Thursday, February 20, 2014

Further Iterations On The OROP Pension Estimates : Lt Col In PB IV

On the basis of a comment on the previous blog-post, it became necessary to consider the first set of corrections to the OROP estimates.

To be absolutely forthright, due to a lack of concrete data, one has to base estimates on premises. In the present case there is the very important backdrop of the "Minimum Of Pay In Pay Band" vs "Minimum Of Pay Band" issue. The matter was only partially resolved based on the recommendations of Committee of Secretaries and is even now the subject of litigation for a retrospective implementation with effect from 01 January 2006.

But as the pension for pre VI CPC Lt Col retirees in PB IV was refixed at Rs 26265/- in place of 25700/-, one can make a quick reverse calculation and come to the conclusion that the minimum pay for a Lt Col in PB IV post VI CPC is Rs. 38530/-. From that conclusion, sound or otherwise, one can proceed to calculate increments, round these off to the next higher multiple of 10 and arrive at a fresh set of figures for basic pension applicable to a pre VI CPC Lt Col retiree.

A table, after what one could call the application of "Minimum Of Pay In Pay Band" correction, can be prepared. {EDIT: Care must be taken to keep in view that the same basic pension would not apply to everyone with the same no. of years of service. Basic Pay in pay band would vary as per fixation with effect from 01 January 2006.} (For a larger size view, please click on the thumbnail below):


  1. I am given to understand that service Hqs had prepared draft OROP tables in the do your tables compare with those?

  2. @naren: Do share a link to any such table so a comparison can be made.

    The table in this blog post merely illustrates how OROP could be implemented. There are are a number of conditions as spelt out in the table and in the blog-post.

    Similarly, if genuine tables prepared by service HQs are accessible by you, along with the requisite rationale, those could be compared and discussed.

  3. Food for thought-

  4. The OROP tables as proposed by services are available on the "sanjha morcha" website in the news item dated 01mar14-kind courtesy Gen Bahri

  5. The OROP tables as proposed by services Hq are available on the "sanjha morcha"website at the newsitem dated 01mar14-kind courtesy Gen A S Bahri

  6. @naren:"..available on the "sanjha morcha"website...";

    In which case, readers can make comparisons directly.

    If you wish to provide a link to the table on that web-site, consider doing so in a comment.

  7. the irony of the fixation as on 01 jan 06 is that a Lt Col with 14 yrs service is fixed at 39930 and a brig with 29 yrs service is fixed at 47700!!

  8. @batsy: It is the same pay-band. The differential is much greater when the grade pay is factored in.

    Nothing very ironical, to my mind.

    If something like NFFU ever comes about, the differentials are expected to be further rationalised. Surely that's the point of NFFU and the need to compensate for the steep "pyramid".

  9. ref my previous post.
    the minimum of pay in pay band had serious faultlines.
    lt col with 13 yrs service being fixed at 38850; add two increments you have the col(i.e. 15 yrs service) min of pay; add another two increments (17 yrs service)you have the brig min of pay in pay band.
    While the Lt cols gained, the Cols and brigs got a very unfair deal.

    Now as time is passing and an offr with 13 yrs service in 2007 is being fixed at 38850+8000+6000 ;in 2014 Jul he will be having a basic pay of 48680+8000+6000(approx)assuming an annual increment of avg 1600 per year.
    compare this with Y4/Y5 of Brig(in aerial fun with figures) when they are probably retiring or about to.

    Pension of Lt Col in 2016 will be probably more than the Brigs who probably retired in 2011/12/13.


  10. @batsy: As per the reverse calculation from the pension of 26265/- for Lt Col based on min pay in pay band, the min pay of Lt Col w 13 yrs would have been fixed at 38530/-, not 38850/- as stated by you. Do let me know the basis for the figure quoted by you.

    Also, If the min of Lt Col was 'fixed' at 38530, what was the basic of Col and Brig 'fixed' as min pay in pay band. Was the 'fixed' min of these ranks also just 2+2 increments away? Actual figures of 'fixation' are required, not what the pay-band or SAFI says.

    In your example, the Brig who retired in 2011/12/13 would have had his basic fixed at a certain figure on 01 Jan 2006. The same goes for the Lt Col who will retire in 2016. From these 'fixations' as on 01 Jan 2006, work out the pensions for the two.

    The table quoted by you can lead to erroneous conclusions. Please check the caution in "red" provided in this blog post and the table applicable to Lt Col.

    The table on the Aerial View blog is still a project in progress as per the advisory posted there.

  11. Similarly as for Lt Col 38530 (as derived from circular 500; min pay of col is 40890 and that of Brig is 43330) you would notice that these figs have a differential of 2360 and 2440 respectively;barely equal to two increments each.

    The average min service of Col and Brig was 19/27 yrs as on 01 Jan 06. The fixation should have been done accordingly - hence my comment on the serious faultlines.

    When Lt Col(13 yrs service) was belatedly placed into PB4 the Col and Brig should have been pushed at least 5 yrs(increments) and 10 yrs(increments) away from the min scale of the Lt Col(38530).

    my apologies with the minor glitches in the figures.

  12. @batsy: Assuming that the minimum pay in pay-band post VI CPC for Col was fixed at 40890/-, there'd be annual increments of 1490, 1540, 1580, 1630 and so on, much higher than increments for Lt Col (a table for Col is in the works).

    The gap between a Lt Col's basic and that of a Col starts widening with each increment they get annually. Given the higher GP, I don't think there's much cause to complain. :-)