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  🠊🠊 This Blog Post

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

Anybody’s guess whether respondents will comply with para 17b of judgement of AFT Chennai or go in for a review petition in Hon’ble Supreme Court after dismissal of their leave to appeal. Would it be too much to expect that respondents accept opinion of AFT in para 16 of order? https://t.co/BjF2iuLcKV

— Sunlit_Tweets (@Sunlit_Tweets) October 3, 2024

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 ?

7 CPC Concordance Tables And Their Effect On Pay Parity Status: Lt Col

(Updated): This has been elaborated upon in very many blog posts, on this blog and else where. The following annotations made on the 7CPC concordance table for Lt Col are an attempt to illustrate how the absence of a direct co-relation between Notional Pay and QS makes an equitable parity impossible between pensions of older retirees and pensions of those retiring after 01 Jan 2016. This is particularly significant for ranks that are attained on time-bound basis viz., Lt to Col (TS) at present.

{Edit: These issues have become even more relevant now in view of some documents, obtained through RTI by an eminent blogger and posted by him online, in which an assertion has been made by CGDA that with the implementation of 7CPC, to quote the document, "The notional pay formula brings all past pensioners to current rates, almost as if they were serving under VIIth CPC". In the case of Officer veterans, who retired before 31 Dec 2004, in ranks which are nowadays time-bound, the veracity of such assertions does need a circumspect examination. They may well have just grounds to "clamour for" a relook at the whole matter of pension fixations under OROP and now 7CPC}

 Essentially, why the method of using formulas for notional pay between successive pay commissions can’t deliver on principle of “equal remuneration for equal work” is that it does not normalise notional pay across CPCs by not keeping in view how fast, in terms of QS, a Lt Col serving or retiring past 01 Jan 2016 reaches an increment stage in the 7CPC matrix compared to a pre December 2004 Lt Col retiree.

This becomes very clear in the case of Lt Col(TS) retiree of pre 16 Dec 2004 era and Lt Col of VI CPC and Lt Col of VII CPC. All the three are time-bound ranks. What the concordance table implies, in effect, is that if an Officer retired in rank of Lt Col(TS) after serving for around 30 years in regime of 4 CPC, or about 25 years during regime of V CPC, then the notional pay of those Lt Col veterans would be equal to pay of a Lt Col with about 16 years of service, now also a time-bound rank, during regimes of VI and VII CPC.

In other words, with the Concordance Tables, an Officer who retired during period of 5 CPC as Lt Col (TS) in November 2004 or earlier with a service of 28 to 29 years, would have his 7 CPC notional pay fixed from 01 Jan 2016 equivalent to the pay of a Lt Col in January 2016 having a qualifying service of approximately 16 to 17 years, in spite of both being time-bound ranks.

The concordance table and notional pay method do not even begin to touch upon the issue of how notional pay of a Lt Col of IV and V CPC with more than 26 years of service, based on parity and equity principles cited in VII CPC report, would in fact need to have his “notional pay” fixed at par with a Col (TS) of VI and VII CPC with equal service. {Edit: But in light of very recent legal developments, it may be in order to stop seeking pension parity with pension of a specific "rank". Ranks, as mentioned previously, are not a "constant" construct. They alone can't provide a true measure of entitlement of a deferred wage or provide a basis of parity for time-bound ranks. Parity of pension for Officers of a specific type of commission who retired in time-bound ranks of their era of service has to be based on broad principles cited in the pay commission report itself and on constant, defining measures of service rendered by such veteran officers in the past viz., the type of their commission and their QS in their time-bound rank}

In the present case, parity is not maintained even in the same rank based on years of service.

Formulas applied from one pay commission to the next one can lead to a reasonably rational fixation of the 7 CPC notional pay for most cases. But in the case of armed forces veteran officers who had retired prior to 31 Dec 2004, unless another formula is applied for the pay-rank-QS combination existing prior to 16 Dec 2004 and the same combination post that date, this notional pay fixed by this manner of merely using formulas for pay from one pay commission to the next will always fall well short of what an equitable notional progression would have brought about as suggested in (please click to access —->) this table.

The Notional Pay Based VII CPC Pension Formulation : Lt Col And Equivalent Ranks

It is quite possible that theorizing on outcomes, based on bare assumptions, can lead to grossly inaccurate and misleading views on how re-formulation of VII CPC pensions would shape up.

