Saturday, August 11, 2012

Pension Anomaly Resulting From AVS-I {Updated 18 January 2013}

{NOTE: Contents of this blog post have been updated to reflect the current situation as on 18 Jan 2013, following implementation of Committee Of Secretaries Recommendations}
 
Now that we're awaiting the recommendations of the panel on anomalies affecting pay and pensions of armed forces have been implemented, there are expectations, that some of the less prominent existing anomalies would be rectified and similar aberrations would be prevented in future when the complex processes of introduction of NFFU and modified parity are approached by the powers that be, have not been met fully.

In this context, an existing anomaly, affecting a portion of the armed forces veterans fraternity, requires to be highlighted as it's closely linked to the issue of parity of pensions. It may be added at the outset, any views, comments or corrections in respect of what follows would be very welcome.
  • While fixing pensions for Armed Forces Officers who had retired prior to 01 Jan 2006, VI CPC had, initially, not placed retirees in the ranks of Lt Col and Lt Col(TS) in pay band IV. This was done subsequently.
  • Even then, no consideration was applied to the issue of parity of pensions of retirees who had retired prior to implementation of Phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee with pensions of retirees with equal service who retired after the implementation of AVS-I.
  • This led to Officers, holding the same type of commission and with the same qualifying service, being fixed in different pension-tables post VI CPC depending on which side of the AVS-I implementation date they retired on.
  • Upto a service tenure of 26 years, the pension of a pre AVS-I Lt Col and Lt Col(TS) would not be an issue. But for a qualifying service of 26 years or more, a retiree with a PC would have automatically been fitted in the pension table for Col/Col(TS) at a pension of Rs.26050/- 27795/- if he had retired after implementation of AVS-I.
  • A pre AVS-I Officer retiree, in the rank of Lt Col, also with the same qualifying service of 26 years is now fitted in the column for Lt Cols at a monthly pension of 25700/- 26265/-, and a pre AVS-I Lt Col(TS) at a monthly pension of Rs.24143/- 24674/-.
  • {Edit}: These amounts reflect revisions following the implementation of recommendations of the COS Committee and the difference between pre and post AVS-I retirees has become even more glaring.
  • {Edit 2}:    A similar anomaly existing for Major retirees with more than 21 years of service was recently rationalised albeit on different grounds but reflecting on principles very similar to those sought to be highlighted in this blog post. More details on that rationalisation can be accessed through this link.
At a time when a weighty subject like One Rank One Pension is hanging fire over the entire veteran community, surely this anomaly ought to strike some people as being an issue. It requires to be understood that this pre/post AVS-I issue would also impinge on pensions of Major, Capt and Lt, though different conditions might apply.
This also does not exactly amount to yet another outburst as to why the AVS-I recommendations were not implemented retrospectively. Here the issue is an award of VI CPC, not AVS-I, which treats two identical tenures of service differently while fixing pension merely on account of the intervention of the implementation of AVS-I.
All service people would know there is no select rank involved here. If an Officer retiring post AVS-I after 26 years of service automatically gets Rs. 26050/- 27795/- as pension without getting the next select rank, it stands to reason the pay-commission should have fixed the pension at the same level in the case of all other Officers, with the same type of commission and with the same qualifying service, who retired without picking up the next equivalent select rank prior to AVS-I.
This line of reasoning ought to have been given due consideration at the time of implementing the anomalies-panel recommendations. The subject of the blog post relates merely to the parity of one set of armed forces pensioners. When fitment into bands takes place after introduction of NFFU, these concerns could assume even greater importance and complexity.
The following table aims to bring out the rationale for refixing the pensions of pre AVS-I Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) retirees (with qualifying service of 26 years and more) to equal those fixed for post AVS-I Col/Col(TS), with equal service,  as shown in the area shaded yellow.






