tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post9165757540569894670..comments2024-02-08T19:00:06.509+05:30Comments on Aerial View : Why Is Military Service Pay Ignored & Other Issues - UpdatedAerial Viewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17115360943663046368noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-83980591698188242052016-10-09T10:26:15.194+05:302016-10-09T10:26:15.194+05:30Sir,
The IDAS officer's minimum required quali...Sir,<br />The IDAS officer's minimum required qualification may be "just a Graduation". However to get into IDAS he has to pass the All India Civil services exam. So give the devil his due. It is not due to oversight that the gentleman has ignored the MSP. He is not as Naive as all that. In my view it was a deliberate misrepesentation.<br />RamaniAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833137269758782934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-74189349216895598292016-10-05T07:50:55.473+05:302016-10-05T07:50:55.473+05:30@batsy The point raised about the OROP pension of ...@batsy The point raised about the OROP pension of 37570/- for Brigadier also serves to illustrate another related matter.<br /><br />The OROP of 37570/- mentioned in the comment corresponds to a QS of 33+ for the rank of Brigadier. The value of 2.57x37570 = 96554.90 would be equivalent to a VII CPC pay of 177609.80 which has the nearest matrix pay of 176900 in level 13A at index no. 9 i.e. with 8 increments from the lowest level of level 13A. This could turn out to correspond to a QS lower than 33+. It can be seen by considering with how much QS does an Officer with Brigadier rank reach Index No. 9 in level 13A post 01 Jan 2016.<br /><br />The QS mismatch with the 2.57x, perhaps even with the proper rationalization factor, is easier to discern in the case of time bound ranks as I have tried to tabulate here <a href="https://goo.gl/QqjD5z" rel="nofollow"><b>https://goo.gl/QqjD5z</b></a>.<br /><br />Applying the proper index number appears to be absolutely crucial for a proper fixation of VII CPC pensions as per the recommendations.<br /><br />I do agree with the view expressed on several forums that if the index number is correctly applied, and in some cases in a higher level (e.g. level 12A for older Maj pensioners), the annual "equalization", or even the five yearly one for ensuring OROP, may be less critical than considered presently.<br /><br />Civilians will get the equivalent of OROP with the matrix (after their pensions are fixed with index numbers) without the need for any annual or five yearly review/equalization. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-88693440056977732712016-10-03T08:32:56.705+05:302016-10-03T08:32:56.705+05:30Is there a provision in the constitution to punish...Is there a provision in the constitution to punish the 7CPC team for wasting the public funds by giving inaccurate PC Report?Manoharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04398056746166406979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-70067725581822574122016-10-03T08:30:08.461+05:302016-10-03T08:30:08.461+05:30The 7CPC was a one man show of Shri DK Rai, a youn...The 7CPC was a one man show of Shri DK Rai, a young officer from Accounts and Finance stream. The Presiding officer just signed it not going through his suggestions. May God save the Accounts Department.Manoharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04398056746166406979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-55785429627075557392016-09-28T07:12:20.358+05:302016-09-28T07:12:20.358+05:30@taazakhabar, ashwanisarada and corona8, this thre...@taazakhabar, ashwanisarada and corona8, this thread is closed.Thank you for your opinions.Aerial Viewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17115360943663046368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-78349847261236020582016-09-27T21:09:26.747+05:302016-09-27T21:09:26.747+05:30@Taaza Khabar : Without the pro rata reduction, th...@<a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/16599233400842278493" rel="nofollow"><b>Taaza Khabar</b></a> : Without the pro rata reduction, the circular 500 pensions for Major, Lt Colonel and Colonel would be 18205, 26265 and 27795 respectively and <b>not</b>, as mentioned by you, "25487, Rs 35458 and Rs 37524 respectively".