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 ?

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 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.

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:

Coming To Grips With OROP Data

Now that the anxiety ridden issue of grant of OROP to past pre-mature retirees seems well out of the way and credit of  the first installment of OROP arrears, to pensioners' accounts, is in progress, there is a need to take a step back and try to make a sense out of the manner in which OROP pensions have been fixed.

One may need to go back to the graphs and charts of one or two of my previous posts (links at the end of this blog-post). But to simplify the matter for a clearer understanding of, if nothing else, the need to understand, we can consider the effect of OROP on just two ranks of pre 01 Jan 2006 retirees, Lt Col and Col. Both select and time-scale ranks can be considered. (The zoom and pop-out facilitations on the embedded graph could be used if required)

We see from the above graphs, based on data taken from circulars 500 and 555, that there is a steady decrease in the percentage enhancement due to OROP with an increase in qualifying service.

That should provide some reassurance to those veterans who had taken pre-mature retirement before 01 Jan 2006. They get more of a percentage pension boost due to OROP than those who super-annuated after serving for  longer periods.

At the same time, it could be a source of puzzlement to pre 01 Jan 2006 veterans who did not take pre-mature retirement. Ought they not to have received as much of a percentage increase on account of OROP, if not more, than those who opted for pre-mature retirement? A question could arise if the declining trend in percentage pension increase is almost tantamount to imposition of a penalty on veterans for not having taken pre-mature retirement!

It is possible, of course, that pensions of post 01 Jan 2006 pre-mature retirees not being subjected to proportionate reduction of pensions, unlike pensions of their pre Jan 2006 predecessors, the Calendar year pensions in 2013 were, as a result, considerably higher than those of pre Jan 2006 retirees in the same rank and with the same service. This could explain the greater percentage increase of OROP pensions of pre 01 Jan 2006 retirees at a QS of just 20 years.

In some cases, it is not just the percentage, the actual quantum of OROP arrears is higher for retirees who took PMR at a service of 22 to 23 years as compared to retirees in the same rank with a QS of 28 or 29 years.This is easily discernible from the following graph that shows actual amounts and not just percentage increase of OROP pensions plotted against qualifying service (The zoom and pop-out facilitations on the embedded graph could be used if required):

But charts and tables can't tell the whole story. As has been mentioned elsewhere, where did OROP figures for Maj retirees at a service of 20 years come from? Or for a Lt Col with service more than 26 years? Did anyone in those ranks actually retire with service of 20 years and 26 years, respectively, in 2013? If not, what was the basis of fixing OROP pensions for Maj retirees with service more than 20 years and Lt Col retirees with service more than 26 years? Is it possible the graphs are skewed because of faulty logic having been applied in fixing OROP pensions based on some flawed extrapolations?

If sense is to be made of the slippery slope the above graphs appear to depict, perhaps obtaining actual data and methodology that formed the basis of OROP fixation, on the lines suggested previously, could be seriously considered.

Previous blog posts on the matter  can be accessed through this link. 

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.

"Rank Last Held" vis-a-vis "Rank For Pension"

A reading of one of the blog-posts on Maj Navdeep Singh’s blog “Indian Military Services Benefits And Issues” (link at the end of this blog-post) drew attention to a portion of the circular issued for implementing OROP.

Para 11(b) of PCDA circular 555 mentions a distinction between ranks in which ESM retired and ranks to be used for computing pensions.

The context, in which the para finds inclusion in the Circular, remains unclear. At first glance this appears to relate to those specific cases of PPOs in which the two types of ranks have been endorsed for payment of pension to holders of such PPOs.

However, just the knowledge that such a provision can exist helps to indicate a way out for establishing parity of pensions for older and current retirees.

We know that para 11(a) of Circular 555 provides for payment of Lt Col pensions to post 01 Jan 1996 retirees in Maj rank with more than 21 years of service. This would be one example of “Rank For Pension” being different from “Last Rank Held”. As to how OROP can ever be OROP if pre Jan 1996 Maj retirees, with the same service of 21 years, do not get the same pension as post 01 Jan 1996 Maj retirees, is not a matter that should be left for a judicial commission to sort out.

This anomaly does not end with the 21 years matter. The afore-mentioned blog post in Maj Navdeep Singh's blog mentions the fact, and I quote, ”nobody retires in the rank of Major as per the current dispensation, the pension of past retirees was to be based on notional fixation”. All very understandable so far. But the blog-post goes on to suggest, I quote again, “figures in the tables however fall below the notional fixation for the said ranks. An officer of the rank of Major, if taken as not promoted to Lt Col and progressing in his own rank with due increments in his own pay-band…”. 

