The Rank Pay Matter Relating To IV CPC{ continued :-) }

As had been suspected, pre-mature self-congratulations in some sections of the affected populace notwithstanding, the Government has indeed succeeded in delaying a resolution of the matter by clubbing all manners of subjects with the clear and distinct issue of the rank pay arrears of IV CPC. A final verdict has now been put off till such time the Hon'ble Chief Justice is presented with the matter and then, if it is so decided, the case would have to be referred to another bench. It is anybody's guess as to what sort of timeline could be assigned to the legal process. One can only look forward to updates in the media like this one . Edit 1: The Record of Proceedings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has now been updated Edit 2: The Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed 24 February 2011 as the date of "final disposal", as seen from the Record Of Proceedings. Edit 3: The next hearing is on the 8th March. Full details here.

OROP {continued :-)}

As the issue remains unresolved, one gets to read fresh "updates" and opinions on the matter every other day. There is a noticeable lack of clarity, however, as to what sort of structure "One Rank One Pension" is eventually intended to assume. It is time for the ESMs, currently in the forefront on the matter, to give some formal shape to the desired outcome.

For instance, the following aspects have never been fully explained:

*How do the proponents of OROP propose to take the length of service in a retiree's last rank into account for the calculation of pension? As an example, would a Lt Col (Retd.) who superannuated in 2001 with, say, 10 years of service as Lt Col, be entitled to the same pension as a Lt Col who superannuated in 2007 with just 3 years of service in the same rank?

*Would the proposed OROP take into account the change in rank structures pre and post AV Singh Phase I implementation. As an example, how would the pension of a Lt Col(TS) (Retd.) who super annuated on 30 Nov 2004, before the implementation date of AV Singh Committee, with, say, 29 years of service be treated vis-a-vis the pension of a Col(TS) who super-annuated, with the same sort of commission and an equivalent length of service, on 30 Nov 2007 after the date of implementation of AV Singh Phase I? Or would the non-retrospective implementation of AV Singh Phase-I cast a shadow on OROP as well, especially for Officer retirees.

*Why are ESMs not countering the repeated assertion by the political classes that OROP would be required to be extended to all Govt employees and hence would be prohibitively expensive? After all, civilian employees do not have to bear the burden of a truncated career and there is very little justification for a universal OROP as has been explained previously.

But, the continued thrust on the matter is indeed heartening. Till such time some positive official development is forthcoming, occasional updates do serve an important function, viz., of keeping all concerned abreast of the situation.

One Rank One Pension

The more one thinks about the issue of "One Rank One Pension", the greater is the number of conflicting ideas that flood the mind. So much has been written about the issue and there's been so much media attention, not always well informed and rational, focussed on the subject. It is now the subject of litigation and is beginning to take on political overtones.

Essentially, how does one justify the OROP demand? To be absolutely objective and fair, one joined the armed forces fully equipped with the publicly held knowledge that there would be no such thing as "OROP" at the end of one's career. There was no coercion or compulsion at play in the process of making the career choice. It was also known the career would be 'truncated' as compared to the career of a civilian counterpart. So, if all other things had remained constant, probably the cry for a special dispensation regarding pensionary benefits would have sounded like a petulant whine unbecoming of armed forces veterans. However, other things have not remained constant.

One of the possible reasons for the dissatisfaction amongst veterans could be the gradual, though slow, upgradations of emoluments of serving personnel over the years that translate into pensionary benefits as well. The personnel who retired before the upgradations took place have lost out, in comparison, in terms of pensionary benefits. This is inspite of the various formulaic tinkerings with pre/post pay commission pensionary benefits.

Even to obtain some form of equalisation in pre/post pay commission pensionary benefits, veterans have had to protest loudly and make very vocal as well as visible representations. There seems to be a widely held belief amongst ex-servicemen that they'd be deprived of their due entitlements by the political and bureaucratic classes. The 'OROP' is a kind of security blanket that's now being sought as a form of guarantee that ex-servicemen would be assured of the absence of such attempts, perceived or otherwise, to deny them their fair entitlements.

On media forums it has been pointed out on several occasions that in all civilian organisations present day and past retirees do have differences in the amount of pensions paid for the same service and the same post. This invariably draws the response that the armed forces cannot be compared to other organisations, civil or private. That's also something that cannot be argued against.

If the oft repeated rationale of truncated careers is considered, several alternative remedies suggest themselves. To make it a level playing field for civilian retirees and armed forces veterans, why not peg the pensions of the latter at the level of the payscale at which they retire? They would continue to draw the same pay and allowances and would continue to get increments as they would have whilst they were in service. This would continue till they attained the age of superannuation fixed for their civilian counterparts. After attaining this age of super annuation, common to both civilians and those in the armed forces, a common fixation of pension could be arrived at.

All the present retirees would require to have their pensions adjusted retrospectively from the date of their retirement and be paid the difference between pensions actually drawn and pensions due as per the proposal suggested. There would be no rationale for an 'OROP' based on the 'truncated career' argument then. It'd be fair to both civilian retirees and veterans.

Now, to be fair to those who might be upset by the notion of the Government paying actual salary and allowances to veteran retirees, it could also be left to the Government to offer employment to the veterans in civilian posts/grades appropriate to the payscales at which they retire. {Edit}  : For defence veteran retirees offered such appointment, there'd be no pension till such time they retire from the second goverment career. {End of edit} For those retirees who choose not to accept such employment offered to them, the Govt could then fix their pensions as per present non "OROP" practice without giving them the benefit of the continuation of salary/allowances till the common age of super-annuation. The Govt. could also apply the same rationale for a "non-OROP" fixation of pension for armed forces personnel who opt for pre-mature retirement voluntarily.

However, one feels that expectations of some such miraculous development would amount to the proverbial existence in a fool's paradise. So, the OROP slogan is not likely to disappear anytime soon. In a few years from now, if the Govt. finds itself in the fortunate situation of being able to introduce the concept of individual contributions to pension funds for those in Government service, all this would seem so trivial. But for the individuals who are presently pensioners, the matter does appear in need of resolution on an urgent basis.

The Rank Pay Matter Relating To IV CPC { continued :-) }

The web site of the Hon'ble Supreme Court now indicates the next hearing of the case would be on 18 October 2010. At least that's an update over the previous post. As to what one is to make of the other rumours floating about regarding a proposed revision of pensions one cannot say. But the most concrete issue is of the rank pay arrears that would accrue in case the case is decided in favour of armed forces officers, both serving and retired.

The Rank Pay Matter Relating To IV CPC


It's been some time since The Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India passed a judgement on the matter. But it is understood the Government of India has filed a "review petition". The last available update on the web site of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directs for a listing of the matter in July, which has now gone by. Current updates are hard to come by.

Judgement On Rank Pay

Till such time the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court becomes available and some form of official Government order is issued, the old matter of rank pay connected with the IV CPC, famously known as the "Major Dhanapalan Issue", will continue to be the subject of speculation on-line and in the press.
Contrary to the views expressed in The Economic Times news item, a very large number of officers who were commissioned prior to 01 Jan 86 and/or who retired subsequent to 01 Jan 96, were affected by the wrong fixation of pay by IV CPC and would, in theory, be eligible for benefits accruing from the judgement.