PRODUCED BY AN EX- OF M O D[DESW]
(DISPOSAL OF EX-SERVICEMEN WASTE)
UFESM strongly condemns the article titled "Stand at Ease Veterans"
PRODUCED BY AN EX- OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DISPOSAL OF EX-SERVICEMEN WASTE [DESW])
[ REPRODUCED BELOW]
that appeared in the ET of 4 July 2015 on the following grounds.
1. The tenor of the article mitigates the definition of OROP as accepted by Parliament.
2. These complexities as have been stated are quite contrary to the contents of the Draft Govt letter of Apr 2014.
3. The Secretary DESW is the wrong person to comment on an issue as he had headed a department which more often than not acted against the interests of ESM.
4. Since the subject has already been closed by the MoD as early as 17 Feb 2015, an Ex functionary of the same ministry has no right to project a contrary thought at this stage, that is mischevious and malafide.
Stand At Ease, Servicemen
Fix pensions for each rank and delink them from the last salary drawn
In 2011, there were two versions of what ‘One Rank, One Pension’ (OROP) in the defence services entails. One: two people who have served the same number of years and have retired at the same rank should get the same pension. Two: two retired persons of the same rank should get the same pension, irrespective of the number of years they served.
The two versions of OROP have different implications. The differences arise because people who retire get 50% of their last-drawn pay as pension, till the next Pay Commission recommendation is implemented. After the new recommendation, the same pensioner goes to the bottom of the new pay scale while those in service continue to get increments in the new pay scale till retirement.
Today, OROP is in operation for people of all ranks who retired on or before December 31, 2005.
Today, OROP is in operation for people of all ranks who retired on or before December 31, 2005.
For a pensioner, there are no increments. On the other hand, an officer still in service gets increments in the same pay scale till he retires. His pension is 50% of his last pay. So he automatically gets a higher pension than his predecessor who had retired earlier to the new Pay Commission implementation.
This difference in OROP perception has existed ever since pensions were revised after every Pay Commission. But the resentment then was only about the same ranks getting different pensions, as each rank had distinct pay scales. The 6th Pay Commission, for whatever reason, bunched several ranks in the same pay band, reduced the number of pay scales (35) into six pay bands, with a slightly different grade pay to differentiate each rank.
TheMath
Pay Band 4 (.`37,400-67,000), for instance, was applicable to all ranks from lieutenant colonel to major general with differentiated grade pay varying from .` 7,600 to .` 10,000 for each rank from January 1, 2006. The pension of all these ranks who retired before that date was 50% of .` 37,400+grade pay. This, in addition to the military service pay of .` 6,000 per month for officers across ranks and .` 2,000 per month for all non-officer ranks.
So a major general who retired on or before December 31, 2005 would have a revised pension of .` 23,700 (50% of .` 37,400+.`10,000 grade pay). A colonel also retiring on or before that date would have a pension of .` 22,500 (50% of .` 37,400+.`7,600 grade pay). The 15 years taken to be promoted from colonel to major general was reduced to a difference of .` 1,200 a month.
Worse, the pension of a colonel who retired after January 1, 2006 after receiving several increments – retired at a pay of, say, .` 60,000 – would be .` 33,800 a month (50% of
60,000+.`7,600). This would be much higher than that of a major general, who retired on or before December 3, 2005.
This is a valid cause for heartburn.
This is a valid cause for heartburn.
The colonel’s pecuniary advantage, however, would last only till the next Pay Commission. After which he, too, would revert to the bottom of the new pay band or pay scale. This would operate in a cycle, where a group would benefit for maximum 10 years, depending on when they retire (between 2006 and 2016 for the 6th Pay Commission) and then go to the bottom of ladder for rest of their lives.
Fixed Pay
There are two ranks with fixed pay: chief of staff at .` 90,000 a month and senior commander (?) [ THIS WRITER ARROGANTLY IS SHAMELESS. WHY CAN'T HE USE THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY ie ARMY COMMANDER] at .` 80,000 a month. Their pension at 50% is the difference in the pension drawn. If pension is fixed on the basis of the rank at the time of retirement, there will be substantial difference in the pension amount and again resulting in heartburn. maybe more. Hence, pension should be based on the last pay drawn. This could be extended to all ranks.
Of course, other ranks cannot have a fixed pay, since they remain in the same post for a considerable time and require increments on an annual basis. But for pension, the pay could be fixed for each rank, from sepoy to lieutenant general, delinking it from 50% of the last pay drawn. This can be done.
Already the condition of 33 years of service for full pension and proportionate reduction has been done away with, as too the last 10 months’ average pay for deciding pension. The 6th Pay Commission has also considerably reduced the commuted amount of pension. So if pension is fixed for each rank, delinking it from the 50% of last pay drawn, OROP can be implemented without complications. This would have to be done every time a new Pay Commission makes recommendations.
One word of caution though. The pay for each rank has to be judiciously fixed balancing both equity and how much the government can afford. While about 55,000 ex-servicemen retire every year, there are about 30 lakh pensioners, including family pensioners. So the pension has to be fixed towards the minimum of each pay scale, if separate pay scales for each rank are again implemented in the 7th Pay Commission. Or in a step-ladder fashion, starting with the near minimum for the lowest rank in each pay band, if the pay band concept is retained.
The writer is former Secretary, Department of Ex-Servicemen, Ministry of Defence
No comments:
Post a Comment