<br /><br />You may look up the said circular to verify. corona8https://www.blogger.com/profile/14443791458911191943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-63790746326611729652016-09-27T20:34:08.088+05:302016-09-27T20:34:08.088+05:30@Taaza Khabar : A thousand apologies if my poser t...@Taaza Khabar : A thousand apologies if my poser to illustrate the issue gave the impression of being <i>personal</i> in any way.<br /><br />Permit me to re-phrase. If the need for another order on 33+ is not felt necessary, how will the pensions for the period from 01 Jan 2006 to 30 June 2014 of those who retired before 2006 be re-adjusted to a level without the pro rata reduction applied?<br /><br />The circ 500 pensions were given wef 01 Jan 2006 with pro rata reduction to those pre 2006 retirees who had not completed 33 years (including weightage). Now unless orders are issued, in line with those issued for civilians, how will the pro-rata reductions (applicable from 01 Jan 2006 to 30 June 2014)for this class of ESM pensioners (pre 2006 retirees) be removed?<br /><br />The circ 555 pension is only from 01 July 2014 onwards. But the circ 500 pension from 01 Jan 2006 to 30 Jun 2014 would have to be increased as if no pro rata reduction had taken place.<br /><br />IMHO.<br /><br />Is this the same issue that is under query or have I misunderstood? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-7279734244636606922016-09-27T19:58:00.306+05:302016-09-27T19:58:00.306+05:30I agree that 2.57 is the FF in the interim till th...I agree that 2.57 is the FF in the interim till the High level committee decides if this needs to be improved upwards.<br />As for the Rationalization Factor(RF) ,even if Option II is not accepted, the RF for respective columns for the Defence Pay Matrix will decide the value of the first cell in each when x by the min basic pay of that rk in the 6cpc to arrive at the min pay of that rk in 7cpc.<br />In light of contents of your write up , the basic pay of each rk is an anomaly to be decidedbatsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06822992953695534948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-85192754931122700562016-09-27T18:34:53.204+05:302016-09-27T18:34:53.204+05:30@batsy, 2.57 is the temporary rationalisation (not...@batsy, 2.57 is the temporary rationalisation (not fitment) factor for all, whether it is 2.67, or 2.72 or 2.81 as per first recommendation of 7 CPC.<br /><br />The rationalisation factor as given in the pay matrix, i.e 2.57, or 2.67, or 2.72 or 2.81 will be applied if and when the Committee headed by Finance Secretary agrees with option Two i.e such as adding increments earned and then finding the place in the pay matrix etc etc. Please read 10.2.87 for more details. Aerial Viewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17115360943663046368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-602015166758966342016-09-27T18:25:09.455+05:302016-09-27T18:25:09.455+05:30@ashwanisarada & taazakhabar,
Please refrain ...@ashwanisarada & taazakhabar,<br /><br />Please refrain from bringing in personal tones and comments. <br /><br />Please be to the point - either you know the facts and have replied or you do not know the facts and remain silent so that someone with knowledge will reply. Aerial Viewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17115360943663046368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-12596631087112997002016-09-27T17:38:36.557+05:302016-09-27T17:38:36.557+05:30@Kanny. Sir 2.67 is the Rationalization Factor not...@Kanny. Sir 2.67 is the Rationalization Factor not the Fitment Factor. So pension of a Brig as per C555 will be 37570x2.57=96555.<br />Rationalization factor will decide the value of the first cell in which brigs fall in the matrix.<br />This writeup has highlighted some issues which affect the BP of each rk. So let us wait and watch for the final outcome, as that will decide the pay of all rks and pensions of all when equalisation takes place 5 yearly as it exists of now. If Mr Reddy gives us the benefit of yearly equalisation, that throws up fresh figures for pensions Wef 01 Jan 16.<br />batsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06822992953695534948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-50195931474143723912016-09-27T16:35:56.286+05:302016-09-27T16:35:56.286+05:30Sir, please refrain from making any personal comme...Sir, please refrain from making any personal comments like in your third para. I am no one to give or deny for I am not MoD. <br /><br />You may not agree with my request for clarification and you may not wish to give a clarification. Your comment was voluntary and therefore civility is necessary.