Saturday, February 06, 2016

OROP Tables And The 26 Years Anomaly Affecting Lt Col Retirees

The issue of pensions for officers who had retired before December 2004, with service of 26 years or more, in ranks of Lt Col and Lt Col (TS) does spring up from time to time, not necessarily in the context of OROP. If e_mail traffic is anything to go by, some litigation seems to be in the pipeline for correcting what many feel is clearly an anomalous situation for pensions right from 01 Jan 2006. I had mentioned desirable pension parity zones while speculating on OROP in past blog posts, the last one being here.

In the context of OROP, the matter was reported to have been highlighted recently during the meeting between the associations spearheading the OROP campaign and Hon'ble Minister of State For Finance, as mentioned in this blog post.

In order to understand the issue in terms of numbers, after the release of OROP tables, it is now possible to quantify the shortfall resulting to Lt Col/LtCol(TS) retirees after implementation of OROP as follows :




A graphical representation shows the "gap" over varying values of qualifying service as follows. Incidentally, in case the point had been missed by anyone, PCDA circular 555 has clarified, in para 10 of the circular, that fractional service of over 3 months and above but less than 9 months is to be treated as half a year:




Just counting the number of Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) who had retired before December 2004 after putting in a service of 26 years or more, and working out what tiny fraction of the whole OROP outgo would be involved in rectifying the anomaly, could serve to put the matter in a proper perspective.

But given the litigious frames of mind that have overseen most adverserial situations affecting armed forces veterans, it is any body's guess whether a pragmatic and fair resolution of this matter is likely to be forthcoming without further strife and acrimony.

4 comments:

  1. Sir it will be a favour to Majors who retired after putting in 20 years of service but less than 21 years of service if you kindly highlight their issue too in a similar manner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir, I have mentioned, several times, on this blog as well as in discussions elsewhere the need for pension parities for Maj and Lt Col retirees between 20 and less than 26 years of service as well as Maj/Lt Col and Col(TS)retirees with more than 26 years of service.

      You may have a look at some of the more recent examples as follows

      *blog post 1

      *blog post 2

      *blog post 3

      This needs to be taken up by the associations. I believe there are cases being filed as well. It is an important matter.

      Delete
  2. As there is no retirement in the rank of regular Captain in the current dispensation. Therefore it is evidently seen the the data of Hony Captain has been utilized to grant the pension to Regular Capt. Whereas the pension of the Captain should have been fixed on the notional basis. For instance if a regular commissioned Captain with 28 yrs or more service taken as not retired to the rank of major and progressing in his own rank with due increments in his own Pay Band would retire with a higher pension than which has been given in the OROP Tables. Therefore a suitable methodology need to be adopted for the ranks those retired earlier and no person of the same rank retiring in the calender year 2013.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gurdas Singh Bawa "...it is evidently seen..."

      We can never be sure what is "evident" and what is not unless we get official confirmation about the basis of OROP pensions amounts.

      I do not think the authorities would deny such information if it is asked for.

      So, instead of speculating how pension has been calculated, the proper source can be approached, by those who might want to clarify their doubts, on these lines.

      Delete