Friday, August 10, 2012

Current Speculations On The Recommendations Of Government Panel On Armed Forces Pay Anomalies

 



With recent news trickling in on the latest Government view-point on OROP and NFFU, a list of probable scenarios can be drawn up, viz.,
*The proposal for OROP would not be accepted.
*NFFU would be introduced for serving Officers.
*Modified Parity would be the basis of enhancing pensions of past  (preVI CPC) retirees.
*New pay bands would be created rank wise for fixing pensions.
This leads to the very basic, fundamental and principle-based consideration that lies at the core of the OROP matter. In other words, litmus-test questions, based on two primary considerations of truncated careers and intra-veteran-parity, can be posed for establishing the validity of such a readjustment of pensions, as follows:
*Would the truncation of careers of armed forces personnel vis-a-vis those of equivalent civilian employees be compensated for in terms of pensionary benefits? A very basic, rule of the thumb yardstick for comparison would be whether the pension of a person in the armed forces retiring today at age 50 equal, ten years later, the pension of an equivalent civilian employee, who had joined at the same time as the armed forces retiree, the civilian retiring 10 years later at age 60 years?
*Would the pensionary benefits of a person retiring in the armed forces today at age 50 years have appropriate compensation for the shortfall in the pension he’d draw over the next 10 years as compared to the pay and allowances the equivalent civilian employee would be drawing over the same period? This compensation would, of course, not be required if the person from the armed forces was absorbed in a Government civilian post for the said period.
*Though one rank one pension may not have been agreed to, for some manner of parity, or modified parity, within the set of retired personnel of the armed forces, would the re-fixation of the pension of pre VI CPC retirees take place in:
                **Pay-band of the rank in which the veteran retired?
**Pay-band of the rank the retiree would have automatically attained under present rules merely on the basis of the length of his service? Example: A pre VI CPC retiree in rank of Major (PC) with more than 20 years of service would have been automatically in the Pay-band of Lt Col now.
**Pay-band of the rank the retiree would have been placed in based on the length of his service AND after application of NFFU? Example: A pre VI CPC AND pre AVS-I retiree in the rank of Lt Col (TS) with 30 years of service would have been in the pay-band of Col (TS) without NFFU and Brig with NFFU.
Another yardstick for checking the rational basis of the rejigged pensions would be the enhancement factor for the pension of an Honorary Officer or, say, a Branch Commissioned Officer of IAF, who suffer negligible truncation of career, as compared to the enhancement factor applied to the pension of an Officer with a Permanent Commission who might have retired at age 52 in the rank of Lt Col or a non-commissioned Officer retiring at an even younger age. This is not to say a Hony Officer or an IAF BC Officer should not have an enhancement in pensions, but the factor for truncation needs to be proportionally higher for those retiring at earlier ages.



Inputs for arriving at basic assumptions for the foregoing were provided by the contents and comments on this valuable blog post http://goo.gl/05MF4



.  





               
                     

2 comments:

  1. I had raised a very similar issue on Maj Navdeep's blog.

    It occurs to me with this modified parity, forget about removing the disadvantage as compared to civilians, one set of veterans would be discriminated against another on the basis of pre VI CPC/post VI CPC and pre AVS-I/AVS-I.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ sunlit said... A few issues, raised by what has emerged so far, have been collated here I FULLY CONCUR WITH YOUR SUGGESTED probable scenarios, Yet there is an apprehension of some thing terribly amiss. It seemsall these calculations are exercise in futility.It is a question of DNA matching. How come all of us are expecting a conception out of two different species being forced to cohabit since 1973!! A round peg(AFs) is being hammered to get fitted in a square hole(Civilians) having flexible expandable interiors. To a simple problem a non workable complex solution is being imposed by trying to fill up the gaps between round peg and the square hole & than to expect a perfect orgasm to the satisfaction of Civilian mistress.

    Solution to our woes is simple. (a) Divorce from the present cohabitation policy immediately because this ‘LIVE IN’ arrangement with Civilians is simply not workable (b)PENSIONS:- As interim measure to ALL RANKs up to Lt Gens be granted at 75 percent of Pension of the last pay drawn subject to the limitation of fixed Pension granted to the Army Cdr and above. (C) SERVING:- Based on these pensions the starting pay of each rank be calculated.( d ) Guiding Principle:- ( i )Fix the emoluments of the lowest RANK first with in the Existing Band & than move upwards Rank wise ( Minor adjustments of course will be carried out) ( ii )Factor 75 percent is taken because when you calculate the CIVILIIANS Pension with factor NFFU it will come to 75 Percent of last pay drawn , of course subject to limitation of fixed Pay COAS & ARMY CDR or equivalent level (e )This methodology will cater for all ie (i)OROP (ii) NFFU & (iii) Early truncated Service. (f ) ABERRATIONS:- SUBSEQUENT TO AVS REPORT THE RETIRED fraternity of Majors in PARTICULAR and Lt Cols in general were the victims of AVS largesse. To rectify this injustice, AS A ONE TIME MEASURE all Officers of the Rank of MAJORs and Above who had completed (i ) 21 Yrs of service be promoted to Lt Cols and those who had completed 26 yrs be promoted to Colonels for the purpose of Pensions. ANY TAKERS PLEASE (SAME HAS BEEN POSTED AT MAJ NAVDEEP's BLOG)

    ReplyDelete