Of Swallows And Summer

After the passage of a significant portion of the remainder of their lifetimes, veteran Officers who had held regular commissions and retired as Major and Lt Col prior to 16 Dec 2004, implementation date of Phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee, can, perhaps begin to see some rays of hope on the distant horizon for the righting of a wrong in having been denied pensionary benefits of the next higher time bound ranks viz., Lt Col and Col (TS) respectively.

The hope comes in the dismissal by Hon'ble Supreme Court of a Civil Appeal (Diary Number 31788/2022) filed by the Union of India against judgment Of Armed Forces Tribunal Chennai in case OA 268 of 2018 that had ruled in favour of  application of Cdr SP Ilangovan (Retired) who had sought pensionary benefits at par with those applicable to veterans retiring in the rank of Capt TS (IN) from 16 Dec 2004.

Judgement of the Armed Forces Tribunal is embedded below:

 

Though the applicant chose, as is apparent from text of the judgment, to stress upon his rank of Cdr (SG) being superior to that of a Cdr (TS), the judgement itself is the voice of rationality itself in recognising the need to accord pensionary benefits of the next higher time-bound ranks to pre 16 Dec 2004 retirees if they had retired with requisite service.

Having been a Lt Col of select grade or time-scale is actually no grounds for discrimination against the latter as Officers with both kinds of Lt Col ranks were given rank of Col (TS) if they continued to serve after 16 Dec 2004 and earned pensions of Col(TS) on their retirement

By dismissing the Civil Appeal of Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opened up prospects for rationalising of pensions as ruled in the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal. Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the case needs ro be examined under legal advice to be able to understand its applicability.

But then, this is just one hopeful sign. Whether or not it leads to a full resolution is something time alone will tell. 

As to how and when this will translate into relief for pre 16 Dec 2004 pensioners/family pensioners in ranks of Maj and Lt Col, remains to be seen.

Most veterans won't have forgotten the tortuous course of the Rank Pay litigation years ago.

This event, however, does mark an update to concerns expressed on this blog many moons ago. Please read  ๐Ÿ Š๐Ÿ Š This Blog Post

Postscript: This Tweet should address queries, if any on the probable future outcomes:

Comparing The OROP Revision Amount

After a delay of about 3 years 5 months, a revision of OROP for ESM has finally been announced with effect from 01 July 2019 with the release of an official letter and pension tables.

At first glance, the revision does not deal with and does not attempt to rectify the well documented anomalies of the original OROP implementation with effect from 01 July 2014.

The revision does present an opportunity to compare data now made available with a view to trying to understand the thought process that has gone into the revision.

This blog post is intended to present graphical data for different ranks. Data for the rank of Major is as follows. Graphs for other ranks will follow. So, yes, this too will be a case of “watch this space”.

OROP Revision Applicable To Pensioners In Rank of Major (Regular Commission):

OROP Revision Applicable To Pensioners In Rank of Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) (Regular Commission):
OROP Revision Applicable To Pensioners In Rank of Col/Col(TS) (Regular Commission):

A case of ➡️ deja vu ?


The Post Judgment Scenario : OROP

Whether or not the IESM litigation on OROP is to be considered a closed chapter would be for the petitioners to decide. The specific challenge to the policy dimensions on OROP, as laid down in the Government of India letter dated Nov 2015. could certainly be construed as done and dusted after the very clear rulings on it as contained in judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

From what was known to ESM not directly involved with the IESM petition, it never appeared that the arguments had focused so much on how much the implementation vide Govt letter dated Feb 2016 actually conformed to provisions of the letter dated Nov 2015, the stress having been on targeting the latter. There is still no comprehensive record available whether specific anomalies created by the letter dated Feb 2016 were included in arguments except for the much discussed issues of “One Rank Many Pensions”, “Automatic vs periodic review”, “date/year of implementation” or “max or avg of min and max”.

