Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Pension Fixation Based On Notional Progression (Cont'd) : OROP

To be sure, this is merely a re-hash of issues covered on this blog, on other web-sites and blogs, in chat forums, in group e_mails or bars at clubs and institutes.

Not that drawing arrow-marks for marking out a logical pension progression is expected to result in an overnight re-framing of pension awards. But, on the lines of progression path for 7 CPC pension fixation in the previous post, here is the same concept applied to one of the tables (the first one) issued for implementing OROP.




{Edit}: A little clarification appears in order. The notional progression as suggested in the table needs to be governed by some constraints. 

Notional pay, hence pension, of an older retiree in a certain rank must progress to the level suggested in the table provided currently serving Officers in the older retirees' cadre and with the same type of commission progress on basis of time, i.e. length of service alone, to the higher level as shown.

The progression would, by and large, be applicable up to the rank of Major in most types of commission. But progression to the notional level of current level of Lt Col at service of 13 years may exclude those types of commissions with which Officers do not currently progress automatically to rank of Lt Col at a service of 13 years.

Similarly, notional progression to pay, hence pension, of Col(TS) at a QS of 26 years, as suggested in the table, would be justified for those types of commission with which Officers currently get the rank of Col(TS) after completing a service of 26 years.

10 comments:

  1. Sir,
    The most simple logical thinking of yours has given way to a fully justified pension table. Why can't the bureaucrats in MoD and MoF apply their minds in this sensible way? I only wish that somebody there will see this post before giving final orders on 7CPC Pensions. Hats off to you sir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Manohar AM Though this table relates to OROP, the approach to progression for 7 CPC is on similar lines.

      Delete
  2. Sir,
    A very very laudable job. It must be sent to one man Commission on OROP. It will be a great help to the Commission in formulating its recommendations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ShimlaCharlie : All based on documents and data shared online but reformatted to present the situation in as simple a manner as possible.

    I am given to understand these issues were represented on by affected pensioners during interaction with the One man Judicial Committee on OROP.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sir,
    I still feel that a comprehensive paper be put up before the commission because the way you have explained it and made it easy to understand. I really appreciate the way you explained it and made it so simple that it is easily understood by a lay person like me. I have a strong feeling that it has not been projected before the commission in such a direct and simple manner. I am sure it will be a appreciated by the commission as a great help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Shimlacharlie : I am sure this must have been represented at least for older Maj pensioners with more than 20 years of service and Lt Col pensioners who had retired on Nov 2004 or earlier, with more than 26 years of service, before AV Singh Committee recommendations were implemented.

      I don't know if the One Man Judicial Committee has planned further interactions with ESM. If someone wishes to take up these concepts of OROP linked to time-bound ranks with the committee, they would need to find some way of approaching the OMJC.

      Delete
  5. Sir,
    Last date of hearing/receiving representations/suggestions/views by Judicial Commission as per notification dtd. 02 Aug 16 is 21 Sept 2016. We, the EXM community have all along been struggling for OROP through representations, meetings, protests etc but none had produced as to what OROP's implementation means in tabular form.
    My request to you is to send your views to the Judicial Committee. It's easy to understand format will be of great help to the Judicial Committee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir, if the views in this blog post can help to convey an affected veteran's personal representation to the OMJC then the affected veteran would have to present his own case as to how notional progression must take place in his own specific case with reference to his own rank and qualifying service. If it can help the representation, then a similar table can be generated for amplifying the representation.

      Delete
  6. Perfect and absolutely legitimate.well demonstrated in the form of table with arrows.
    Any sensible person can see the simplicity and rationality . But ,they (mod and def accts )simply thrust irrational and illegitimate tables ,negating fundamental rules and principles in these matters.
    Make esm run around with presentations ,representations ,appeals ,petitions ....etc to resolve designed inconsistencies and anomalies.
    As some followers said ,there should be efforts by esm to propagate these good solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sir,
    Now that the OMJC had submitted his report to the MoD on 26 Oct 2016 on the anomalies in the OROP orders isssued by the government, I wish he incorporated your simplest way of arriving at pensions due in a holistic way. Moreover, the much discussed infeasibility of the Option 1 of the 7CPC scales of Pension based on increments earned will be solved by this method. All the time scale promoted pensioners up to the rank of Lt Col and Col (TS) will get covered easily by this method of calculations, for the rest of the senior lot their increments will be available in their PPOs except a few who retired long back.

    ReplyDelete