Here we get into a zone of imagination that centres on what if the older Maj retiree had continued to draw increments in his own pay-band? I would like to ask here, why that idea should limit the true concept of being "notional" about fixing pensions for older retirees?

The older Maj retiree who had put in 20 years, or more, of service would have retired as Lt Col, on time-bound basis, with equal service after 16 Dec 2004. If we have to start imagining things and arrive at “notional” fixations, what is wrong with the “notion” of the older Maj retiree having actually progressed, on time-bound basis, to the pay-band of Lt Col, a notion based on an actual post 16 Dec 2004 parallel, rather than imagining non-existent increments in the same rank?

Besides, giving a time bound promotee who retired prior to 16 Dec 2004 less pension, fixed in a lower pay-band, than another time-bound promotee with the same service who retired after 16 Dec 2004, is as clear a case of discrimination as can be thought of. It is all very well to cite fortuitousness as a basis for such differentials. Cut to the basics, it is all a result of capricious whimsy and arbitrariness rather than a ”fortuitous” outcome of some administrative process.

I clearly recall a case being cited online when a serving Officer of the armed forces had stated that ”it was opined....”, a phrase very useful for justifying administrative logic of the reprehensible kind, that there are “....bound to be loosers(sic) and gainers” in Govt decisions such as the selection of date of implementation of AV Singh Committee.

The concept advanced by that individual, of the Govt acting as a croupier in a game of chance at a casino, is so unspeakably repugnant that one yearns for a metaphorical blow-torch to enable incineration of such loathsome ideas at the source, taking care, of course, that the brain-cells that produced such logical travesty be only mildly singed in the process, in deference to provisions of human rights, or, in view of the dubious state of evolution of neurons and synapses that could produce output of that nature, principles of SPCA may be invoked, if applicable, to ensure a post-obliteration certificate of the kind "no kind of life-form was harmed in the obliteration of that vile idea of Government-as-croupier".

Therefore, if we are to implement parities as called for in a paradigm changing concept such as OROP, we need to jettison some intellectual baggage that keeps us rooted to ways of old. The distinction provided for in Circular 555 points us in the right direction.

Just imagine, if the administrative machinery could issue the appropriate orders and PPOs could be endorsed as follows:

• Endorsement In PPOs Of Maj With Service More Than 20 Years And Less Than 26 Years : “Rank Last Held   : Major; Rank For Pension : Lt Col”

• Endorsement In PPOs Of Maj and Lt Col with Service More Than 26 Years : “Rank Last Held : Major/Lt Col (as applicable); Rank For Pension : Col(TS)”

This would come close to the idea of the previously spoken about variable veteran rank and remove a major anomaly arising out of “One Rank” of OROP not being really “one rank”. Let us not forget, yesterday’s Major with 20 years service = Today’s Lt Col with the same service. It is a central concept in the whole gamut of ideas and views on OROP.

As to why the stalwarts keep repeating OROP as implemented being “One Rank Several Pensions” and lose sight of the fact that OROP should also not be “Several Ranks And One Pension” is something that will need to be looked into and put up for consideration at a subsequent date.

Reference : Item (b) of blog post  

OROP Pensions Vis-a-Vis Pensions based On VI CPC Pay Band

It is nobody's case that making a hypothetical calculation based on the VI CPC pay-band, as applicable to a specific rank, would yield the "average of minimum and maximum pensions in calendar year 2013".

Nevertheless, an estimation can be made to the actual process that could have gone in to the making of the OROP tables.

Some interesting, as well as puzzling, observations also arise when the two sets of pensions are viewed graphically.

As an example, the rank of Lt Col can be examined. The graph covers the QS period from 13 18 years to 30 years, the pay-band being considered to have the starting point at a service of 13 years, when an Officer picks up the rank of Lt Col. {Edit: The graph has now been updated to include OROP for Col(TS) as well as an approximation of PB4 based 6 CPC Pension that could apply in case of Col(TS)}

OROP Data : Grays and The Black And Whites

One of the most surprising aspects of the public response to implementation of OROP has been the recourse to antagonistic statements, veiled accusations and declarations of campaigns to obtain judicial intervention on the matter.

To start with, as was mentioned in the previous blog-posts on the subject, a word of thanks to the Government staff, who have worked hard to prepare the tables, would be fitting.

There would be anomalies, to be sure. But what those anomalies are and what can be done, need to be spelt out in precise detail by associations and Services HQs engaged in dialogue with MOD on the matter.

Everything can't be wrong with the implementation. The areas of confusion can be easily resolved through a transparent process of discussion held in the public domain as against behind closed doors.