Qualifying Service

PENSIONS OF PRE 01-01-2006 PENSIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A to MOD LETTER 1(11)/2012-D(Pension/Policy) 17-01-2013 {All figures subject to verification}

PENSIONS REQUIRED FOR OBTAINING PRE/POST AVS-I PARITY

LT COL(TS)

LT COL

COL/COL(TS)

LT COL(TS)

LT COL

{FOR THOSE WHO, IF THEY HAD NOT RETIRED BEFORE AVS-I, WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE POST AVS-I FOR COL[TS] RANK ON COMPLETION OF 26 YEARS OF SERVICE MENTIONED IN FIRST COLUMN}

20

19898

21490

22742

19898

21490

20.5

20296

21888

23163

20296

21888

21

20694

22286

23584

20694

22286

21.5

21092

22684

24005

21092

22684

22

21490

23082

24426

21490

23082

22.5

21888

23480

24848

21888

23480

23

22286

23878

25269

22286

23878

23.5

22684

24276

25690

22684

24276

24

23082

24674

26111

23082

24674

24.5

23480

25072

26532

23480

25072

25

23878

25470

26953

23878

25470

25.5

24276

25868

27374

24276

25868

26

24674

26265

27795

27795

27795

26.5

25072

26265

27795

27795

27795

27

25470

26265

27795

27795

27795

27.5

25868

26265

27795

27795

27795

28

26265

26265

27795

27795

27795

28.5

26265

26265

27795

27795

27795

29

26265

26265

27795

27795

27795

29.5

26265

26265

27795

27795

27795

30

26265

26265

27795

27795

27795
 


 
 
 

7 comments:

  1. perfect and legitimate.nobody else has come with such idea.congratulations and thanks.all those esm associations viz iesl,iesm..etc should look at this

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sunlit,
    Your article is pretty exhaustive.
    There will be pre-2006 retirees in rank Lt Col(TS and S), whose 'reckonable service' and 'qualifying service for pension' will be different, depending upon the type of first commission..How do you propose to deal with their cases as regards the figure of 26 Col-TS)?
    Kindly advise. SID

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Colonel: It would be imprudent of me to even attempt a generalisation.

    My basic concept can be illustrated thus: Say, an Officer with a PC rendered 28 years of service as a PC Officer and retired as Lt Col(TS), say on 30 Nov 2004. Why should he be fixed in the pension table of VI CPC at a pension less than another Officer who was Lt Col(TS) on 30 Nov 2004 but retired as Col(TS) a month later on 31 Dec 2004 after having put in the same amount of service, viz., 28 years as a PC Officer?

    In relation to your specific query, my view would be if the reckonable or qualifying service would have made such an Officer actually eligible for being given the rank of Col(TS) after 26 years of service if he had served post AVS-I and pre VI CPC, then he too would qualify for the equal and identical service criteria in the example I've cited.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sel grade of Lt Col rank was abolished -see AI 1/s/87/para3 .Thus Lt Col rank is of one and only one type since 1980 .All this tamasha/jadugari/hoodwinking/evading by these departments of GOI is a reflection of their disconnect.SOME INDIVIDUALS/ASSOCIATIONS/ORGS HAVE TO CATCH THE BULL BY ITS HORNS.SHAKE THEM AND TAKE THOSE DUES WITH PENAL INTEREST ;IF THE AMENDMENTS/CORRECTIONS DO NOT COME IN NEXT FEW MONTHS ALONG WITH THOSE ORDERS OF GOI-POST RANK PAY JUDGEMENT AND COS COMMITTEE APPROVALS OF THAT SO CALLED OROP. THIS IS FOR EVERY BODY INFO TO ACT.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Bala:"..abolished...";
    :-)
    The select rank of Lt Col was abolished wef 16 Dec 2004.
    Earlier there was a select rank by promotion and a time-scale rank on completion of requisite service.
    Where's the confusion?
    The whole issue is fully covered in relevant MOD orders and AI's. That 87 special instruction can't define everything.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The orders says effective date 24 sept 2012 while it must have been 1-1-2006 .While in case of cicilian it 1-1-2006 The GOI order dated 28 Jan 2013 .In your brief you have left/ignore/ forgot to cosider the effetive date aspect.Please clarify at the earliest. Request to take aprropiate action as required

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Murarilal Agrawal: This blog post is not about effective dates. You'll have to search another blog relevant to your concern. This post is about anomalous pensionary benefits for identical nature and length of service.

    ReplyDelete