My own past perceptions of the way OROP campaign had unfolded over the years as well as the issues that had needed to be addressed had been blogged on. During the closing days of the petition and after the recent judgment, I’ve gone over some of the past posts and found them still relevant:

  • There’s a need to rise above OROP as a slogan. If there is an issue of disparity and unfairness around the pensionary awards of ESM and attention needs to be focused on those, then a slogan or a mission chant does become a productive and unifying rallying point. However there is a constant need to be aware the wording or, in this case, letters of the slogan do not limit the wider scope of the objective of ensuring justice for ESM. A past blog post had touched on this aspect ➡️ Beyond The OROP "Slogan"
  • There is a requirement to examine the logic of quantifying the service of older ESM on the basis of rational and constant measures and to accept that “Rank”, even in combination with QS, is not a logical sole parameter for establishing pension parity. In that respect the sentence in the judgment to the effect that “those having the same rank are not part of a homogeneous group” takes on another profound dimension in other contexts as well. These issues have been mentioned repeatedly in the past on this blog. This post provides a reasonable summary of the concept ➡️ The Hazards Of Ignoring The Non-One-ness Of "One" in OROP
  • There is a need to examine all issues relating to ESM pensions in totality, not just from the OROP point of view. These could include anomalies of previous pay commissions, AVS Committee, and those caused by 7CPC. NFU is still outside purview of any discussions on pensions other than separately, in a hypothetical sense. ➡️ LOOKING BACK AT 6 CPC PENSIONS THROUGH THE OROP AND 7 CPC PRISM
  • From the time of release of OROP tables in 2016, there has been a need to critically examine how the actual implementation complied with the Government's own definition of letter dated Nov 2015. That is an exercise that can still be performed and not necessarily through litigation. My own views of 2016 may not appear as unfounded as they might have done at that time ➡️ First Impressions Of The OROP Tables 
The Possible Way Forward

There are some distinct areas that need the attention of ESM bodies, leading interlocuters, services HQs, TRIPAS and, of course, DESW and MOD. These issues can be resolved through rationalisation of past policy decisions that have resulted in anomalies. The following list could be expanded upon through feedback and online interactions:
  • Retrospective implementation of awards such as MACP needs to be considered by way of policy decisions brought about through consultations between IESM bodies, services HQs and MOD. If need be, obtaining some kind of binding legislative approval could be included in the overall approach. The first requirement in such reasoning is to arrive at a consensus on the need for equity in respect of current pensions of veterans who had retired in the past.
  • There is a need for clarity and agreement on the concept of “equal remuneration for equal work” and, equally importantly, the basis of defining “equal work”. Let us never forget that a pension received in the present is a deferred wage and it should be the same for the same amount of service rendered, whether now or in the past. 
  • Policies in this regard need to be amended through the consultative approach I have suggested. Thus “Equal Pension For Equal Service/Work” could have been the title of the approach but OROP can now be reformatted to include that wider approach instead of there being a move to change the title. 7 CPC even cited the principle of “Inter Temporal Equity” in respect of pensions. Though mechanics of implementing 7CPC fall well short of the cited principle, there is room for rationalisation and OROP could evolve into something approaching “ITE”.
  • Future-proofing of pension-parities is most desirable to prevent needless generation of grievances and resulting recrimination. The 7 CPC Matrix is actually a perfect concept for bringing about the previously mentioned “Inter Temporal Equity” in regard to pensions provided placement of older ESM in “levels” as well as at “Increment Stages” of the matrix conforms to the rational definition of “equal work”. The matrix not only needs to follow some form of “notional progression”, it also needs to define progression brought about by MACP or, possibly, NFU. The past post is just an example. Progression on these lines, as suggested in the past, needs to be defined for all levels related to ESM ➡️ Some Notions Of Progression 
This may also be an opportune time to recognise the tremendous work load on the administrative machinery in formulating and executing policy decisions. There is a need to acknowledge the hard work done by civilian personnel  at many levels to make pension awards workable. There is no room for suspicion, resentment or hostility towards those sections of Government of our country in case some perceived injustice, real or otherwise, afflicts pensionary awards.