<br /><br />My query rose because as per Cir 500 a Maj, a Lt Col and a Col with 20 years service were grantd pensions of Rs 15447, Rs 21490 and Rs 22742 respectively.<br /><br />In Cir 555 they are granted the average of pensions of Rs 21530, Rs 31305 and Rs 32963 respectively.<br /><br />If the Cir 500 pension is multiplied by the 33/20 factor, the pension (which is not the average of Cir 555) is Rs 25487, Rs 35458 and Rs 37524 respectively. <br /><br />But is this because of the removal of pro-rata deduction but adulterated by the average of pensions?<br /><br />Anyway, I request you not to reply and request the Air Mshl to delete this chain of comments. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16599233400842278493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-12920836161515806922016-09-27T12:57:34.803+05:302016-09-27T12:57:34.803+05:30Sir, your query was, "..after OROP is there a...Sir, your query was, <i>"..after OROP is there a need for another order removing the 33 year clause?"</i> <br /><br />Sir, don't you want pre OROP pensions (1 Jan 2006 to 30 June 2014) of pre 2006 pensioners to be refixed with the 33+ issue sorted out and arrears paid to them?<br /><br />Please consider giving them benefit of the doubt if any of them have caused offence at a personal level in some way. As a class, I think, they've done nothing wrong. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-26688237681876268742016-09-27T10:26:56.028+05:302016-09-27T10:26:56.028+05:30Sir, with due respect,
You may wish to read Para ...Sir, with due respect,<br /><br />You may wish to read Para 3 of MoD letter of 07 Nov 15 which reads as follows: "3 (i)To begin with pension of past pensioners would be re-fixed on the basis of pension of retirees of Calendar year 2013 and benefit will be effective 1.7.2014" and 3 (ii) "Pension will be re-fixed for all pensioners on the basis of the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and same length of service." There is no mention of pro-rata deduction of pension of those who served less than 33 years because the 33 year rule does not apply to post 2006 retires. <br /><br />Since such an OROP type equalisation with 2013 retirees is not there for civilians, it may be more applicable to them. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16599233400842278493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-47883342135073152262016-09-27T09:35:32.918+05:302016-09-27T09:35:32.918+05:30Brilliant write up. The PM must be told the follow...Brilliant write up. The PM must be told the following:-<br />Brig's pension as per SAI/2008 = 77800<br />Brig's pension as per 7th CPC =69800 (again a Dhanpalan in the making?)<br />Brig pension as per Cir 500=29145x2.67=77810 <br />Brig pension as per Cir 555=37570x2.67=100312<br />So what was the 7th CPC pay matrix all about, and who is responsible for the hoodwinking in the 7th CPC.? We didn't need a 7th CPCKannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01704112091432277424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-47991242672522935792016-09-27T09:13:19.779+05:302016-09-27T09:13:19.779+05:30We got ".. 2 instalment(s) of arrears with 2 ...We got <i>".. 2 instalment<b>(s)</b> of arrears with 2 more due .. "</i> because, as most people already know, total arrears from 01 July 2014 on account of OROP were to be paid in four instalments. No <i>"argument"</i> needs to be given to clarify that.<br /><br />As OROP is based on average of pensions drawn by personnel retiring in 2013 to whom the 33+ rule did not apply, the 33+ issue relates only to pensions upto 30 Jun 2014 <b>for pre 2006 pensioners</b>. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-67626265872725830182016-09-26T20:25:37.015+05:302016-09-26T20:25:37.015+05:30Sir, but w.e.f pay scales drawn in calendar year 2...Sir, but w.e.f pay scales drawn in calendar year 2013 falls between 2006 and 2014, that IS WHY WE ALL GOT 2 instalment of arrears with 2 more due. No, sir your ar not giving me the correct argument. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16599233400842278493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-725329543709673732016-09-26T16:23:59.723+05:302016-09-26T16:23:59.723+05:30Sir, I think removal of the 33 years clause applie...Sir, I think removal of the 33 years clause applies to the period between 01 Jan 2006 and 01 July 2014, i.e. before OROP was implemented.