Sunday, October 11, 2015

OROP - Analysis of Conflicting Perceptions ( CURTSEY AERIAL VIEW )

SOURCE : http://sharad10525.blogspot.in/



   FOR COMPREHENSIVE DETAILS PLEASE VISIT BLOG

Aerial View [ http://sharad10525.blogspot.in/ ]



Friday, 9 October 2015



OROP - 

Analysis of Conflicting Perceptions

Full disclosure: 

1. Lt Gen V M Patil PVSM, AVSM (retd), President Akhil Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad (ABPSSP) facilitated a meeting with the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri.


2. This blog author presented the subsequent analysis based on facts & documents (sources as cited below) to the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri ((in hard copy) on 8th October 2015 at 8 am and it was discussed thoroughly. Further developments are awaited. 

3. This blog author made the presentation in his personal capacity and not as a member of any ESM organisation.  

***********************************************


One Rank One Pension (OROP) Issue

Analysis of Conflicting Perceptions 
Suggestions for Resolution


References: -

 (a)       Koshiyari Committee Report of December 2011,
           
(b)       MoD OM No. 17 (4)/2008 (2)/D (Pen/Pol) dated 12.11.2008,

(c)       SAI (SNI/SAFI) No. 1/S/2008 and 2/S/2008,

(d)       MoD Resolution No. 1 (E) dated 30.8.2008

(e)       DP & PW OM F No. 38/37/08 – P & PW (A). Part II dated 3.10.2008 concerning revision of 
            provisions regulating pension/gratuity/commutation of pension/family pension/disability 
            pension/ex-gratia lump sum compensations,

(f)  DP & PW OM No. 38/37/08 – P & PW (A). pt I dated 14.10.2008, - revised pension based on 
     revised pay bands and grade pay for posts carrying present scales as per Sixth Central Pay Commission,

(g)       Defence Pension Regulations 2008 and Rules for Army, Navy & Air Force available on the PCDA (P) Website,

(h)       Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara & Others Vs UoI (1982), UoI & Anr Vs Maj Gen S. P. S. Vains & Another (2009), A. N. Sachdeva (deceased) & Others Vs Maharishi Dayanand University (MDU) (August 2015),

(j)         PCDA (P) Circular Nos 500, 501, 547 and 548,
  
(k)        Speech of Defence Minister apropos One Rank One Pension (OROP) on 5th September 2015,

(l)       Letter from Maj Gen Satbir Singh (retd) to Defence Minister dated 18th September 2015.

List of Appendices: -

A -       Tables for Pay & Pension w.e.f 1.1.2006 for Officers (Annexure A of PCDA (P) Circular 500)

B-         Tables for Pay & Pension w.e.f 1.1.2006 for ORs & JCOs (Tables from PCDA (P) Circular 501)
  
Full Disclosure on shortcomings of this paper: - 

This analysis is handicapped from being completely objective due to non-availability of the following: -

(a)       Minutes of meetings of Joint Working Group (JWG) constituted by the MoD on 24th April 2014 culminating with a presentation to then Defence-cum-Finance Minister on 12th June 2014, including the methodology adopted by CGDA to arrive at the cost of implementing OROP,

(b)       Minutes of meetings that IESM, IESL and other ESM organisations had with the Govt and the decisions taken/consensus arrived at/differences of opinion recorded and placed in the public domain,

(c)       Persistent denial of information on OROP by CPIO and by Appellate Authority, Deptt of Ex-Servicemens’ Welfare on the grounds that the information is sensitive/classified,

(d)       Denial of information by CPIO, O/o CGDA on the grounds that MoD has ordered that the information is MOST CONFIDENTIAL and should not be disclosed, and

(e)       MoD (D – Pay/Services and Deptt of Ex- Servicemen Welfare), MoF (Deptt of Expenditure) denying information on the Cabinet Secretary Committee Report of 2012 for recommending OROP (and NFU) to be referred to the 7th Central Pay Commission.


Basis & Aim for this Paper

1.        The Defence Minister’s announcement of 5th September 2015 on implementation of OROP vis-à-vis differences of opinion/perception/interpretation by Maj Gen Satbir Singh (retd) and Governing Body of IESM/UFESM is the basis of this paper/presentation. The aim is to provide a logical analysis, and practical solutions. 

5 Yearly Review vis-à-vis Annual Review

2.        IESM and others quote the Koshiyari Committee Report. Therein it is recorded

2.1.     At Para 6.4 on Page 5 of the Report, the Army’s representative agreed to a 5 yearly enhancement, and included the family pensioners.

