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/ ]

CURTSEY

Aerial View

[  http://sharad10525.blogspot.in/  ]

Being Informed is the Best Weapon.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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 5^th September 2015,

(l)       Letter from Maj Gen Satbir Singh (retd) to Defence Minister dated 18^th 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 24^th April 2014 culminating with a presentation to then Defence-cum-Finance Minister on 12^th 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 7^th Central Pay Commission.

Basis & Aim for this Paper

1.        The Defence Minister’s announcement of 5^th 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 30^th 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 31^st 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 7^th 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 7^th 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 7^th 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 7^th 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

1^st 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 1^st 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 3^rd 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 6^th 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 29^th 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 12^th 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 4^th 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