Thursday, October 15, 2015

Pay-Bands, Tables And Fitments For OROP

In the face of unknowns involved in a matter such as OROP, it may be a more prudent approach to first try and identify the type of variables one could come across rather than to attempt assigning values to those variables.

There is no need to be troubled here with the notion that for arriving at a OROP fixation one would have to apply some esoteric principle that an Operations Research boffin might have conjured up on one of his more productive days.

At the same time, I have always felt that before undertaking the churning out of tables for OROP estimates, with jubilant cries of "Viva Excel!", I might as well put in some system for validating guesstimates and opinions. Any time I had posted a table on what OROP or the rank pay revisions could involve, I tried to take pains to underline the fact that figures quoted were hypothetical, a means to illustrate a point, subject to validation and/or not for universal application.

However, some extremely useful information has recently been made available on the Aerial View blog by way of painstakingly compiled tables on what OROP could be, based on pay-bands applicable post 01 January 2006. In face of the marked silence from the Government and ESM associations on the subject, these tables are like a shining beacon, pointing towards where the reality would probably lie.

For the purpose of appreciating a need for validation, the following points might be of use
  • OROP is at a different plane altogether when compared to the modified parity principle of a pre/post CPC fixation of pensions for pre CPC retirees.
  • In the context of VI CPC, it needs to be remembered that fitments in the MOD letter dated 2008, and its amendments, centered around the concept of modified parity. That will not apply for OROP.
  • Circular 500 and its precursors were all geared towards the "minimum of pay for rank in pay-band" principle. OROP is an entirely different paradigm.
  • The concept of OROP can be seriously undermined if the process of calculation gets mired in the old concept of fitment tables that applied to pre/post VI CPC pay fixation.
  • OROP seeks total parity of pensions of older retirees with pensions of present retirees (for the time being, those retiring in 2013).
As an example, to be absolutely certain of what is implied in a table, which for the purpose of suggesting the OROP pension of a Major with QS of 13 years, states the pay of a Major is 29820/- at QS of 13 years, it needs to be clearly understood that a per the table the pay would be 29820/- in 2019 for a Major commissioned on 01 Jan 2006. 

As to what would the pay of a Maj with a QS of 13 years be in base year 2013, the answer would be based on a host of other parameters such as fixation of his pay from Jan 2006 and date of actual promotion, among others. Again, the very fact that QS of 13 years would not result in a pension, goes to show the hypothetical nature of such an estimate.

For that exact reason, for OROP, we need to have validation of estimates in pay-band tables against actual pay and pension data as applicable to personnel retiring in 2013.  For such validation, the focus should also be on actual pay/pension data as applicable in base year 2013. If there is no actual average pension data for 2013 in respect of a certain rank cum years-of-service combination, then pay actually being drawn in base year 2013 by serving personnel with that rank cum years-of-service combination can be a basis for arriving at the "potential average pension".

Sometimes, a blank table does help to point out what the missing variable values are and how these can be obtained. An absence of actual figures may not exactly seek to reinforce the "Less Is More" principle, but it can help in a clearer understanding of what the issues are or could be. In a previous blog-post I had sought to suggest such an approach. Now, in order to include the pay-band estimates currently available, I have updated the table-format in that blog-post as follows:

(By hovering the cursor on the table format it can be viewed with magnification)

1 comment:

  1. You are absolutely and perfectly , correct and accurate ,on these issues of parity and variable rank concept.
    I missed out following u blog in the past. It is never late.
    U have done extensive thinking and research on these current issues.people did not absorb u thought and perfectly rational and logical solutions.
    I ,recall u efforts and struggles to apply their minds to u contetions in @ aerial blog. People were simply evasive.
    All u write ups would be a bench mark and evolve solutions to these vexed issues of utilisation of human resources of trained officers being wasted out on primitive rank /status approach.
    Keep up u efforts and work.
    I am with u.
    On orop people are superposing blindly old template on new revised ranks .I have been quietly watching as how the issue was evaded by various persons ,incl @aerial blog.
    Wait and see.
    Pursuit and follow up will naturally emerge.