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

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 😶}

 

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 analytically👉 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 👉 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 👉 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 👉 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 👉): 

 ➡️    Pension Anomaly Resulting From AVS-I

 ➡️   Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court On Writ Petition (Civil) 942/2019

 ➡️   Retirement Rank vis-a-vis Rank For Pension

A Few Queries On Concordance Tables For Pensioners In Rank Of Major

It has been nearly 21 months since some issues were raised in the previous blog-post, with the example of the rank of Lt Col, as to how the concept of notional pay would need to be applied for those who had retired prior to 01 Jan 2006, especially many of those armed forces officers who had retired prior to implementation date of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee. 

True to expectations, the Concordance Tables, that were finally released about four months ago, raised a few doubts as to whether the tables had approached the matter from point of view of resolving existing anomalies and that of ensuring parities between pensions of older and current pensioners, a principle that was strongly endorsed by VII CPC itself. Aspects of fairness and equity thus continue to remain an issue. 

What may appear to be infirmities or incongruities, leading to possible apprehensions of an award not being fully equitable, can best be examined in concordance tables applicable to pensioners in armed forces officer ranks which are now time-bound. The most significant example would be Concordance Tables for the ranks of Major, Lt Col(TS) and Lt Col. An extract of Concordance Table for the rank of Major is placed as follows: {The full set of tables is viewable on DESW PCDA web-site through this link }

The first example is the Concordance Table for the rank of Major. 

The first thing for pre 2006 (I'll repeat here, 2006) Major retirees to note is that the maximum notional pay of Rs. 118100/- in the last column should, by all logic, correspond to the 7CPC pay of a Major with about 25 years of QS, even though no Officer with that QS would be in the rank of Major nowadays. 

That means the highest pay of 14850/-+975/- of a Major retiree in the period 01-01-1996 to 31 Dec 2005 corresponds to the equivalent 2016 notional pay of 101900/-, which when referring to the matrix should be the pay of a Major of 2016 having a QS of about 20 years. Now those Major retirees of the period 01-01-1996 to 31 Dec 2005 who were drawing a basic pay of 14850+975 at the time of retirement can compare their own QS at retirement with the figure of 19 ~ 20 years at which their fixed "notional pay" of 101900/- would be earned by someone serving/retiring as Major in 2016 or later.

The question arises whether or not first three columns of basic pay (01/01/86 to 31/12/95, 01/01/96 to 31/12/2005 and 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2015) as well as the fourth column for "pay range from 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2015, have attempted to take into cognizance the equivalence of qualifying service rendered by retirees in that time-bound rank in the three distinct time-frames mentioned above. At first glance, it does not appear to be the case. 

At all stages of the concordance table, has any consideration been applied to qualifying service of a Major who retired in the period 01/01/1996 to 31/12/2015 vis-a-vis the qualifying service of the Major drawing that so called "notional/equivalent" pay for the period 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2015? The table, with no reference to qualifying service, equates the starting pay of Major with a service of 11 years at the beginning of the scale for the period 01/01/96 to 31/12/2005 with the starting pay of Major with a service of approximately 6 years for the period 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2015.  

The table also does not appear to provide for the fact that a Major from the period 01/01/2006 to 31/Dec/2015 would be in the pay-band of Lt Col starting at a QS of app 13 years on time-bound basis and that the parity based equivalence of the older Maj Pensioner from the period 01/01/1996 to 31/12/1995 would be the corresponding pay of Lt Col with equivalent service in period 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2015.

Therefore the title  "Corresponding Level wef 01/01/2016" at top of the table is based on the rather ambiguous premise that any value in any particular column "corresponds" to juxtaposed values in the same rows in other columns. It is like saying 5 apples of 1996-2005 correspond to 8.6 oranges of 2006-2015.

The relevance of the argument for basing pension equivalence/parity, in the case of ranks which are time-bound, on rational notions, as against accountancy tables, can be discerned in logic advanced in this old blog post.

More to follow on tables applicable to Lt Col (TS) and Lt Col.

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.

Notice From Judicial Committee On OROP

The DESW web-site carries a notice from the Judicial Committee appointed for examining representations on implementation of OROP.

More on this later:

The notification states at para 2, "Taking into account, the various representations that were received in response to the public notice, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence referred the following questions to the Commission, through their letter dated 20^th July, 2016".

The questions listed at para 2 (i) to (iv) of the notification appear to be only those that have been referred to the One Man Committee by DESW.

This raises some very important issues for serious consideration by all stake holders as follows :

• When the Government invited representations from affected stake-holders, on anomalies in OROP implementation, vide a notification in April 2016, was it not understood that the representations would be considered by the Judicial Committee and not filtered out by the same department and organizational structure that had probably caused the anomalies in the first place?