If dialogue should hit roadblocks, there are official ways of obtaining information and data that would serve to clear doubts or provide the road map for rationalization.

Now the following format relates only to the ranks of Lt Col and Col. But it isn't a case of this blog post being a "Colonel Special" bulletin. It is just an indicator how individuals and/or groups can help to fill in the gaps to ease an atmosphere laden with angst and suspicion.

Information on the lines suggested in this table, which, incidentally, does have a few columns in "black and white" amidst a few some in gray, can be adapted for any rank and QS. An individual may seek this information for just his own rank and QS. More public-minded stake-holders could seek information on a wider scale.

Before the sarcastically oriented can say about the table, "The grays have it; the grays have it", the process of obtaining information can be given a shot as that would help to replace the gray columns with black-and-white ones.

Postscript : Long before the OROP tables had even been published, a need was felt for a system of validation.

(Readers may access and use the pop-out/magnifier buttons on top right of frame of following template, if required, by hovering the cursor with the mouse on the frame)

Some Tweets On The OROP Tables

Cross linking of views and ideas serves to carry a discussion forward without the need to be repetitive.

These tweets made on and after 03 February 2016 serve as a gist of concerns and views on the OROP tables issued on that date (A click on the date of the tweet reveals the full conversation, if any) :

  New Collection

A Comparison Of Post 01 Jan 2006 Pensions Of Pre 2006 Retirees and Their OROP Pensions

To make comparisons a bit more meaningful, charts can now be prepared for a few more officer ranks and for the entire period of QS affecting them.

How OROP pensions relate to the earlier pensions of pre 2006 retirees over the range of QS can be viewed here (Please hover the cursor with the mouse over the charts to access pop-out or enlargement facilitations provided):

A chart showing the percentage increase of OROP pensions over those of circular 500, including increases actually required for ensuring 20 years parity for Maj/Lt Col pensions and 26 years parities for Maj/Lt Col(TS)/Lt Col/Col(TS) pensions, provides for a graphical understanding of the situation at a glance.

Edit: Based on a number of e_mails received in response to the previous blog post, a "desirable parity zone" chart for Maj/LtCol/Col(TS) is placed here

OROP Tables And The 26 Years Anomaly Affecting Lt Col Retirees

The issue of pensions for officers who had retired before December 2004, with service of 26 years or more, in ranks of Lt Col and Lt Col (TS) does spring up from time to time, not necessarily in the context of OROP. If e_mail traffic is anything to go by, some litigation seems to be in the pipeline for correcting what many feel is clearly an anomalous situation for pensions right from 01 Jan 2006. I had mentioned desirable pension parity zones while speculating on OROP in past blog posts, the last one being here.

In the context of OROP, the matter was reported to have been highlighted recently during the meeting between the associations spearheading the OROP campaign and Hon'ble Minister of State For Finance, as mentioned in this blog post.

In order to understand the issue in terms of numbers, after the release of OROP tables, it is now possible to quantify the shortfall resulting to Lt Col/LtCol(TS) retirees after implementation of OROP as follows :

A graphical representation shows the "gap" over varying values of qualifying service as follows. Incidentally, in case the point had been missed by anyone, PCDA circular 555 has clarified, in para 10 of the circular, that fractional service of over 3 months and above but less than 9 months is to be treated as half a year:

Just counting the number of Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) who had retired before December 2004 after putting in a service of 26 years or more, and working out what tiny fraction of the whole OROP outgo would be involved in rectifying the anomaly, could serve to put the matter in a proper perspective.

But given the litigious frames of mind that have overseen most adverserial situations affecting armed forces veterans, it is any body's guess whether a pragmatic and fair resolution of this matter is likely to be forthcoming without further strife and acrimony.

First Impressions Of The OROP Table

In what should have been a straight-forward matter of implementation, unexplained delays, accompanied by publicly displayed recriminations and complaints, do sometimes give a rather unsettling impression of wheels within wheels, often seeming to spin in opposing directions.

As to why a clearly defined manner of rationalizing pensions has had to go through the cycle of evasions, accusations, public protests and foot-dragging can never be fully clear to most stake holders. The problem has been aggravated for affected veterans by the marked reluctance, on part of the authorities and the representative bodies engaged in steering the matter to some form of conclusion, to share the nature of their deliberations or details of the modalities of implementing OROP.

Of direct concern to stake holders was the precise manner in which OROP pensions needed to be calculated, the actual data on which these calculations were to be based and the manner of validation that needed to be put in place to ensure freedom of the final award from errors and mis-calculations. 

