IESM Governing Members' Opinions on Analysis on OROP
|
31 Oct (6 days ago)
 |
|||||
Dear Commander,
Expecting to gain wisdom from you, reportedly the financial
expert of IESM, I opened the email eagerly. To say I was disappointed is
perhaps the understatement of my life.
The analysis contained two lists at the beginning - the documents
that I relied on to prepare the analysis and the list of disclosures that
CPIOs & AA of the Govt did not help me with. The ack was that the
analysis would have been more accurate, had the Govt shared the documents I
applied for.
In your, some times unnecessarily personal comments, that wisdom on
financial aspects was missing. In fact, in your eagerness to show your own
acumen by disparaging others, you left me completely unenlightened because
there were no logical reasons and arguments why the analysis was bad i.e.
How increments apply only to additional years of service rendered but not for pension because the Pay in the Pay Band for each rank (whether for Capt, Maj, Lt Col, Col, Brig, Maj Gen or Lt Gen & equivalents) is no different whether the officers attained that rank in 2006 or in 2015. Adding Grade Pay, increment on Pay in the Pay Band + MSP gave me a sum of what serving officers are earning today and that 50% of that sum would be pension.
In your disparagement, you did not bring out that my arguments that
JCOs & equivalents do not stand to gain or why, in your opinion,
Circulars 501 and 547 are correct, partially correct or completely incorrect.
The analysis was shared with the Chairman CoSC & CAS and
discussed in his office in the afternoon of 7th Oct 2015 in the presence of
the Chairman, Air Force Pay Commission cell.
The effort was no misguided missiles such as the 3% increment in
pension), annual revision, FY and AY (when all Pay Commission recommendations
are made effective 01 Jan (1986, 1996, 2006 and now may be 2016).
I am grateful to you for correcting the facts about your financial
acumen.
With Best
Wishes
|
||||||
|
2 Nov (4 days ago)
|
|||||
Dear Savur Sir
I
understand your view.
The
need to reply to the mail from Col Rajan was different than to discuss the
financial nitty gritties. That is the reason why I did not touch on those
issues.
The
time to touch on those issues to my mind was before the presentation to the
RM.
Anyway
in your presentation you have very rightly put in a number of disclaimers and
the lack on knowledge on certain issues. I much appreciate that.
I
also hope you understand that the Babu is looking for every straw to hang on
to. He would use portions of the presentation and twist it to our
disadvantage and that you are aware of when you say the letter of
implementation needs to be carefully worded. That is where I also agree with
you but defer in the view that they would look at your ifs and buts.
I
do not stake any claim to my being financial wizard. But yes I do understand
a little. However my way of looking at it goes from an overall impact.
Pls
do understand the response in the light of what I have said.
Even
now it is not late to discuss the issue with the GB and we could be on a
common ground.
Brgds
Pathak
Cdr
Ravindra Waman Pathak I.N. (Retd)
Member
Governing Body and Pension Cell
Indian
Ex Servicemen Movement
1
Surashri,1146 Lakaki Road
Shivajinagar |
||||||
|
2 Nov (4 days ago)
|
|||||
Dear Commander,
My name was among the addressees. Certain remarks were made about the
analysis prepared by me.
My objection is that your remarks were personal and extremely avoidable. You may have a view and/or criticism based on the documents cited in the analysis and express it, which you did not. It would have helped me know the overall impact, that you do not wish to share as yet. Instead, you arrogated to yourself the liberty to make personal remarks without any basis for the same.
The analysis was also circulated on Aerial View. It elicited
10648 readers as of this morning, and many comments and suggestions, but none
personal or disparaging me or other ESM who you may have your opinion on.
The analysis is also available to the GB from 8th Oct 2015, in addition to more than 2 GB of information.
In anguish
 |
||||||
|
2 Nov (4 days ago)
|
|||||
Dear Sir
I am sorry if it caused anguish to you but it
was not intentional and not intended. I apologies.
As to others history is witness to what i said
and my remarks are based on their past record.They have done very little in
way of helping the cause and infact at times given wrong information.
I hope to remain in your good books
Ravi
|
||||||
|
3 Nov (3 days ago)
|
|||||
Dear Commander,
History is only witness to what we did in our previous jobs and I
wonder how many remember the mistakes and correct them so that we improve our
own lot.