2.2.     At Para 6.5 on Page 5, the Air Force representative agreed.

2.3.     At Para 6.6 on Page 5, the Naval representative did not mention anything relevant to this point.

3.        What is the aim for either a five yearly or an annual equalisation or review?

 Is it to ensure that past pensioners with the same rank and same number of years of service get the same pension with one retiring in 2014 or 2015 or 2016? 
And
pension of ESM senior in rank, or with certain years of service is not lesser than a junior’s?

4.        For this the Implementation Order has to be precisely worded. Then once in 5 years or annual Review or Equalisation will not be needed in a majority of cases. The few cases that would need rationalisation are, for example, of two course-mates commissioned on the same date (say 01 Jul 1980). Course-mate A retires on 30th June 2013 in the rank of Lt Col. He does not get the 3% increment, whereas another course-mate B retires in the rank of Lt Col on 31st July 2013 and gets the increment though both have retired in the same calendar year 2013. These kinds of cases will need review only if this aspect is not covered in the implementation order. If all, like the former (who retired one day before the increment was falling due), are given the benefit of the increment, it will have a financial effect of 0.85% or Rs 185 crore.

5.        To emphasise the point, most importantly, since the uniform pension for the same rank and qualifying service criteria is to be fulfilled, the review and correction for all such ESM can be done at the initiation of the OROP scheme. It must be emphasised that the “5 yearly review means next in 2018, and we will miss 7th CPC recommendations” is the kind of canard spread by the ultracrepidarists (defined as habit of giving opinions & advice on matters outside one’s knowledge or competence) in the print and electronic media.

Analysis:

6.        In a steady state there will not be changes in the tables below until the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations as approved by the Govt. (Please refer to tables at Appendix A for Officer ESM, Appendix B for Other Than Officers ESM).

Officer ESM

7.        The tables clearly show that

7.1.     In a steady state (same rank, same years of qualifying service), pension need not be revised (equalised) every year.

7.2.     For the same rank and same years of service, Officers promoted earlier will draw the same pay and pension as those promoted after them. So the apprehension that a junior ranked ESM or a same rank but lesser QS ESM will draw more in without basis, obviating the need for an annual review.

7.3.     Once pension is reset on 1.7.2014 thereafter no change will take place except on the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th CPC.

Other than Officer ESM (without addition of Group X Pay where applicable)

8.        In a steady state there will not be changes in the tables below until the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations as approved by the Govt.

8.1.     Subedar Majors/MCPOs-I/Master Warrant                Officers will also have similar situation as for the                     Sub/MCPO-II/WO.

8.2.     The current top of scale pension (in Circular 501) is higher than the pay and pension drawn by the current retirees. Therefore, JCOs and equivalents are already OROP compliant and may benefit minimally, if and when OROP is implemented.

8.3.Havildar/Petty Officer)Sargent current retirees are drawing higher last pay drawn, consequently higher pension than the top of the scale based pension.

8.4.     However, the senior will continue to get higher pay and pension than all juniors who are promoted to this rank at a later date.

8.5.     Thus, once pay is re-set on a date, say 01 Jul 2014, then there will not be any change in pension of this rank till the next pay commission

Suggested Solution (Please also read Average Pensions below): -
                                     
9.        Using similar methodology as used to formulate Circulars 500 (for retired officers) and 501 (for retired JCOs & ORs) to work out the solutions to the issue above.
10.      Include numerical illustrations in the Implementation Order similar to the ones in SAI (SNI, SAFI) of 2008 to make ESM understand why any review would only add to delays in implementing OROP at the earliest.


Effective Date 01 Jul 2014 vis-à-

vis 

01 Apr 2014



11.      ESM would have to be placed at the levels of 

pension that any retiree with the same (uniform) service 

and same rank would draw on 01 Jul 2013, which was 

the date of last increment. For example (amounts used 

are for illustrative purposes only: -


Particulars
w.e.f 01 Apr 2014
w.e.f to 01 Jul 2014
Rank Lt Col
20 years service
20 years service
Pay in the Pay Band (Rs)
45000
(includes 3% increment on 

01 Jul 2013)
43410

Grade Pay (Rs)
8000
8000
M S P (Rs)
6000
6000
Increment
Nil - As already drawn on 01 Jul 2013
on 01 Jul 2014    1590
Total emoluments
59000
59000
Pension
29500
29500

12.      Analysis: -    Provide illustration/numerical examples in the implementation order.


Calendar Year 2013 vis-à-vis Financial Year 2013-4


13.      The Govt has indicated that the base year for the 

purpose of OROP would be the calendar year 2013. This 

does not seem to be an unacceptable proposition. The 

reason is that after 01 Jul 13 the pension would include 

the increment of the year 2013.