• When a representation is submitted to a Government department, is it not expected that some sort of public record would be maintained in respect of the representation and its disposal status intimated to the individual or association making the representation?

• Since a Judicial Committee has been appointed, should it not see it fit to obtain access to all representations received and do some screening within its own resources and apply its own judgement on the representations instead of accepting the view of the department responsible for creating the anomalies as to what is an anomaly and what is not?

• Why can't all anomalies submitted in response to the notification be placed online for access by all stake-holders? Would that not ensure transparency?

• It is probably a very good thing that the Committee has now decided to meet veterans at various places across the country. But before undertaking the "contact campaign"  what is wrong with a little methodical processing of all representations laboriously compiled and submitted by stake-holders over the months? Do we assume most of those have been given the short shrift by the collating agency and have ended up in some closed folder, or worse, a government issue waste paper basket? The short-list of anomalies in the notification does cause some unease on that account.

Let us not forget, there are some serious unanswered questions and lack of clarity about the manner in which the OROP tables have been compiled. It is now quite important for those affected to seriously revisit issues stressed on in the past.

A copy of the current notification as downloaded from the DESW web-site:

Check Points For 7 CPC Pension "Awards" For Armed Forces Veterans

That implementing recommendations of a pay commission has not taken the customary two to three years, is in itself an achievement of sorts and worthy of praise. How far the implementation will go in justifying the lofty principles enunciated in the text of the 7 CPC recommendations remains to be seen.

We are yet to see the shape of tables and manner of calculations that normally translate the intent of the recommendations into actual delivery of the award. The VI CPC imbroglio over "PB III or PB IV for Lt Cols" Or the "Minimum of Pay In Pay Band" controversy are still fresh in our minds.

Much has been made of the fact how the VII CPC matrices will ensure OROP for civilian pensioners as well as for armed forces veterans. There has been some informed analysis on blogs, chat-rolls or group-mails over pension fixations.

To avoid needless speculation in the absence of factual data, the stress should be on what would be a correct and equitable pension fixation for pensioners. This becomes very crucial in the case of time-bound ranks. Some time ago, I had made an attempt to illustrate the issues involved with the very simple example of pensioners who had retired in the ranks of Major and Lt Colonel.

We do not know how such parities can be or will be accomplished. If at all. Several options do exist and these have been discussed in the past, such as :

• Establishing parities by endorsing applicable pensions in PPOs.

• Considering anomalies holistically and jettisoning the discrete approach to basic principles that apply to parity of pensions.

• Appreciating the need to do away with differential treatment for same class of veterans, whether it is related to OROP or 7 CPC. {Edit: And, retrospectively, even in relation to pensions fixed by 6 CPC}

In this context, I've read several opinions as to how the 7 CPC matrix would need to be applied in the case of older pensioners. Perhaps it would need specific elaboration in the implementation orders as to what index and which level in the matrix would apply to older pensioners keeping in view their qualifying service.

As among Officer veterans, the two time bound ranks of Major and Lt Col are most affected by these disparities, in the absence of any concrete figures at present, veterans in this category can only wait and see how close the actual fixation is to the following desirable "check point".

Another Bonanza For Pre-Mature Retirees

We had barely stopped cheering the relative advantage pre-mature retirees had received on account of OROP fixation (please view the previous blog-post) when along came the great news that the pro-rata reduction had been removed on pensions of those who had retired before 1st Jan 2006.

Till such time MOD and PCDA issue details of the revision, it would be a bit pre-mature to rush to making arrears calculators though some have already started appearing. But, just taking the revised PCDA order on VI CPC pensions, of those who had retired before 1st January 2006, it has been possible to make a first estimate of how their pensions will increase.

It is obvious that since it is pro-rata reduction on pensions that has been removed, those who retired earliest would benefit the most. From the graph prepared on the basis of the table of pensions applicable from 1st January 2006 till 30 June 2014 for, this must be emphasized again, pre 1st January 2006 retirees, it would appear pensions of Lt Col(TS) would receive the biggest boost of about 31.9% at QS of 20 years, followed by pensions of Brigadier retirees at about 28.15% for the same QS of 20 years. Lt Col(Select) and Col/Col(TS) would get nearly identical increases of about 22.21% at the same QS of 20 years. In fact, percentage increase graphs for Lt Col(S) and Col/Col(TS) are nearly merged. The percentage increases reduce as QS increases for all ranks.