Getting back to the topic, please let me know where my analysis was
wrong on the points raised by IESM/UFESM as a counter to Def Min's
announcement: -
1. Point No. 1 - Increments are for every additional year of service.
If I retire at 25 years in Col's rank pre-2014, I will get pension i.e. half
of what a Col with 25 years service will get in 2014 (i.e 50% of Pay in the
Pay Band+ Grade Pay + Increment for the 25th year + MSP). I will get no
increment in pension in 2015 because I have not rendered an additional year
of service i.e 26th year of service. So, why annual revision, let alone 5
yearly revision? And you know who spread the canard of 7 CPC being
implemented from Mar 2018 for ESM! Isn't pension a corollary of pay etc? Will
serving personnel also have the 7 CPC implemented in Mar 2018?
2. Point No. 2 - How does FY 2013-14 or AY 2013 matter because the
increment that a serving officer gets is in July 2013 which falls in FY 2013
as well as AY 2013-14? Incidentally all Pay Commission recommendations are
implement from 1.1 of the year i.e 1986, 1996, 2006 and may be now 2016!
3. Point No. 3 - Average of pension would mean as many pensions as
years of service in the rank and is an administrative impossibility because
promotions were based on vacancies after Cdr & equivalent rank and
time-frames were different in Army (again different for Arms & Services
and inter-regiment), Navy and Air Force. So why not 50% of the PB+GP+Inc+MSP
drawn by an officer/JCO/OR of same years of service?
Point No. 4. What is dilution in using the word 'uniform' as it was
used in the Budget speech of Feb 2014, in the MoD letter of 26th Feb and 24th
April? Dictionary defines "uniform" as same at all times i.e. same
pension as the one drawn by an equivalent after 2013, on a particular date
but applicable at all times.
Point No. 5 - Qua the above, what is this perpetuity thing? Doesn't
uniform pension mean at all times without need for adjudication?
Point No. 6 - What do we need a Judicial Commission for if the
IESM/UFESM ensures that it speaks to the RM on each of the above aspects.
Point No. 7 -
where/what are/is the error(s) in the tables attached in the tables to the
analysis?
|
||||||
|
3 Nov (3 days ago)
|
|||||
On 3 November 2015 at 10:20, Sharad Savur <sysavur@gmail.com>
wrote:
1. Point No.
1 - Increments are for every additional year of service. If I retire at 25
years in Col's rank pre-2014, I will get pension i.e. half of what a Col with
25 years service will get in 2014 (i.e 50% of Pay in the Pay Band+ Grade Pay
+ Increment for the 25th year + MSP). I will get no increment in
pension in 2015 because I have not rendered an additional year of service i.e
26th year of service. So, why annual revision, let alone 5 yearly revision?
And you know who spread the canard of 7 CPC being implemented from Mar 2018
for ESM! Isn't pension a corollary of pay etc? Will serving personnel also
have the 7 CPC implemented in Mar 2018? If this is the understanding then the very
concept of OROP is being denied by you and so i don't think there is any
further discussion involved and all further points are meaningless.
The definition as approved by parliament is
“implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners”
Your
statement above clearly defies the this very definition.
2. Point No. 2 - How does FY 2013-14 or AY 2013 matter because the
increment that a serving officer gets is in July 2013 which falls in FY 2013
as well as AY 2013-14? Incidentally all Pay Commission recommendations are
implement from 1.1 of the year i.e 1986, 1996, 2006 and may be now 2016!
3. Point No. 3 - Average of pension would mean as many pensions as
years of service in the rank and is an administrative impossibility because
promotions were based on vacancies after Cdr & equivalent rank and
time-frames were different in Army (again different for Arms & Services
and inter-regiment), Navy and Air Force. So why not 50% of the PB+GP+Inc+MSP
drawn by an officer/JCO/OR of same years of service?
Point No. 4. What is dilution in using the word 'uniform' as it was
used in the Budget speech of Feb 2014, in the MoD letter of 26th Feb and 24th
April? Dictionary defines "uniform" as same at all times i.e. same
pension as the one drawn by an equivalent after 2013, on a particular date but
applicable at all times.Dilution is in not adjusting the pension on an annual basis and the
pension of a retiree will be different in 2014/2015/2016 and so all till
review and is that not the same as 10 years pension commission or for that
matter 5 years commission.
Point No. 5 - Qua the above, what is this perpetuity thing? Doesn't
uniform pension mean at all times without need for adjudication?