14.      The Services/ Ex-servicemen have demanded 01 

Apr 2014 as the base date but pay, and pension does 

not change after taking into account the increment of 01 

Jul 2013. To that extent base year commencing 01 Apr 14

should not make any material difference. The only 

aberration is, again, that of course mates retiring on two 

different days, one on 30 Jun 13 the other on 31 Jul 13 

having a difference in pay and pension. But these odd 

cases, which may not be numerous to deserve too much 

attention for determining macro policy.



15.      In the heat and dust, it is forgotten that all Central 

Pay Commission recommendations are made effective

1st January (1986, 1996, 2006) i.e beginning of the

calendar year.



16.      Analysis: - ESM will not be deprived of OROP 

because the increment due on 1st July 2013 will be 

effective and paid whether it is calendar year or 

financial year.




Average Pension vis-à-vis Top of the Scale 

(Average Pension vis-à-vis Actual 

Pay/Pension Drawn)


17.      Average of pension will involve checking records of 30 lakh ESM & widows or NoK. Reasons are given below.

17.1.  Till the 1.1.2006, the following weightages were provided for calculating pension benefits (MoD letter dated 3rd February 1998) for all retiring from the Defence Forces: -


Rank
Weightage Services
(years)
Weightage MNS
(years)
Lieutenant
9
Nil
Captain
9
7
Major
8
7
Lt Colonel (TS)
5
-
Lt Colonel (Select)
7
6
Brigadier
5
3
General Officers
3
3
Below Commissioned Rank

Sepoy
10 (+2 from 17.1.2013)
-
Naik
8 (+2 from 17.1.2013)
-
Havildar
6 (+2 from 17.1.2013 )
-
JCO
5
-




17.2.  After the implementation of the 6th CPC, wherein the qualifying service for full pensions for officers was reduced to 20 years, the weightage was removed [Resolution No. 38/37/08-P & PW (A) dated 29th August 2008] for Officers, except for commissioned officers who retired or were invalided out of service between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008. On the other hand, weightage stands withdrawn for PBOR w.e.f 1.1.2006 (Para 5.1.3 of MoD No. 71(4)/2008(2)/Pen/Pol) dated 12th November 2008.

Note: Weightages for JCOs/ORs has been withdrawn for retirees from 1.1.2006 if they are drawing pension at last pay drawn. In case it is beneficial that pension at the notional top is higher, the same can be drawn and in such cases the weightage will apply.
           
            17.3.  Further, MoD letter No. 1(13)/2012/D (Pen/Pol) dated 17.1. 2013 (PCDA Circular 501) also states as follows: -

                        2……The Committee of Secretaries recommended

2.1.     The pension of pre-1.1.2006 JCO/OR pensioners may be determined on the basis of notional maximum for the ranks and groups across the three Services, and

2.2.     Current weightage in qualifying service of Sepoy, Naik and Havildar may be increased by 2 years.

18.      Another factor that will come into consideration is at Para 2 and 3 of MoD letter No. 1(04)/2015 (II) – D (Pen/Pol) dated 3.9.2015 (PCDA Circular 547) which states:

……..2. Now, after the issue of GoI, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensioners, Department of Pensioners and Pensioners’ Welfare OM No. 38/37/08-P & PW (A) dated 30.7.2015, it is decided that with effect from 1.1.2006 pension/family pension of Pre-2006 JCOs/ORs Pensioners/family pensioners shall be determined as fifty and thirty percent respectively of the minimum of the fitment table for the rank in the revised pay band as indicated under fitment tables annexed with 1/S/2008…..
  
3.        However, in case, the consolidated pension/family pension calculated as per Para 4.1. of this Ministry’s letter No. 17 (4)/2008 (1)/D (pen/Pol) dated 11.11.2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension/family pension) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension. However, where revised pension in terms of GoI, MoD letter No. PC -10 (1)/2009 – D (Pen/Pol) dated 8.3.2010 and No. 1 (13)/2012/D (Pen/Pol) dated 17.1.2013 is higher than the rate indicated in annexure attached with this letter then the same will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension from 1.7.2007 and 24.9.2012.


