Sunday, April 10, 2016

Another Bonanza For Pre-Mature Retirees

We had barely stopped cheering the relative advantage pre-mature retirees had received on account of OROP fixation (please view the previous blog-post) when along came the great news that the pro-rata reduction had been removed on pensions of those who had retired before 1st Jan 2006.

Till such time MOD and PCDA issue details of the revision, it would be a bit pre-mature to rush to making arrears calculators though some have already started appearing. But, just taking the revised PCDA order on VI CPC pensions, of those who had retired before 1st January 2006, it has been possible to make a first estimate of how their pensions will increase.

It is obvious that since it is pro-rata reduction on pensions that has been removed, those who retired earliest would benefit the most. From the graph prepared on the basis of the table of pensions applicable from 1st January 2006 till 30 June 2014 for, this must be emphasized again, pre 1st January 2006 retirees, it would appear pensions of Lt Col(TS) would receive the biggest boost of about 31.9% at QS of 20 years, followed by pensions of Brigadier retirees at about 28.15% for the same QS of 20 years. Lt Col(Select) and Col/Col(TS) would get nearly identical increases of about 22.21% at the same QS of 20 years. In fact, percentage increase graphs for Lt Col(S) and Col/Col(TS) are nearly merged. The percentage increases reduce as QS increases for all ranks.

But these are percentage increases over the existing pensions calculated in the table after applying pro-rata reduction. Equal percentage increase won't mean the same increase in Rupee terms. The graphs should be just a rough reckoner for PMR retirees and we need to wait for the final word from PCDA. (Viewers may access and use the zoom/pop-out facilitations on the frame below by hovering the cursor over the frame with the mouse)



But there is a buzz, not easy to ignore, that though removal of pro-rata reduction was absolutely justified, the principle of equal remuneration for equal work would appear to indicate the necessity of some sort of pro-rata enhancement of pensions of those pre 1st January 2006 retirees who had served more than the number of years required to get the pension based on minimum of pay of rank in the VI CPC pay-band, and as this pension will now be paid to everyone regardless of their QS.

This needs to be looked at from another angle. Though there is no pro-rata reduction of pensions for those retiring after 1st January 2006, a Lt Col taking PMR at 20 years of service will not get the same pension as one taking PMR at 23 or 24 years. Their pensions will depend on the number of increments they have drawn in their pay-band, the only difference being these pensions will not be subjected to pro-rata reduction.

So, if there is now parity between pre 1st January 2006 and post 1st January 2006 pensioners in the matter of there being no pro-rata reduction, should there not also be parity of manner of fixation of pensions for post and pre pensioners based on their QS or increments drawn?

In fact what 7 CPC has proposed by way of basing pensions on increments earned at time of retirement won't be OROP but the sort of full parity that could now be justifiably asked for in respect of pensions from 01 Jan 2006. As to how 7 CPC recommendations could cater for OROP, please refer my previous posts on that subject. 

5 comments:

  1. If a Major with 20 years service (15447) gets upgraded pension of a Lt Col (TS) (33 years QS) (26265), then he will be getting 70% improvement. That will be the highest of the pre 2006 lot. But the story ends there with this huge arrears and will get degraded again in the 7CPC increment based matrix.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir, It is not so much an issue of percentages and Rupees. It is about principles.

      When an officer in a specific cadre, with a certain type of commission nowadays gets x amount of pension after 20 years in a rank given on time bound basis why should a retiree of yesteryear, with the same commission, in the same cadre, also with 20 years of service in a time-bound rank of that era, get 0.71x pension?

      Just because they changed the attributes of time-bound ranks, QS reqd etc, along the way, can't take away from the number of years served.

      Delete
    2. Incidentally, with pro-rata reduction already removed, the improvement of pension for Maj @ 20 yrs, if equated to pension of Lt Col, would be from 18205 to 26265. An improvement of 44%.

      Delete
  2. This 50% at 20 yrs is simple logic of parity & equality.This is base and basis.since these legitimate were denied by wrong presumptions and administrative / bureaucratic arbitrary decisions ,since restored by judiciary - duly adjudicated after hearing all facts & arguments;we should now think of those wrong fixation of pensions beyond 20 yrs.
    Naturally ,those have to be revised with the bench mark of this revision , rather correction.
    These % age increases are higher to some ,since they were earlier denied by large amounts at higher % .
    Interesting point of concern - all these corrections and reliefs have come about due to initiatives by some individual efforts like Danapalan ,Inasu ,.....etc and some central govt employees associations ;none from fauji GPS /asso.
    We should look upon a rank at 20 yrs service by adequately factoring of changes from 1984 to 2004 and beyond.these cut off dates and committes(AVS)have to be interpreted and applied with due deligence..Flexibility.No rigidity.As I stated before this AVS was only delayed formalisation of changes/revisions post 1986 with change of lowest sel gr rk to Col.That so called sel gr Lt Col after 1986 was superficial and time scale Lt Col at 13 yrs svc should have been in 1986 .rather delayed till 2004.
    Mind set of rank rigidity has been genesis of all these unresolved anomalies.The differentiation of ranks of 2/Lt to Colonel by some cut off dates is not tenable.Fundamental factor of years of service with MACP and NFU cannot be ignored .ultimately the difference between ranks would be only in terms of number of increments ,limited to 2 to 4.
    This lengthy expression of facts as comment is for awareness of veterans .I consider u blog has intellectual presentations and therefore this lengthy comment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pse do add to ibid comment.
    About so called sel gr Lt Col after 1986 with revision of lowest sel gr rank of unit commamder to Col from 1984 onwards ; was simply equivalent of Maj rank prior to 1986. As per that SAI 1987 after 4 CPC ,the rank of selection grade Lt Col was abolished .Therefore it was superficial ,artificial and a myth .This rank of Lt Col sel gr after 1984 is not equivalent to Lt Col sel gr or Lt Col time scale of 24 yrs Svc prior to 1984.
    In 1984 promotiom to Lt Col ts was reduced to 21 from 24 - naturally in consonance with revised lowest selection gr rank of unit command to Col.
    Thus Lt Col SG stands abolished from 1986.In that transition processes,Lt Col promotion after 1986 ,should have been after13 yrs of service as that of Maj after 13 yrs prior to 1986.
    This envisaged change ,instead of implementing soon after 1986 ,was delayed and dragged on till 2004 by giving a name to a committee called AVS.
    On study of facts ,records and analysis ,AVS com proceedings are simply a formality of much delayed change of 4cpc of integrated pay scale with separate rankconcept.nd related rank concept.
    Records of mod and services hq have these facts..This is where I said about that irrivalence and substitution of min for ranks of Col & Brig in the integrated scales for all from 2/Lt to Brig.
    That was faux pas of rank pay saga corrected by Danapalan.That denial of due rank pay to officers below Lt Col was deliberate to lower pays of officers of Lt Col and below.
    All these historical facts are relavent when we see these ,% increases to Lt Col and Maj rk.
    Anomalies would remain unresolved ,if facts truth and related factors are disregarded.





    ReplyDelete