The increment based formulation as recommended by VII CPC, now having been modified to a calculation based on notional pays in successive pay commissions, could resolve a lot of anomalies related to OROP provided it is implemented keeping firmly in view how OROP and the VII CPC matrix need to form part of a whole.

The scope of this blog post is restricted to the retirees in rank of Lt Col for the sake of simplicity. The intention is to illustrate how the qualifying service of a retiree, a concept central to OROP, needs to be taken into account during any exercise involving fixation of pensions in the VII CPC matrix.

Some key issues arise :

• Notional pay of most VI CPC Lt Col retirees as determined by the notional pay method will, in all probability will be in order as no major changes have taken place between Vi and VII CPCs in terms of service such as service required for promotions, rank structure etc.  

• Lt Cols who retired before 01 Jan 2006, especially those who retired prior to implementation of AV Singh Committee (Dec 2004), are likely to have more qualifying service than those who retired after 01 Jan 2006 and as a consequence have less pension for the same qualifying service applicable in the case of a Lt Col retiring after implementation of VII CPC. All affected know Lt Col rank became applicable on time-bound basis at a qualifying service of 13 years with effect from 16 Dec 2004.

• For fixing the VII CPC notional pay of pre 01 Jan 06 Lt Col retirees, some mechanism may have to be found to make sure their VII CPC notional pay finally arrived at should not be less than the VII CPC notional pay of a VI CPC Lt Col retiree with equal qualifying service.

• Then, there is the old issue of the need of parity of pensions of older Lt Col retirees with pensions of Col(TS) with equal qualifying service, if they had put in a service of 26 years or more.

Full clarity will emerge only when detailed instructions are issued on re-formulation of VII CPC pensions of armed forces veterans. The following table is meant to illustrate how the re-formulation should proceed :

{Update: With the recent release of orders for calculating "Notional Pay", a detailed revision of this blog-post has become necessary. An update will follow}

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.

Some Notions Of Progression For Pension Fixation

Some time ago, I had come across a reference to "notional fixation" in pay-bands applicable to Major for determining the OROP pensions of older pensioners in Major rank, considering no one retires in Major rank anymore due to speedier time-bound promotions. Similar concerns apply in the case of fixation of 7 CPC pensions.

The concept of "notional fixation" was excellent but the rider about restricting the "progression" to a Major's pay-band didn't appeal so much. I had given my opinion, for what it was worth, in a previous blog-post.

To repeat myself, when it comes to time-bound ranks, pension parity needs to be based firstly on the nature of enrolment/commission and the cadre, then on "time" i.e. qualifying service and only after that on the "rank" which is not a constant measure of service rendered in the case of time-bound ranks. Attributes of time bound ranks have changed over the years. In their case, the true measure of service rendered is, well, the service rendered, in number of years. Here's a link to this concept. Again, it applies to 7 CPC as much as OROP.

While working on the co-relationship of qualifying service with stage and level numbers of the 7 CPC Matrix in the previous blog post, it became apparent that the "notional progression" can't be a uni-directional one, leading vertically downwards in the same pay-band.

Such a "notion" budgets for imaginary increments but not the enhancements in grade pay that automatically come with time in reality. So, for a correct "notional progression", the progression has to be downwards and sideways based on what actually happens to those currently serving.

The following example indicates the manner of progression of pay for time-bound ranks which provides a rational basis for fixing 7 CPC pensions of older pensioners.

A critical and basic requirement for the validity of such a downward-sideways progression is, if the older pensioner had been in service after 16 Dec 2004, would he or would he not have been eligible, based on the QS in the extreme left column, for time-based progression to the next higher level shown in the progression path in the table. If the answer to that is in the affirmative, then fixing his pension in the lower pay-band would be a straight-forward case of discrimination.

Even though implementation of 7 CPC pay fixation is reportedly being held in abeyance, the principles of pension parity, as illustrated in the following table, would still be valid regardless of any enhancements in pay levels that might come about):

{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.