19.      Table below indicates the differences for some ranks and Qualifying Service: -

QS (X Gp)
Sepoy
Naik
Havildar
Naib Subedar
Circular No.
501
547
501
547
501
547
501
547
15
5961
4637
5961
4637
6374
4637
6976
5558
20
6441
5564
7065
5564
7760
5564
8720
6947
25
6441
5564
7606
5841
8868
6328
10464
8337




20.      Under the circumstances, the proposed average pension for OROP is likely to be an administrative night mare. Reports that tenure in the rank tables will add to he nightmare as many promotions are based on vacancies arising out of higher rank due to promotions, pre-mature releases, medical unfitness, restoration of medical fitness for promotion from original date of being selected for promotion etc. No clarity on whether it will be a simple mean, a simple average, or a weighted mean (apropos till 1.1.2006 weightage was provided to Defence Personnel for pension purposes). There is no clarity on who will determine minimum and maximum pension for the calendar year 2013, with weightage and without. If determined, then who verifiescase by case.

21.      The easier way is to tabulate the pay drawn for each rank in each year of qualifying service. The figure so determined divided by 2 will provide the amount of pension. This table is easy to comprehend and is in sync with the current table in vogue since 24 Sep 12 for pension. In any case if average method is applied the financial impact  cannot be Rs 8296 Cr as those above the average do not benefit, and there will be no change for JCO’s, but only Havildars and equivalent would get an increase in pension amount due to notional top of the scale.

OROP Not Applicable for Pre-Mature Released Defence Forces Personnel vis-à-vis  OROP applicable for all

22.      Government of India has promulgated the definition of Ex-Servicemen issued on 4th October 2012 by DOP & T which states, inter alia

            “(c) An ‘ex-serviceman’ means a person –


(i) Who has served in any rank whether as a combatant or non-combatant in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union, and                                                                                                                                 

(a) Who either has been retired or relieved or discharged from such service whether at his own  request or being relieved by the employer after earning his or her pension; or       
                          
(b) Who has been relieved from such service on medical grounds attributable to military service or circumstances beyond his control and awarded medical or other disability pension; or

(c) Who has been released from such service as a result of reduction in establishment;”……..(emphasis supplied)


23.      Army, Navy, Air Force Pensions Regulations 2008 are statutory. These Regulations (separately for Army, Air Force, and Navy, in that order) are available on the PCDA (P) website. They are too voluminous to reproduce here. Suggested reading are

23.1.  Part I- Containing Regulations regulating the pensionary awards of personnel of the Regular Army, the Defence Security Corps, Emergency/Short Service Commissioned Officer and the Territorial Army, especially

Section 1 – Para 4 – Definitions;

Para 5 – Types of Pensions;

Para 8 – Pension subject to future good conduct;

Section 2 – Para 17 and notes there under;

Para 19  

23.2.  Part II- Regulations relating to pension procedure affecting the personnel whose pensions are regulated by the Regulations in Part I.

24.      The Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the D S Nakara case in 1982 averred, inter alia,

“In the instant case, the petitioners do not challenge, but seek the benefit of the liberalised pension scheme. Their grievance is of the denial to them of the same by arbitrary introduction of words of limitation. ………………... If the event is certain but its occurrence at a point of time is considered wholly irrelevant and arbitrarily selected having an undesirable effect of dividing a homogeneous class and of introducing discrimination, the same can be easily severed and set aside. It is therefore just and proper that the words introducing the arbitrary fortuitous circumstance which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and struck down.”

25.      The Honourable Court ruled in the Maj Gen S P Vains case, inter alia,

“…..The case of the respondents however, was that in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, the fixation of a cut-off date as a result of which equals were treated as unequals, was wholly arbitrary and had been rightly interfered with by the High Court. One of the questions posed in the aforesaid decision was whether a class of pensioners could be divided for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension…… The question was answered by the Constitution Bench holding that such division being both arbitrary and unprincipled the classification did not stand the test of Article 14.
xxxx                                                                xxxx                                        xxxx   

26. The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years…… In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals. ………… The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution (emphasis supplied).