Data On Past OROP Fixation

 Watch This Space

In the meantime this chart might help to point the way forward. The link provided in it is also relevant. ➡️ 



Measuring Possible Outcomes Of The OROP Litigation : Officer Veterans

 

What follows would be a repeat of several ideas recorded on the matter in the past. But considering the stage of finality reached in litigation in the matter, now that the petition has finally been represented, with a truly commendable and heroic effort on part of the petitioners, the judgment having been reserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it may not hurt to put on record a brief gist as it would not be out of place for armed forces veterans in all ranks to have some yardsticks for the outcome they expect.

One main issue with the coverage of the case on social media or blogs has been the lack of full details of all the issues sought to be addressed in the petition. The broad points are known, of course, that:

  • Implementation of OROP for older retirees  should have been from the same year (in year 2013 or 2014) that the pensions of current retirees with the same rank and the same years of service had been taken into account.
  • OROP for older retirees should have been fixed at the maximum pension of retirees with the same rank and same years of service  (2013 or 2014) and not at the average of minimum and maximum of pensions.
  • Revision of OROP should have been done annually and not at intervals of five years.
  • The frequently quoted phrase that OROP should not be “One Rank Many Pensions”.
What is not very clear at present is whether or not the petition also sought to get a resolution of other glaring anomalies of OROP implementation. It would also not be wise to speculate whether all dimensions of parity and equity in OROP implementation would be taken into account by the Hon’ble Supreme Court if these did not form part of the Petition. 

In order to restrict any view on the subject to manageable dimensions, it may be best to take the example of a smaller subset of the veteran pensioners where uniform concepts can be applied in respect of the degree of relief that could be justifiably anticipated. 

OROP for Officer veterans can be a case in point. 

Here, a review of the concept of equity and parity is essential. The OROP abbreviation needs an application of mind. The implication of “One Rank”, that is talked and written about so much, needs to be understood fully. I had mentioned this in previous posts, in Tweets as well as in direct messages. It may be useful to highlight the same briefly even as we wait for the judgment. 

Essentially, OROP needs to deliver parity between deferred wage of older ESM pensioners with the deferred wage of service personnel who have rendered the same amount of service and retired in a benchmark/base year (presently the year 2013). 

That would sync with the well established concept of “Equal Remuneration For Equal Work”. However, there is a need for rationally establishing logical parameters that would define “same amount of service” and “equal work”. 

“One Rank” when combined with “Equal Service (in years)” is a very reasonable basis for defining “Same Service” or “Equal Work” and for forming a basis for delivering pension parity in most cases 

In the case of a Col (select), for example, the common parameters would be:

  • The type of commission (eg Regular Commission). 
  • The categorisation for pensions conventionally followed  based on Arm/Branch/Service [such as in the common table for "Regular Commissioned Officers Of Army And Equivalent Ranks In Navy And Air Force (Other Than Officers Of AMC/ADC/RVC, EC/SSC, MNS)].
  • The fact of having been promoted  to select rank of Col. 
  • The qualifying service in number of years. 

In other words, OROP of a Col(select) who retired with 25 years of service before the “benchmark/base year” (presently 2013) date of implementation viz., 01 Jul 2014, needs to be equal to the pension (the highest and not the average, as per the petition) drawn by a Col (select) with equal service retiring in the benchmark year. The same logic would appear to hold for higher selection based Officer ranks of Brigadier, Maj Gen and Lt Gen. 

Therefore, as all select Officer ranks in the benchmark/base year (presently 2013) have a one-to-one equivalence with select ranks of veteran Officers who had retired prior to the benchmark year, there would not be much of a problem in fixing OROP for these veteran Officers. 

The problem arises, and it is a real one, when OROP is considered for ranks of Lt Col, Maj, Capt. These are now time-bound ranks and as these ranks are obtained on the basis of qualifying service and not by the common factor of promotion by selection, the actual "Rank" has to take a backseat relative to other factors required for determining what constitutes "equal work" or "same service". 

