has the same QS range for Tables 2, 5 and 6 of Circular 555, as the one in table 1.
Sir,
ReplyDelete1. I retired from service in the rank of WING COMMANDER on 30 June, 1987 with 27 yrs and 06 months actual commissioned service and was granted retiring/service pension wef 01 July, 1987 for a qualifying pensionable service of 33 Yrs, which included rank weightage (restricted to 33 years) as per the statutory provisions in this regard at that time.
2. This fixation of pension with 33 Yrs. qualifying pensionable service comprising of actual commissioned service plus rank weightage (restricted to 33 years) made under 4th CPC continued with 5th and 6th CPCs whenever re-fixation of pension was done during the period from 01 July, 1987 to 30 June, 2014.
3. However, pursuant to Govt. of India, Min. of Def. letter No. 12(1)/2014/D(Pen./Policy)-Part-II dated 03 Feb. 2016 dealing with fixation of pension under OROP, my pension was fixed wef 1.7.2014 on the basis of my actual commissioned service of 27 yrs. and 6 months, thereby taking away the benefit of element of rank weightage. although under paragraphs dealing with “Methodology For Implementation” in the Govt. letter dated 03 Feb. 2016, its para 8 lays down that the initial Pension Payment Orders (PPO) or its Corrigendum PPO (Corr. PPO) indicates rank, group and qualifying service for which the individual had been pensioned. This information is available with Pension Disbursing Agencies as they have revised pension of all such pensioners in the recent past in terms of Government Orders issued for implementation of recommendations of Sixth CPC, CSC-2009 & CSC-2012. Thus as per provision of this letter qualifying service for calculation of my pension is the qualifying service for which I was pensioned wef 01-07-1987 ie 33 years, comprising of actual commissioned service plus rank weightage restricted to 33 years.
4. I am aware that this addition of rank weightage in calculation of qualifying pensionable service stood withdrawn wef 01/01/2006 vide Govt. of India, Min. of Def. letter no. 17(4)/2008(2)/ D(Pen/Pol) dated 30 Oct. 2009, however, Para 5 of this letter specifically stipulated-that as the linkage of full pension with 33 yrs. of qualifying service in respect of commissioned officers who retired/invalided out has been dispensed with from 01.01.2006, the benefit of adding years of qualifying service for the purpose of computation of gratuity in respect of commissioned officers who retired/invalided out/died on or after 01.01.2006 shall stand withdrawn. This letter in no way effected the qualifying pensionable service which comprised of total of actual commissioned service plus rank weightage granted for the purpose of calculation of pension of commissioned officers who had retired/were invalided out prior to 01.01.2006. Even , note 1 to para 49 of the office Manual, Part IV, Volume III, Revised Edition 2014, issued under the Authority of Controller General of Defence Accounts, under the heading “Minimum Qualifying Service for earning Retiring Pension” stipulates that the Term Qualifying Service in case of officers retiring between 01-01-1986 and 31-12-2005 shall mean actual qualifying service rendered by the officer plus a weightage (in years) appropriate to the rank last held as indicated in para 50 below subject to total qualifying service including weightage not exceeding 33 years. However the term Qualifying Service in case of officers retiring on or after 01-01-2006 shall mean actual Qualifying Service rendered by the officer due to the reason that the benefit of adding years of qualifying Service as rank weightage for the purpose of computation of pension has been withdrawn with effect from 01-01-2006 under VI CPC.
5. During my search on the internet, I have not come across any order of the Govt. of India which authorizes withdrawal of weightage (rank weightage) from the qualifying service while re-fixing pension under OROP to the retirees between 01-01-1986 and 31-12-2005..
6 I shall appreciate clarification in this regard
Wonderful, Sir. Another 'mother of all cases' like the 'rank pay' case can be filed in the court.
DeleteEven those people who retired after 2006 but joined the service before 2006 can file the case because they had joined the service with certain terms and conditions which have been withdrawn retrospectively.
https://pcdapension.nic.in/pcdapension/6cpc/Circular-568.pdf
ReplyDeleteWhy is the shameless MoD not releasing the OROP Anomaly Commission Report? Why are they hiding it? IESM must tell the Supreme Court to order the MOD to make public the contents of the OROP Anomaly Commission. The affidavit of the MoD, a document of half truths/lies will fall flat.
ReplyDeleteFelt something was being cobcealed from us Faujis is now exposed. HEADS MUST ROLL FRIENDS HEADS MUST SURELY ROLL INTO GUNNY-BAGS!!
ReplyDelete