But these are percentage increases over the existing pensions calculated in the table after applying pro-rata reduction. Equal percentage increase won't mean the same increase in Rupee terms. The graphs should be just a rough reckoner for PMR retirees and we need to wait for the final word from PCDA. (Viewers may access and use the zoom/pop-out facilitations on the frame below by hovering the cursor over the frame with the mouse)

But there is a buzz, not easy to ignore, that though removal of pro-rata reduction was absolutely justified, the principle of equal remuneration for equal work would appear to indicate the necessity of some sort of pro-rata enhancement of pensions of those pre 1st January 2006 retirees who had served more than the number of years required to get the pension based on minimum of pay of rank in the VI CPC pay-band, and as this pension will now be paid to everyone regardless of their QS.

This needs to be looked at from another angle. Though there is no pro-rata reduction of pensions for those retiring after 1st January 2006, a Lt Col taking PMR at 20 years of service will not get the same pension as one taking PMR at 23 or 24 years. Their pensions will depend on the number of increments they have drawn in their pay-band, the only difference being these pensions will not be subjected to pro-rata reduction.

So, if there is now parity between pre 1st January 2006 and post 1st January 2006 pensioners in the matter of there being no pro-rata reduction, should there not also be parity of manner of fixation of pensions for post and pre pensioners based on their QS or increments drawn?

In fact what 7 CPC has proposed by way of basing pensions on increments earned at time of retirement won't be OROP but the sort of full parity that could now be justifiably asked for in respect of pensions from 01 Jan 2006. As to how 7 CPC recommendations could cater for OROP, please refer my previous posts on that subject. 

Rectifying OROP Anomalies

It is extremely heartening for beleaguered sub-sections of veterans to have their cases taken-up and represented by eminent personages.

In the context of OROP, the following tweet from Hon'ble Member of Parliament, Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar, comes as a breath of fresh air amid all the slogan-shouting, stonewalling and obfuscations that have begun to cloud discourse on the subject. 

More #OROP anomalies highlighted to @manoharparrikar. Read my representationhttps://t.co/po63eUHQSH

— Rajeev Chandrasekhar (@rajeev_mp) March 2, 2016

It is clear the representation, in section A of annexure to the letter, points to the manner in which the definition of OROP has been amended in successive Government communications.

Section B of the annexure on "Anomalies Effecting Particular Ranks" mentions in the opening para  the need for a re-look at pensions of Hon Naib Subedar, Major and Lt Col.

At item (b), a mention is made of differential treatment to Major retirees with 21 years of service depending on whether they retired prior or subsequent to 01 Jan 96.

In all the three pages of annexure to the letter, as was originally available against link in the tweet, the reference to pension of Lt Col, as mentioned at the beginning of the annexure, was not elaborated upon. One can only presume it was a reference to the 26 years anomaly.

The anomaly in connection with Maj retirees with 21 years service, glaring though it is, is not the complete picture.

I have tried to underline the principle of parity of pensions (link provided at the end of the blog-post) underlying the concept of OROP. Time and again, it has been mentioned that when a current retiree super-annuates, with the same years of service as a previous retiree but in a higher rank currently given on time-bound basis, the older retiree needs pension parity on basis of pension of the current retiree in the higher time-bound rank.

No Major retires with 20 years of service anymore. The older retiree can't have his OROP pension fixed on some far from transparent, rule-of-thumb calculations based on hypothetical, imaginary or "notional" increments in the pay-band applicable to Major.

An officer who retired as Major with 20 years of service in 1974 can't have his pension based on some "notional" or "imaginary" increment in the pay-band applicable to Major in the year 2013. The only logical, equitable and fair way of ensuring pension parity would be to see in which time-bound rank an officer with the same type of commission would have actually, under normal circumstances, retired in calendar year 2013*, also with 20 years of service. In this case the corresponding current rank would be Lt Col.

• Therefore, it is not just the 21 years pension parity that is an issue under OROP. Any veteran who retired in the rank of Major, with a service of 20 years to 25 years, needs to get a pension equivalent to the average** of actual max and min pensions of Lt Col retirees with equal service in calendar year 2013*.

• The same principle applies in the case of older Major, Lt Col(TS) and Lt Col retirees (those who'd held permanent commissions) who retired prior to 16 Dec 2004 with a service of 26 years or more. They need to have their pensions fixed in the pension table equal to the average** pensions of Col(TS) retirees of calendar year 2013* with equal service.

To any reasonable mind it might appear these principles of parity need to apply not just to OROP pensions but to all past fixations of pensions as well, the last one being pensions fixed with effect from 01 Jan 2006 by VI CPC. In the context of OROP, there is even less justification for discrimination between older and current retirees.

Past references to "parity based" issues, can be accessed by clicking this link.

*Note: "calendar year 2013" is used in this blog post in relation to where things currently stand in OROP implementation. The subject matter would apply equally if the reference year was changed to financial year 2013-14.

**Note: The term "average" in "average pensions" is used in the blog-post in context of the implementation letter actually issued and does not detract from the argument that it should be the maximum pension actually paid to a retiree with equal service.