Point No. 6 - What do we need a Judicial Commission for if the
IESM/UFESM ensures that it speaks to the RM on each of the above aspects. Has RM given a date to speak to us
after 5 Sep 2015 even when our team was there with him as late as 1130 hrs on
that day and even he expressed surprise at he meeting on VRS and yet he read
it out.Even we are questioning the Judicial Commission.You seem to think we
asked for it.But no they introduced it last minute.
Point No. 7 -
where/what are/is the error(s) in the tables attached in the tables to the
analysis? Sorry not doing that as your first point itself
makes any study of the tables fruitless.
Gandhi Sir you may kindly also
respond.
This
is very different from his presentation made.
|
||||||
|
3 Nov (3 days ago)
|
|||||||||
Sir,
Future enhancements means what the next pay commission will give.
If you had 22 years of service and retired in a particular rank, your basic pension will not increase but be commensurate to the pension of a same ranked officer with a service of 22 years. It may be Rs 20000 in 2013, it may become Rs 40000 in 2016 and Rs 80000 in 2026. If the 22 years service officer is alive in 2026 he will get Rs 80000.
On the other
hand if 23 years service officer gets Rs 25ooo as pension in 2013, Rs 50000
pension in 2016 and Rs 100000 in 2026, any officer of same rank still alive
in 2026 and having 23 years service will get Rs 100000 as pension.
Any way your mind is made us and I will not change your mind.
Thanks &
good bye!
|
||||||||||
|
4 Nov (2 days ago)
|
|||||||||
If everybody has made up his mind then there is
no discussion.
I am still sorry to note that you have not got
the concept of OROP definition right.
It is not every 10 or 5 years but every year as
the 3% increase occurs every year.
Brgds
|
|
4 Nov (2 days ago)
|
|||||||||
We have to understand that 'Future Enhancements' are NOT related only
to 7th- 8th CPC.
Definition of OROP clearly states ' ALL FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS'
This very much includes the 3% YEARLY increments given to those in
Service-- & hence 1.5% increase EVERY YR to Veterans.
If that is Not so, then it is NOT OROP
Let us not perceive / interpret things which are CRYSTAL CLEAR in
themselves.
|
||||||||||
|
4 Nov (2 days ago)
|
|||||||||
Sir,
Please read definition of increment.
It means 3% increase for every additional year of service i.e Active
Service.
That is why
definition of increment states (in SNI 1/S/2008 and 2/S/2008 states increment
on Pay in the Pay Band + Grade pay + 3% of the two.
For
example Cdr Pathak with 25 years of service will get 3% increment if he
serves the 26th year.
But if Cdr Pathak retired with 25 years of service, will he get
the same pension of the serving officer with 25 years of gets 3% increment
for serving in the 26th year of service.
Rhetorically,
if an ESM lives to the ripe old age of 125 years and has 105 years of
service, his pension will be infinite @ 3% increase.
|
||||||
|
4 Nov (2 days ago)
|
|||||
Dear General,
Every rank has a start for the Pay Band.
Increment is for every additional year of being in service ie
Effective.
The moment one retires say at 25 years his pension will be the same
as the pension of an officer with 25 years service who retired in 2013, 2023,
2033 etc.
That is
future enhancement - not 3 % increase because then you want the officer with
25 years service to get 3 % increase for the next year which is 26 years of
service.
|
|
5 Nov (1 day ago)
|
|||||
Dear General and Commander,
Further to the above line of my thought.
5th CPC fixed the pay scale for Maj Gens at Rs 18000-500-22400 &
for Commanders at Rs 13500-400-17100 + Rank Pay of Rs 1600.
If we follow your line of argument of annual increase, then
pension slips should be showing an increase of basic pension till 31.12.2005
@ 50% of Rs 500 for Maj Gens and @ 50% of Rs 400 for Commanders.
But pension slips do not show any increase in basic pension except for the DA revised every six months. Because by definition pension for 5th CPC was 50% of last Pay drawn + Rank Pay if applicable.
Similarly,the MoD letter dated 12.11.2008 defines reckonable
emoluments for officers as Pay in the Pay Band+Grade Pay+MSP + NPA, if
applicable, last drawn. There is no mention of
increments.
It also states that Pension for officers is calculated at 50% of
average of reckonable emoluments drawn in the last 10 months but for
PBOR (word used in the MoD letter) it is 50% of reckonable emoluments last
drawn.