Attributes of time-bound Officer ranks have changed over time. The concept has found resonance in several sections of the blogosphere that a "Major" rank of yesteryear is not the same as the "Major" rank of 2013. There was a time Major rank would be attained at a service of 14 years. In the benchmark/base year (presently 2013), Major rank is attained at a QS of 6 years. In the benchmark year Officers progress on time-bound basis to rank of Lt Col on completing a service of 11 years. How can the OROP of older pensioners in that old rank of "Major" be fixed based on "One Rank"? How can these two Major ranks, with different attributes, be considered "One Rank"? These are disparate in terms of their attributes. 

The issue of "same or equal service" can't be addressed by spellings of the rank alone. The equivalence of two measures of a commodity can't be established if these are weighed on two different scales which both display the weight as "5" if the first measure is weighed in a scale that reads in Pounds Avoirdupois and the second one on a scale that reads in Kilograms. 

Some far from enlightened reasoning has surfaced in recorded "wisdom", as reflected in official correspondence/Minutes of Meetings obtained through RTI by veterans actively engaged on ESM issues. In some circles, it has been actually stated that benefits in terms of enhanced remuneration resulting from cadre restructuring need not be passed on to older retirees. 

Just let us consider this for a moment, if an Officer with a regular commission retired in a time-bound rank at a QS of 20 years, in benchmark year of 2013, with a pension of Rs.31305/-, then would there be any justification in fixing the pension at Rs.21530/- of an older, pre Dec 2004, Officer veteran, with a regular commission, who also retired in a time-bound rank at a QS of 20 years? Yet, OROP has been fixed in just that fashion, ignoring the "same service" of both veterans as well as completely disregarding the fact that if the former retired in the old rank of Major and the latter in the new time-bound rank of Lt Col, that forms no justifiable basis for fixing the OROP at such different levels. 

The same considerations apply to OROP for older pensioners in rank of Lt Col who had completed 26 years of service. Nowadays, as in the base year of 2013, officers progress on time bound basis to rank of Col(TS). 

I have seen this question repeated across several online discussions,  blogs and twitter accounts, in different forms, and fully understand the relevance as to the pension of which Major retiree of base year 2013 with service with QS more than 20 years was used for determining OROP of older Maj pensioners? Why were these Maj retirees of 2013 not Lt Col? The same applies to pensions of Lt Col with more than 26 years of service. 

That is why, the following blog posts may still be relevant:

  • The need to recognise that parity of pensions in OROP can not be limited by the words "One Rank" as these may not really be applicable to time bound ranks.   https://bit.ly/3nfEvv0
  • For veterans in time-bound Officer ranks, there is a need for notionally progressing to a level of remuneration based on the distinct defining parameters that define the quantum of Service they have rendered, viz., the nature of their Commission, the grouping associated with pension fixation and their QS at retirement. Rank can only be a secondary determinant of OROP in their case.  https://bit.ly/3aXotAi

Whether or not these issues found a place in the petition or will receive a consideration by Hon'ble Supreme Court would only be revealed when the judgment is available

{Addendum: They didn’t ๐Ÿ˜ถ}

 

Some Issues To Remember About OROP and Pension Fixations In 7CPC

All veterans are aware that there are a number of litigations on pensionary matters presently pending in AFTs, Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the large numbers involved, it would be futile even to attempt to list them all.

However, this blog-post was felt necessary after having come across some rather alarming and disturbing online posts by commentators who have been quite central to online debate on these matters, starting right from the era of Rank Pay litigation.

More than the wording of these online comments, it is the sentiment and reasoning underlying the posts that give rise to a feeling of unease. These issues affect a large number of ESM, so hubris on account of one's own views and/or of a rather vested approach of being guided by sanctity of pensionary awards of only a select class, can't contribute towards generating awareness or suggesting remedies in consultative fashion for a resolution.