A Straight Forward Set Of Pension Parity "Equations" For 7 CPC : Maj, Lt Col, Col(TS) Pensions {Pre Dec 2004 Retirees}

{Matrix Figures Updated}

At the present moment, there is no sign of any movement on implementation of 7 CPC recommendations regarding pensions of armed forces veterans.  {Edit: The 7 CPC recommendations were subsequently implemented using a inter-CPC formula based "notional pay" method instead of using increments, which too did not attempt to normalise fixation of "notional pay" based on qualifying service.}

If and when some orders are issued, these are likely to be only for fixing pensions by multiplying either VI CPC or OROP pensions by 2.57. Multiplying VI CPC pensions by 2.57 is likely to yield January 2016 pensions nearly equal to or less than OROP combined with the January 2016 DR.

In a scenario like that, with OROP anomalies still not sorted out, it may be hoping for the impossible to expect rationalization of the good old 20 years Major and 26 Years Lt Col pension anomalies.

Enough has been posted about that. Here is a brief summing up, as a kind of "impossible to realize wish-list", in the form of two "equations":

P_{L11;i(8--->20)} = P_{L12A;i(1--->13)} for older ( pre Dec 2004) Maj pensioners.

P_{L11;i(21--->28)} = P_{L12A;i(14--->20)} = P_{L13;i(12--->18)} for older ( pre Dec 2004) Maj and Lt Col pensioners with PCs.

P ---> Pension corresponding to a specific increment-stage cum matrix-level combination.

L ---> 7 CPC Matrix Level.

i ---->7 CPC Matrix index number increment stage for level.

As an example, the first equation states pension calculated for level 11 increment stage 9 should equal the one for Level 12A index increment stage 2, but won't.

Pensions corresponding to appropriate cells can be calculated based on the pay in the matrix as follows and then checked for the requisite but eternally elusive parity as per equations above (even though implementation of 7 CPC pay fixation is reportedly being held in abeyance, the of principles of pension parity, as illustrated in the following tables, would still be valid regardless of any enhancements in pay levels that might come about):

{Update: With recent, May 2017, amendments to IOR (multiplication factors), the figures displayed in different “levels” may changed and will be are now updated in a subsequent this blog-post. as and when amended Matrix is made available. The suggested manner of parities for pre 2016 retirees in time bound ranks still remains relevant}

Pay Band à	15600-39100	37400-67000
Grade Pay -à	6600	8000	8800
Level –>	11	12A	13
1	69400	121200	130600
2	71500	124800	134500
3	73600	128500	138500
4	75800	132400	142700
5	78100	136400	147000
6	80400	140500	151400
7	82800	144700	155900
8	85300	149000	160600
9	87900	153500	165400
10	90500	158100	170400
11	93200	162800	175500
12	96000	167700	180800
13	98900	172700	186200
14	101900	177900	191800
15	105000	183200	197600
16	108200	188700	203500
17	111400	194400	209600
18	114700	200200	215900
19	118100	206200
20	121600	212400
	125200
	129000
	132900
	136900

Even though such charts have been prepared and shared in dozens of other formats, based on the above considerations a rough indicator of the manner in which 7 CPC pensions need to be calculated is as follows:

Pay Band	15600-39100			37400-67000
Grade Pay	6600			8000		8700
Entry Pay (EP)	25980			45400		48900
Level	11			12A		13
Qualifying Service	Increment Stage		Increment Stage			Increment Stage
6	1	69400
7	2	71500
8	3	73600
9	4	75800
10	5	78100
11	6	80400
12	7	82800
13	8	85300 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	1		121200 ✓
14	9	87900 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	2		124800 ✓
15	10	90500 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	3		128500 ✓	1	130600
16	11	93200 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	4		132400 ✓	2	134500
17	12	96000 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	5		136400 ✓	3	138500
18	13	98900 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	6		140500 ✓	4	142700
19	14	101900 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	7		144700 ✓	5	147000
20	15	105000 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	8		149000 ✓	6	151400
21	16	108200 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	9		153500 ✓	7	155900
22	17	111400 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	10		158100 ✓	8	160600
23	18	114700 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	11		162800 ✓	9	165400
24	19	118100 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	12		167700 ✓	10	170400
25	20	121600 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	13		172700 ✓	11	175500
26	21	125200 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	14		177900(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	12	180800 ✓
27	22	129000 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	15		183200 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	13	186200 ✓
28	23	132900 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	16		188700 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	14	191800 ✓
29	24	136900 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	17		194400 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	15	197600 ✓
30		141000(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	18		200200 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	16	203500 ✓
31		145200(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	19		206200 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	17	209600✓
32		149600(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	20		212400(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	18	215900 ✓
33						19