Friday, December 18, 2015

7 CPC Pensions For Maj / Lt Col : Co-Relating Years Of Service Of Older Retirees With 7 CPC Matrix Increments

I had touched on some aspects of the 7 CPC matrix in the previous post. I have always tried to reason for establishing some equitable basis of pension parity for older retirees given the reduction in years of service required to attain the same time-bound ranks as compared to earlier times.

With the arrival of 7 CPC recommendations and the still far from clear outcome of the fixation process under OROP, it can't hurt to try an make sense out of the prevailing confusion.

For the purpose of this blog post, I have tried to focus on older retirees in the ranks of Maj and Lt Col as they are most affected amongst officer veterans by the reductions over the years in service required for getting promotions based on length of service, putting them at a severe dis-advantage to current retirees in their erstwhile cadres and streams.

I have tried to co-relate the years of service now required to attain ranks on time bound basis as against the increments specified in different levels of the 7 CPC matrix. It becomes apparent, the number of increments attained by currently serving Officers for the same years of service is much higher than older retirees. So, for the same length of service, an older retiree would have fewer increments in the same level.

If the pension of an older retiree is fixed on basis of increments given to him in the corresponding pay-band,when he was in service, his pension could be equal to that of a current retiree with much less service than him. This could run totally counter to what OROP is supposed to bring about.

Then there is the old aspect of pension parities required with current retirees, with equal servicewho get automatically migrated to higher Matrix levels, as compared to older retirees, due to faster time-based promotions (link to a previous blog-post introducing the need for pension parity points is placed at the bottom of this blog post). In this specific example, there is the issue of Majors who retired with more than 20 years of service and Maj/Lt Col who retired with more than 26 years of service. 

To put the whole matter in, and I must stress this, a hypothetical table, I have assumed that level 12 A 11 of the matrix applies to the rank of Major and the first increment would start at a service of 7 years; Lt Col would be governed by level 12A, his first increment starting at a service of 14 years and level 13 for Col must be seen to have the first increment at 16 years.

With these assumptions we can attempt to build a first approximation of how pensions ought to or can get fixed as follows (Table can be enlarged or made to pop-out) (Edit: Table was amended based on feedback)

  

{Edit: Here is a link to a blog post that tries to explain the justification for pension parity points for older and current retirees based on equal service and reductions in service required for attaining the same time-bound rank.}

6 comments:

  1. 1.Evolution of tables /charts ,are in consequence of enunciated principles or a set of laws ;as stated by the pay commissions ( all )and Govt rules as adjudicated by judiciary. .Tables cannot take precedence or negate those principles or rational definitions.consistecy and rationality should be inherent.
    2.When these natural principles are negated for short term financial savings for Govt ( at the cost of denials since 1973) by deviced methods of one time /modified /supplementary /adhoc increments of pensions of veterans ( pre 2006 ); and the unresolved compounded anomalies for decades - is obviously ,the problem .Thus ,all those expert heads of MOD could not come out with perfectct orop , for almost 2 yrs of effort.
    3.There cannot be any solution to this issue ,without factoring years of service and equation of ranks of pre 2004 ranks with post Dec 2004 ranks of 2nd Lieut to Col.
    4. Basically , AVS com is simply a consequence of revision of ranks of appointments ( pl ,coy ,unit Cdr) initiated in 1984 before 4 CPC and as stated in 4cpc .That cut off date of Dec 2004 is not sacrosanct .it was a delayed implementation from 1986 ( or 1990 ) to 2004.
    5.7 CPC matrix of no of increments to pre 2006 ( includes pre 1996 ,1986. ...etc) retirees has rightly addressed the issue.Now ,if some body interprets that pre 2006 does not include pre 1996 ,it would be simply another fauxpas as that of rank pay case.
    Simply ,no rank rigidity without factoring revision of ranks since 1984 ( beginning ).
    For 2 long years every neta,MOD officials publicly stated that they are working on perfect orop without any ambiguity ! Where is it ???.
    Now,7 CPC has simply given orop to all from 1.1.2016.It is so simple and easy by factoring no of increments (notional or actual due to some changes).All those adjudicated issues have to be factored also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @bala:"..notional or actual due to some changes.."

      The correctness of implementation will largely hinge on that "or" in the examples I have tried to highlight here.

      Delete
  2. Further ,- say 20 years of military service whether it was before or after 2004 cannot be differentiated. Those annual increments whether in Lt Col rank after 2004 or in that equivalent rank of Major before 2004 ,are simply increments .Accordingly ,number of increments
    for years of service , have to be factored .
    Other points of relevance ,are those wrong inputs to 7 CPC are to be addressed.
    For several years ,those denials of due grade pay ,NFU are visible. Now ,If these due annual increments as mandated by 7 cpc are prevented to pre 2006 retirees, naturally there will be reactions,agitations and court cases.
    These arithmatical workout of tables ,therefore have to factor those fundamental principles and rules.Those transitory orders by lower departments and functionaries in the form of circulars , clarifications ( drafted AIs,pcda circulars) are not consistent or negate those Govt approvals ( cabinet resolutions ) ,these naturally needs to be rectified either by administration or judicial intervention when approached.
    Wait and watch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now in the context of the 7CPC, the OROP must be renamed as "ONE MODIFIED RANK WITH MODIFIED INCREMENTS AND ONE PENSION" alternatively "Dynamic Military Pension."

      Delete
    2. @ Manohar AM : There are a lot of things that need to be done apart from just re-naming or re-designating old ideas. This is important as the resolution of so many issues is still pending.

      What is required is veterans stay engaged and share views so as to ensure awareness of issues does not diminish with time.

      Delete
  3. If the DESW and the PCDA (P) work sincerely with empathy with the past pensioners, then there will be no litigations still all. Any amendments implemented by them can be justified by them to the Ministry of Finance subsequent to actual mlementation.

    ReplyDelete