Most aspects have already been touched upon in the past. But now, as the OROP litigation moves towards a decisive phase, it could, perhaps, be useful to not lose sight of some features of the complex issue as listed in this brief and far from comprehensive list. Following the links provided, it may be possible to arrive at a more complete picture rather than through brief interactions on social-media:

  • The tell tale signatures of disadvantages in OROP to some rank-QS combinations need to be looked at analytically๐Ÿ‘‰ in this blog post 
  • How the stress on just "One Rank" in OROP and ignoring the even more crtical need of a "notional progression" for OROP fixation can cause non-redressal of anomalous fixations for some QS-rank combinations ๐Ÿ‘‰ as outlined here
  • There may be a need to examine how truthful and rational the methodology of OROP fixation was even in terms of using the "average of minimum and maximum" rather than the maximum value of pension of a QS-rank combination in 2013 and to try to arrive at an understanding of the glaring gaps that show up in graphical data ๐Ÿ‘‰ shown in this blog-post
  • Equally important is a need for esteemed interlocuters to re-examine their apparent endorsements of what some notings on files seem to assert while justifying the non-revision of OROP. The actual situation indicates those assertions could have less than valid application in many cases ๐Ÿ‘‰ as explained here.

 

The Case For Lt Col Pension For Old Veterans Who Retired As Major (updated with emphasis)

(Readers are requested to consider using the “share buttons” at the end of this and other blog-posts in case they feel sharing of the contents could be of interest to others affected. Contents of the post may change in case of new developments or articulation of others’ views) 

If it had not been for a chance viewing of another blog some time ago, with a blog-post in it on a different topic and some comments/replies, this particular development would have been missed altogether.

The development is of the negative kind. Some may say that the curse of 16 December 2004 has struck again. But, before those affected give up on the matter as a lost cause, they could consider reviewing some past  opinions on this specific  issue and matters intimately related to it. Perhaps, what is required is a wider point of view rather than a narrow focus on just one rank.

The development relates to a petition filed by veterans who had retired in the rank of Major with more than 20 years of service before that date. The petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petition had sought parity of the petitioners' pension with pension of Lt Col veterans who retired after 16 Dec 2004 with the same QS as the petitioners.

A copy of the judgement can be viewed on the website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the link placed at the end of this blog-post.

It is not known what the precise submissions of the petitioners were. Text of the judgement states the petition to be,"...for grant of pensionary and other benefits at par with the benefits which accrue as a consequence of the communication dated 21 December 2004 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence" and, I quote again, "....to grant pension equal to the pension of Lt. Col. by applying the principle of “equal pension for equal work” to the petitioners under the provisions of Constitution of India".

The "communication" referred to is, most probably, the one that contained the sanction for implementing, with effect from 16 December 2004, Phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee. In previous tribunal orders and court judgements, policy letters of year 2005 had been mentioned as the ones implementing said recommendations retrospectively from 16 Dec 2004. Till such documents are accessed, it would be imprudent to hold forth on the timeline of that "implementation".

The text of the judgement, quoted above, poses a few questions:

  • Did sanction for implementing phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee specifically mention that older pensioners in time-bound ranks would not be entitled to parity of their pensions with those fixed for officers retiring after 16 December 2004 with the same type of commission and equal service?
  • Did the petition actually seek "benefits" flowing out of the letter implementing recommendations of AVS Committee wef 16 Dec 2004 or did it seek parity with benefits of the post 16 Dec 2004 rank of Lt Col? 

The judgement goes on further to state, "The petitioners are former personnel of the Indian Army who retired prior to 16 December 2004. Since the orders of the Union of India have taken effect from 16 December 2004, ex facie, they have no application to the petitioners". The most important issue that arises is, the very fact that the GOI orders did not apply to pre 16 Dec 2004 retirees is what constitutes discrimination against the older retirees, especially when their deferred wage (pension) suffers in terms of parity and equity as compared to post 16 Dec 2004 retirees given the benefit of a higher time-bound rank from that arbitrarily fixed cut-off date. The following issues can be considered:

  • Is it a matter of "application" per se? Did the petitioners seek that they be promoted retrospectively as per the 2004 order and that too at stages of their former career corresponding to lower QS for promotion than they had actually been promoted at and to be paid arrears on account of enhanced pay and earlier promotions for the years they had been service?
  • Wasn’t  their petition meant to seek parity of their deferred wage, to be paid in the period after 16 Dec 2004 with the deferred wage of similarly placed Officers who retired after 16 Dec 2004?
  • The petitioners had served for 20 years or more as commissioned Officers. Their pension is a deferred wage based on the service they had rendered which can truly be measured only by consideration of their cadre, nature of commission and their qualifying service combined. Their ranks did not have the same attributes after 16 Dec 2004 and, therefore, can the rank be used as measure of entitlement to the deferred wage after 16 Dec 2004 or for establishing parity thereof?
  • Can the quantum of their entitlement of their deferred wage vary depending on whether they retired before or after 16 Dec 2004 and can they be given a deferred wage after 16 Dec 2004 which is lower than that of similarly placed Officers retiring with the same QS in a time-bound rank with changed attributes post 16 Dec 2004?

