One of the peculiarities of
following topics online and occasionally engaging in exchange of views, on
subjects that concern sizeable sections of veterans, is that sometimes it is
hard to track previous discussions involving concepts or ideas that one had put
forth oneself or been fortunate enough to have received by way of an input from other
stake holders. Nevertheless, regardless of whether or not a track-back is
possible, an idea lives, if not forever, then certainly for a very long time
till proven to be absolutely without merit.
One such idea is that of a “Variable
Retirement rank” or “Veteran Rank” as against that of the present fixed “Retirement
Rank”.
Most of the thrust in the
campaign for OROP has been based on taking the “Retirement Rank” as a
gold-standard benchmark for ensuring pension parity of current and past retirees. I
have repeatedly tried to highlight the “variability” of “Rank” as against the
solid, ground-level parameter of length of service. Please consider following
the link at the bottom of the blog post.
Certainly, it is nobody’s case
that for true and fair parity in OROP, with the length of service being equal,
pensions should be equal, regardless of rank at the time of retirement. It
would certainly be less than a serious contention to try and propose the notion
the pension of Maj Gen should equal that of a Lt Col if they have the same
number of years of service at retirement.
However, as has also been
repeatedly pointed out on this blog, when ranks are defined based purely on
years of service, then there is an urgent need to maintain pension parity
between older and current retirees with the same years of service even if they
retired in different time-bound ranks, as the years of service required to attain ranks can
change from time to time. This gives rise to the basis for treating time-bound
ranks as “variables” and not “constants”.
To be sure, and this too is a
repetition of what I’ve stated previously, ranks based on selection too are
variable as are the QRs for attaining them. However, there appears no clear-cut
logic with which to establish a relationship between ranks attained through the
selection process in the past and those attained, also by selection, in the present
scheme of things. Of course, based on statistical models that took into account
all the variables of selection in different eras, some viable algorithm could
be generated, by a think-tank consisting of Operations Research eggheads, for
deciding whether a Lt Col retiree from the 70s would be equal to a current
retiree in the rank of Brigadier in terms of selection-basis parameters.
But when it comes to time-bound
ranks, the issue is straight forward. Without getting into considerations based
on Quantum Mechanics or the speed of rotation of Earth, it won’t amount to a
risk of inviting too much of ridicule in putting forth the point of view that 21
years in 1976 equal 21 years in 2015.
If the time-bound retirement rank of, let us take the case of Officers as an example, an officer retiring in 2015 with 21 years of service is Lt Col, then the retirement rank of a Major, who retired
in 1977, also with 21 years of service, is equivalent to the current retirement
rank of Lt Col in terms of service rendered. Provided, of course, they belong
to the same cadre and the types of their commissions are identical.
There have been attempts in the
recent past to establish parity of pensions based on such considerations. Even
a copy of the services DGL on OROP, that had been doing the rounds on the web,
had suggestions for equating pensions for older time-bound ranks with those of
current ones. None of these attempts have come to fruition so far. Even with
OROP, a Maj may not get the same pension as a present Lt Col with equal service
even if the former had put in 20 years of service. The same applies to a Maj or
Lt Col retiree who had put in more than 26 years of service and who ought to
get the pension of a current Officer retiring in the time-bound rank of Col.
OROP insists on variability of
pension of older retirees to match pensions of current retirees based only on
“Retirement Rank” which is ‘fixed’ for any specific individual. The fundamental
thing to consider is, if the concept of fixing a pension based on certain
criteria such as pay drawn at retirement, is to undergo a paradigm shift by
making it keep pace with the pension of current retirees, then there is nothing
outlandish in suggesting that the fixed “retirement rank” too needs to be
converted into a parameter that would take into account the variability of all
the factors that determine a current time-bound rank.
We could simply state that the
retirement rank of any individual past retiree be made equal to the retirement
rank that is currently attainable on time-bound basis with the same years of service put in by him. This new retirement rank
could be promulgated through corrigenda to PPO’s and pensions re-fixed, under
OROP, based on the revised retirement rank.
It can also be suggested the
concept of "veteran rank" be seriously considered. Even if the “retirement rank”
stays constant, the current “veteran rank” could change and be promulgated
through PPO corrigenda based on any reductions introduced in service required
to attain time bound ranks.
Such a mechanism would not be a
“notional promotion” but a means to deliver bare-minimal standards of parity,
based only on time-bound ranks, but within the ambit of OROP. Use of a veteran
rank would also provide justifiable social parity with current retirees. Some
civilian benefits earmarked for armed forces, in terms of allotment of land,
membership of clubs etc is based on the nomenclature of the veteran’s
retirement rank. A Lt Col retiree with 28 years of service may be currently
ineligible to apply for a benefit available to a current retiree with the
time-bound rank of Col with just 26 years of service.
This would also take care of most
retrospective issues in respect of pension. When it is decided to upgrade a
veteran rank, it would be required to specify the date of up-gradation. A Maj
or Lt Col with 26 years of service would have his veteran rank upgraded to Col
with effect from 16 December 2004 on which date the time bound rank of Col at
26 years of service came into being. Pensions would be upgraded to that of the
up-graded veteran rank synchronously i.e. a Maj or Lt Col would be eligible for pension applicable to time bound rank of Col wef 16 Dec 2004 if the Maj or Lt Col had completed 26 years of service at retirement.
In such a case, the pensions of
upgraded veteran rank of Col from retirement date to date of implementation of
OROP would be governed by the existing minimum pension of rank in pay band for
Col with equal service, and from date of OROP implementation, pensions would be
equal to pensions under OROP as applicable to Col with equal service.
If at a later date someone
decides to reduce the service required to attain the time bound rank of Col to
23 years, the veteran ranks, and hence pension, of Maj and Lt Col with 23 years
of service would stand up-graded to that of Col with effect from that date.
It must be highlighted here, once
again, such a mechanism would not deal with any discrimination caused in the
past in respect of pay, allowances and seniority of Officers while they were in
service, such as in the case of arbitrary selection of date of implementation of AVS-I.
That, as I have stated previously, is quite a distinct area that needs a careful and measured legal evaluation.
For more reading on the matter, this link may be of use.