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-78185205450373026722016-09-26T16:20:59.036+05:302016-09-26T16:20:59.036+05:30I think it is correct to say NFU is, strictly spea...I think it is correct to say NFU is, strictly speaking, not "notional" and the N actually stands for "Non". I think that to assume it stands for "Notional", as stated by the commentator in an earlier comment, is perhaps to suggest that the elevation in status NFU offers is not "real" in terms of post or seniority but "notional" in a way as it merely puts a superseded officer in a higher financial grade after a time lag.<br /><br />As to how services HQs propose to implement NFU, if ever granted, is another matter. But the point about Col(TS) rank being given after the third board is completed seems sensible. Col(TS) are borne on a separate roster and their seniority over select Cols is never an issue. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-37699989364866761952016-09-25T10:38:26.595+05:302016-09-25T10:38:26.595+05:30I humbly submit the following points for everyone ...I humbly submit the following points for everyone in this Blog:-<br />(a) NFFU means Non-Functional Financial Upgradation as it was proposed and acepted in 6 CPC for all Gp A Organised Services. NFU has been loosly or colloquially used by the Faujis. NFFU is also covered in Wikipedia. It is not Notional. For the sake of parity with Civil Services and other Joint Org like MES and BRO and to eliminate disparities in retiring Brigs getting more pension than retd Maj Gen, a notional NFFU was to be subsumed in the Pay Matrix.<br />(b) I am really not aware of as to whether any road map is submitted by the Services HQ to the Govt for clear and seamless implementation of NFFU for the Defence Officers. How many of us cared to read the recommendations of Justice AK Mathur for implementation of NFFU for Armed Forces Officers, and give an analytical comment on the issue. It may not be out of place or cynical to say that one Maj Dhanapalan only had time and inclination to read the 4 CPC report and probably some grey cells in his head to read between the lines of schemey Babus" mischeif played on all of us (with thousands of us just going or aligning with the wind like wind sock).It was like a six in the last ball of World Cup when the asking was only a boundary. We have been brought up like this in uniform and we as a clan have failed intellectually.Sorry for saying this but that includes me and the worthy Cdrs we had over the decades. (Aerial View may not take it as a personal attack,please)<br />(c) I do not how many of us know that every IAS and their ilk retire with assured pension of an Addl Secy. Our Promotion Boards or their "Empanellment" cannot be compared for a variety of reasons.<br />(d) We need to sort out the issue of protocol/seniority between Col (Sel) and Col (TS). Someone who has become Sel Col atleast five years after one became TS is senior to him. The issue is serious probably in Army due to sheer size and Promotion Policies being tampered with the Chief at the helm of affair. The situation is different in every Promotion Board in terms of no of vacancies, size of consideration zone, resultant ratios apart from sudden bonanza of AVSC Phase II for about five years and the list is long.Under these circumstances deciding on seniority whether Sel or Col has faultlines which need to be addressed urgently. As opined buy you, the qualifying service for TS rank should be brought down to 21. I believe it was not implemented that time because of reservations expressed by AF and Navy. <br />I wish this healthy discussion continue so that everyone's thought process is triggered. Pl do not take it personal and if the Blog owner feels anything unpalatable or untenable he has the previlege of moderating my comments.<br />We all must thank the advancement in technology and electronic gadgets which have made all of us more aware of the environment we are serving or living.<br />Jai Hind! With warmest regards, as always.<br />Young 50.Young50https://www.blogger.com/profile/01913060012512701010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-70926010774556058612016-09-24T19:14:11.559+05:302016-09-24T19:14:11.559+05:30Sir, may I request a clarification?