Most of these issues have been touched upon in the past. Please see the blog-post linked to at the end of this post. But, briefly, there is an urgent need for all informed interlocutors on these matters to consider there are interconnected issues involved, not just the pension of veterans in Major rank. Some important aspects of the topic, that could be given a thought for the future course of this issue, are as follows:

* This may be highlighted once again, that regardless of the specific contents of the petition in question, the principle of parity of pensions for older Maj retirees would have been applicable from whatever retrospective date the recommendations of AV Singh Committee had been implemented. For this pension parity issue, the specificity of that date is immaterial except for the consideration that a disparity exists across the date between pensions of two veterans who had the same type of Commission and had the same QS and retired in time-bound ranks.

* However, the selection of the date becomes much more relevant for all the Officers who were in service on the specific date the Government formed the Committee in 2001 when their status got official recognition as members of a uniform group of similarly placed Officers, all suffering from stagnation in their cadre. Is it not true that the benefit of relief from stagnation was not equally applied when the date of implementation, of recommendations of the Committee, was chosen as 16 Dec 2004? 

* Consider the case of a serving Major with 13 years of service in 2001, when the Committee was formed in recognition of the fact that the serving Major formed part of a homogeneous group suffering from career stagnation. He had to wait till 16 Dec 2004 to pick up the new time bound rank of Lt Col when he attained a QS of 16 years, stagnating for 3 years in the pay-scale without getting the higher pay and allowances, whereas his junior with just 13 years of service as on 16 Dec 2004 picked up the same rank without any delay, suffering no stagnation in the process.
 
* Did these Officers, who were in service at the time of formation of AV Singh Committee in 2001, receive equitable adjustment of their ranks, in-service pay and/allowances as a result of the implementation of AV Singh Committee recommendations  even if they continued to serve beyond 16 Dec 2004? But if the Officers serving in 2001 had the bad luck to retire before 16 Dec 2004, then they missed even parity in terms of pension vis-a-vis Officers with the same type of Commission and equal QS retiring after 16 Dec 2004. 

* The act of selection of 16 Dec 2004 as the date for implementing phase-I recommendations of AVS Committee was, by itself, discriminatory. The act of selection of that date discriminated not only against many Officer veterans who had been in service when the committee was formed but superannuated before the implementation date but it (the selection of that date) also discriminated against Officers who continued to serve beyond that date. In-service earnings (pay and allowances) of both these sub-sets suffered disparities on account of just selection of that date. The sub-set of Officers who retired prior to date of implementation lost out in terms of parity of their pension as well.

* Regardless of the above, if pension is a deferred wage and the only rational measure of service rendered in the case of time-bound ranks are the type of commission and length of service, then, for equitable parity, pensions for time-bound ranks with  the same type of commission and qualifying service would need to be the same across that date for an equitable and fair resolution. Let us not. forget, ranks are not constant standards across the cut-off date and do not serve as a just measure for ensuring parity of deferred wages as a pre 16 Dec 2004 Major or Lt Col rank is not the same as the post 16 Dec 2004 Major or Lt Col rank. The only reliable and logical basis for comparing service rendered, in the case of time-bound ranks, is the type of commission and the QS of retirees before and after the cut off date.


To put the whole matter in a nutshell, unless the act of selecting 16 Dec 2004, as the date of implementation of Phase I recommendations of AV Singh Committee, is established as being arbitrary and discriminatory, justice in the matter will continue to elude those discriminated against.

Links to Connected Material: (Please click/tap to access ๐Ÿ‘‰):