Suggestion Solution:       

26.      It would be advisable for the Government to delete the VRS/PMR clause unless the Government wishes to

26.1.  Further mar its image as being anti – Armed Forces Veterans, and/or

26.2.  Waste time of the Courts, Law Officers and itself in fighting and losing cases.


Govt’s Constitution of Single 

member Judicial Commission

Vis-à-vis  IESM’s 5 member 

Committee


27.      If proposal is to appoint a Commission 

of one member or a Committee of 3 to 5 

members, one of the members should 

be from Finance and one an ESM unaffected 

by the OROP scheme. This will make the 

report of the Commission/Committee 

more likely to be acceptable and would invite 

far less strictures/observation then 

if the committee does not have any 

finance representative.



                                                                                                                      Jai Hind
*          *          *          *          *         





*******************************************************************************************************************



Appendix A
(Refers to Para 6)
Officers

[* Amounts are taken from Annexure A of PCDA Circular No. 500 dated 17.1.2013.]

Majors/Lieutenant Commanders/Squadron Leaders

Qualifying
Service (QS)
Pay in Pay Band
GP
MSP
Increment in Jul
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS)
Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
21630





6600





6000
850
34230
17115
-
8
22480
880
35080
17540
-
9
23360
900
35960
17980
-
10
24260
930
36860
18430
9930
11
25190
960
37790
18895
10482
12
26150
990
38750
19375
11034
13
27140
1020
39740
19870
11585
14
28160
1050
40760
20380
12317
15
29210
1080
41810
20905
12689
16
30290
1110
42890
21445
13240

Lt Colonels (Sel)/Commanders/Wing Commanders

Qualifying
Service
(QS)
Pay in Pay Band
GP
MSP
Increment in Jul
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS)
Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
37400




8000




6000
1370
51400
25700
16716
15
38770
1410
52770
26385
17510
16
40180
1450
54180
27090
18306
17
41630
1490
55630
27815
19102
18
43120
1540
57120
28560
19898
19
44660
1580
58660
29330
20894
20
46240
1630
60240
30120
21490
21
47870
1680
61870
30395
22286
22
49550
1730
63550
31775
23082
23
51280
1780
65280
32640
23878

Colonels/Captains/Group Captains

Qualifying Service
Pay in Pay Band
GP
MSP
Increment in Jul
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS )
Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
43120





8700





6000
1560
57820
28910
21057
19
44680
1610
59380
29690
21900
20
46290
1650
60990
30495
22742
21
47940
1700
62640
31320
23584
22
49640
1750
64340
32170
24426
23
51390
1810
66090
33045
25269
24
53200
1860
67900
33950
26111
25
55060
1920
69760
34880
26953
26
56980
1970
71680
35840
27795
27
58950
2030
73650
36825
27795

Brigadiers/Commodores/Air Commodores

Qualifying Service
(Years)
Pay in Pay Band
GP
MSP
Increment in Jul
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS )
Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
26
53220





8900





6000
1870
68120
34060
27795
27
55090
1920
69990
34994
28262
28
57010
1980
71910
35955
29145
29
58990
2040
73890
36945
29145
30
61030
2100
75930
37965
29145
31
63130
2160
78030
39015
29145
32
65290
2230
80190
40095
29145
33
67000
2280
81900
40950
29145
34
67000
2280
81900
40950
29145
35
67000
2280
81900
40950
29145

Major Generals/Rear Admirals/Air Vice Marshals

Qualifying Service
(Years)
Pay in Pay Band
GP
MSP
Increment in Jul
Total
B+C+D
(add E for additional year of QS )
Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
61090

10000

Nil
2140
71090
35545
31250
31
63230
2200
73230
36615
31250
32
65430
2270
75430
37715
31250
33
67000
Nil
77000
38500
31250
34
67000
Nil
77000
38500
31250
35
67000
Nil
77000
38500
31250
36
67000
Nil
77000
38500
31250
37
67000
Nil
77000
38500
31250


[Note: - There are current cases shown above wherein Brigadiers & equivalents are earning PB 4+ GP + MSP = Rs 81900 and their pension is Rs 40950! Army Cdrs/VCOAS & equivalents are paid Rs 80000 (fixed) pm and their pension is Rs 40000 pm. Apex Scale??]




Appendix B
(Refers to Para 6)


Other Ranks

Notes: 

            1.       ‘X’ Group Pay of Rs 1400 p.m is not added in arriving at                               total in Column F.

2.          Column H indicates the pension for X Group.

3.          Amounts indicated in Column H are from PCDA Circular 

No. 501 dated 17.1.2013.