Therefore, I wish to re-state that increment is paid for every
additional year of service rendered. Once we retire we do not render any
additional service. So, the 3% or 1.5% annual increase in pension, and hence
annual review, is not factually correct.
Thank you for your patience.
With Best
wishes
|
||||||
|
09:18 (23 hours ago) |
|||||
No sir the definition means I will
get 3% till I reach top of band that should be in 3 to 4 yrs and then it will
stop much like the serving officers will.
Pls see attached document. I think he
has understood the case better
|
||||||
|
09:41 (23 hours ago)
|
||||||
Seen, Sir, & Thanx,
While U have a Valid point -- it is only a matter of 'Interpretation'.
Taking the example that U have given, I am NOT at all saying that a
Veteran who has rendered 25 yrs Service be given the Pen of a SERVING Offr
having 26 yrs service.
What
we are insisting on is a different Perception, that is:-
* In 2015 a retd Offr with 25 yrs is drawing (say) 25/=.
* Same time in 2015 a Serving Offr with 24 yrs is drawing 24/=.
* Next yr, in 2016 THIS Offr who earlier had 24 yrs will now have
24+1=25 yrs & will draw 24/= + 3% increase in PAY. He will, consequently
get that increased pension by 1&1/2%, if retires in 2016.
*
So, that Retired Offr above, who will, obviously, still continue to
have the same 25 Yrs should now in 2016 get the same 'Increase'.
*
i.e. He must get 50% of Pay that THIS Serving Offr -- who earlier had 24 yrs
but now retires at 25 yrs service, will get if he retires in 2016.
THAT, is the logic.
Pl consider.
With Regards
Gen Jaini
IESM
|
|||||||
| |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Dear General,
The officer with 24 years
service cannot draw more pay than the officer with 25 years of service.
Year 2015 (corrected from 2014): - Reckonable
emoluments for officer A with 24 years service drawing Pay in the Pay
Band (say Rs 25000) + Grade Pay (say Rs 8000) +MSP Rs 6000 = Rs 39000.
Pension for serving 24 years will be 50% i.e Rs 19500. So all retired
officers (say B, C, D, E etc) of A's rank and 24 years service
will get Rs 19500 as pension for retiring in the 24t year of service.
Year 2016: If officer A
continues to serve into the 25th year he will get 3% increment for serving
one additional year ie. 3% of 25000+8000 i.e Rs 990. So the same officer will
get Pay in the Pay band of 25000+990 = Rs 25990 + GP 8000+ MSP Rs 6000 =
39900. His pension @ 50% will be Rs 19995.
So all officers (G, H, J, K) of A's rank but 25 years of service will get Rs 19995 as pension more for retiring with 25 years of service. But B, C, D, E will continue to draw Rs 19500 as pension for serving 24 years.
Year 2017: If officer A
continues in service he will have 26 years of service. He will get another 3%
increment for serving one more year. His Pay in the pay Band will Be Rs
25990+8000+33990+increment Rs 1020+ MSP 6000. His new pay in the pay band in
the 26th years will be Rs = 27010+GP 8000+MSP 6000=Rs 41010. His pension at
50% will be Rs 20505 for retiring with 26 years of service.
All officers (P, Q, R, S, T) of this A's rank and 26 years of service will get Rs 20505 as pension. But G,H, J, K will draw Rs 19995 because they have served only 25 years. i.e one year lesser than A. And B, C, D, E will draw Rs 19500 as pension because they have served only 24 years i.e 2 years lesser than A.
If, as per your contention,
officers
B, C, D, E with 24 years get a 3% (or 1.5%) increase
in 2016 because you will equalise their
pension with
the pension of an officers G, H, J, K of the same rank but 25 years of
pension.
Similarly, no 3% (or 1.5%) increase for the officers G, H, J, K who retired with 25 years pension or you will give them pension of the officers P, Q, R, S, T of the same rank who served 26 years.
Please run the above figures in consultation with
the Army Pay Commission Cell to verify your version or mine. I
consulted the Air Force Pay Commission Cell, which has Accounts Branch
officers to draw the tables and verify my opinion that pension cannot
increase annually or 5 yearly because any (R) any retired personnel does not
render additional year(s) of service after retirement. In Air Force
terminology, as it might be in the Army, a retired personnel is
Non-Effective.
With Best Wishes
|
||||||||||||