After 1.1.20...Sir, may I request a clarification? <br /><br />After 1.1.2006 the retiree is entitled to full pension i.e 50% of last pay drawn + GP + MSP after rendering 20 years of service. <br /><br />Now under OROP scheme all past pensioners are granted the same pension as a retiree in calendar year 2013, which means there is no embargo of the 33 year clause on those retirees i.e they get full pension for the number of years of service rendered as long as the service is more than 20 years.<br /><br />My question, after OROP is there a need for another order removing the 33 year clause? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16599233400842278493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-28683905096133490062016-09-24T11:21:21.108+05:302016-09-24T11:21:21.108+05:30@Young50 : "...you continue to be a notional ...@<a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/01913060012512701010" rel="nofollow"><b>Young50</b></a> : <i>"...you continue to be a notional guy and not actual, really.Similar to that Col (TS) and equi in three Services are not posted to vacancies tenable by a Col.No point in building up hopes and in turn others' also."</i><br /><br />Where is the need for a Col(TS) to be posted against a Col (Select) vacancy? He can officiate at times if required, of course. What is the issue, really? "Notional" is the whole point of NFU. That is what the <b>"N"</b> stands for.<br /><br />The appraisal and promotion system never had claims to absolute perfection. If in the system's judgement, flawed or imperfect though it is at times, an officer is less fit than another for elevation to the next rank by selection, at least the superseded officer gets the same grade pay as a Col (Select) after putting in 26 years of service. It is the service of 26 years that needs to be thought about. It should be brought down to the service of an officer for whom all three promotion boards affecting him are over and done with.<br /><br />Under NFU, all ranks in a specific stream/arm/branch should get the grade pay and basic of a peer promoted 2 years previously. That is what happens for AIS Gp A. Two years of being left behind is adequate punishment for being lower on the scale of what the system, esp its designers and 'operators", choose to call "merit".<br /><br />It is the parity of pensions of older retirees who had fallen afoul of the promotion/appraisal system that requires <a href="https://goo.gl/bG7nB6" rel="nofollow"><b>closer attention</b></a>. corona8https://www.blogger.com/profile/14443791458911191943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-3132006228505244352016-09-23T15:19:13.732+05:302016-09-23T15:19:13.732+05:30Clarity is required through whatever is being fina...Clarity is required through whatever is being finally decided by the Govt as part of those five anamolies promised by the RM.I really cant believe reg other perks especially executive class by air purely due to sheer strength of Offrs who are going to be benefited consequence to acceptance (?) of NFU over dead body of some bureaucrats !Anyway let us all hope for the best.Thanks for your prompt and apt response.Regards.Young50https://www.blogger.com/profile/01913060012512701010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-33715170228845887072016-09-22T20:32:41.098+05:302016-09-22T20:32:41.098+05:30Sirs @ Dinesh & young 50. Directors in mes and...Sirs @ Dinesh & young 50. Directors in mes and BRO Dgqa etc having grade pay of 8700 get NFU grade pay of joint secretary that is 10000/- the only benefit they do not get is 7000/- transport allowance. Rest they get all facilities as applicable to a joint secretary including AC taxis on TD and travel by executive class in air and hotel stay and food charges. Hope it clarifies..mshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470344462869769043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-91603479944468863932016-09-22T14:01:58.521+05:302016-09-22T14:01:58.521+05:30Dear MS,
There is a clarification issued by DOPT a...Dear MS,<br />There is a clarification issued by DOPT and Railway Board stating that people drawing Grade Pay of Rs.10,000 by NFU are not eligible to draw TA of Rs.7000 which is optional for JS and equi.That means you continue to be a notional guy and not actual, really.Similar to that Col (TS) and equi in three Services are not posted to vacancies tenable by a Col.No point in building up hopes and in turn others' also.<br />This apart we must also fight for incl of MSP in CTG. <br />Regards and bye for now.Young50https://www.blogger.com/profile/01913060012512701010noreply@blogger.com