Naik/Leading Seaman/Corporal

QS
Pay in PB
GP
MSP
Increment
Total
Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H (X Gp)
6
7650
2400
2000
290
11650
5825
-
7
7940
300
11940
5970
-
8
8240
310
12240
6120
-
9
8550
320
12550
6275
-
10
8870
330
12870
6435
-
11
9200
340
13200
6600
-
12
9540
350
13540
6770
-
13
9890
360
13890
6945
-
14
10250
370
14250
7125
-
15
10620
380
14620
7310
5961
16
11000
390
15000
7500
6182
17
11390
410
15390
7695
6402
18
11800
420
15800
7900
6623
19
12220
430
16220
8110
6844
20
12650
440
16650
8325
7065
21
13090
460
17090
8545
7271
22
13550
470
17550
8775
7506



Havildar/Petty Officer/Sergeant



QS
Pay in PB
GP
MSP
Increment
Total
Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
9040






2800






2000
360
13480
6920
-
15
9400
370
14200
7100
6374
16
9770
380
14570
7285
6651
17
10150
390
14950
7475
6929
18
10540
400
15340
7670
7206
19
10940
420
15740
7870
7483
20
11360
430
16160
8080
7760
21
11790
440
16590
8295
8037
22
12230
450
17030
8515
8314
23
12680
470
17480
8740
8591
24
13150
480
17950
8975
8868
25
13630
500
18430
9215
8868
26
14130
510
18930
9465
8868
27
14640
530
19440
9720
8868
28
15170
540
19970
9985
9145





Naib Subedar (Nb Sub)/Chief Petty Officer (CPO)/Junior Warrant Officer (JWO)

QS
Pay in PB
GP
MSP
Increment

Total

Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
10520
4200
2000
450
16720
8360
8371
20
10970
4200
2000
460
17170
8585
8720
21
11430
4200
2000
470
17630
8815
9089
22
11900
4200
2000
490
18100
9050
9418
23
12390
4200
2000
500
18590
9295
9787
24
12890
4200
2000
520
19090
9545
10115
25
13410
4200
2000
530
19610
9805
10464
26
13940
4200
2000
550
20140
10070
10813
27
14490
4200
2000
560
20690
10345
11336
28
15050
4200
2000
580
21250
10625
11510

Subedar/Master CPO II/Warrant Officer

QS
Pay in PB
GP
MSP
Increment
Total
Pension
Pension drawn*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
12280
4600
2000
510
18880
9440
11517
25
12790
4600
2000
530
19390
9695
11914
26
13320
4600
2000
540
19920
9960
12510
27
13860
4600
2000
560
20460
10230
12708
28
14420
4600
2000
570
21020
10510
13105
29
14990
4600
2000
590
21590
10795
13105
30
15580
4600
2000
610
22180
11090
13105
31
16190
4600
2000
630
22790
11395
13105
32
16820
4600
2000
650
23420
11710
13105
33
17470
4600
2000
670
24070
12035
13105



2 comments:

  1. Sir, the table at Appendix 'A' to this blog post forms an excellent basis for trying to understand an issue which can appear complex at times.

    First of all, it appears that the annotation "[* Amounts are taken from Annexure B of PCDA Circular No. 500 dated 17.1.2013.] applies to the pension amounts in columns 'G' of the Appendix tables which correspond to pension amounts shown in Annexure 'A' to MOD letter dated 17-01-2013 reproduced in Circular 500.

    Those pension amounts were fixed as related to minimum of pay in pay band. As I understand it, there was pro-rata reduction of pension, an issue currently under dispute/litigation.

    To arrive at any conclusion as to how pensions under OROP would get affected by increments in base year (presently, calendar year 2013) it might be useful to compare actual data of pensions in that year for varying years of service in different ranks.

    Tables relating to non-OROP fixation of pensions by VI CPC do not appear to offer a direct explanation as to how pensions under OROP ought to be calculated.

    If data on actual pensions in base year has gaps, due to the possibility there were no retirees for all the variables of years of service in a particular rank, then there is the option of evaluating on the basis of potential pensions based on pay of personnel not retiring but meeting the number of years of service criterion. For example, if no Col retired with 27 years of service in base year, it can be seen from the pay actually paid to all serving Colonels with that many years of service in base year what their pension (potential pension) would be if they'd actually retired.

    Merely basing estimates on pay-band tables or non-OROP pension tables might result in an incomplete picture.
    Reply

    Replies






    1. @Sunlit, there has to be a datum for analysis. It is Annexure A and not B.

      In a later part of the analysis, I have stated that the best would to take pay in the Pay band + GP + MSP and divide it by 2 to arrive at a modern day i.e. 2014 pension.

No comments:

Post a Comment