Even now, in-spite of a rather vocal movement over the implementation of OROP, there is precious little clarity on how the definition of OROP has to be adhered to. With that in mind, it is a bit of relief that the "tables" for OROP have now at last appeared. A word of appreciation for the government sraff who must have worked hard to ensure implementation would not exactly be out of place. Most importantly, with the tables having been circulated, those affected have something in black and white to base their queries upon.

There is no place like the beginning. At the risk of repetition, it may be useful to choose to be guided by the official pronouncement on how OROP was to be implemented. To summarize the manner of fixing pensions under OROP, and these are authentic quotes from Govt Of India, MOD, DESW Letter No. 12(1)/2014/D(Pen/Pol)-Part II dated 07November 2015:

* "Pension of past pensioners would be re-fixed on the basis of pension of retirees of calendar year 2013 and the benefit will be effective with effect from 01 July 2014."

* "Pension will be re-fixed for all pensioners on the basis of the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service."

We can now approach the implementation details and tables that have been issued vide GOI MOD DESW letter number 12(1)/2014/D(Pen/Pol) - Part II dated 03 February 2016. Firstly, this letter refers to the previous letter dated 07 November 2015 and makes it clear that the tables attached are based on the principles enunciated in the earlier letter.

So, one should safely assume that all figures quoted in the tables are based on averages of minimum and maximum pensions of personnel, with the same qualifying service, who retired in calendar year 2013. All that is required to validate the tables, and to assure oneself that these conform to the principles stated in the letter dated 07 November 2015, are access to basic information as to what service number, name, rank with x years of service who retired in calendar year 2013 had the minimum pension amounting to how much and, also, what service number, name, same rank, also with x years of service also retired on 2013 with the maximum pension amounting to how much.

Simple! One only has to take these minimum and maximum pensions, add them and divide them by 2 and then check that that the OROP pension for x years of QS for that rank is the same as the average. We can then be sure that at least the tables say what the original "principle enunciating" letter of 07 Nov 2015 had, well, enunciated.

Now, and this is very important, every one may not agree with contents of that letter. It may be argued:

• The revision of OROP pensions should not be quinquennial, as the letter says, but be annual or at the very least biennial.

• Some sections may feel the OROP pension should not have been the mean of maximum and minimum of pension in calendar year 2013 for same rank and same service, as the letter has laid down, but should have been equal to the maximum.

• People could disagree with the principle stated in the letter that the calendar year 2013 would be considered for taking into account the maximum and minimum pensions of pensioners who retired in that year, stating the financial year 2013-14 should have been considered. 

• Associations and groups could even argue that the date of implementation be 01 April 2014 as was the original intention stated by the Govt of the day and not 01 July 2014 as has now been implemented . After all, parties in power change but the Govt is Govt. What the Govt has stated once should not be undone merely because another political party has come to power.

Could veterans not argue and protest on those lines? Of course they could and they have, to the point of, if I may put it, contracting laryngitis.

But accepting all the shortcomings or lacunae in the Nov 7 letter, we do, I think, have an entitlement in trusting that, if not true OROP, then at the very least the contents of the 07 Nov 2015 letter would be implemented in letter and spirit and that the implementation instructions and tables issued would do exactly that. We would be entitled to transparency and clarity in the implementation which would have total conformance with what the letter dated 07 Nov 2015 says. We would have the handy means of checking conformance of tallying the averages against figures in the implementation tables as described.

But coming to the actual tables, one is presented with a slightly puzzling situation. There is, of course, no means of verifying the figures presented in the tables. There is no amplifying statement accompanying the table for clarity saying, "Minimum/Maximum pensions for Rank x, Service y years in calendar year 2013 are Amt A/Amt B", or words to that effect. Not that there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the official figures would reflect anything but the actual pensions diligently collated by the agencies assigned the task.

But any stake-holder first looking at the tables could justifiably experience some degree of confusion with the manner in which figures have been reproduced in the table. Let us take Table 1 to start with. It starts with a qualifying service of 0.5 years. The table lists the pension of Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) as well as as pension of Col(TS) as 17233/- for a QS of 0.5 years. Now, no matter how close to the stereotypical description of "military intelligence" an individual be, it should be easy enough to realize that no one is a Lt Col or Lt Col(TS) or Col(TS) at QS of 6 months. Also, if one's memory serves one right, no one gets a pension after a qualifying service of 0.5 years.

Clearly, no one could have retired in calendar year 2013 in the rank of Lt Col(TS), Lt Col or Col(TS) with a qualifying service of 0.5 years. Definitely not with a pension! So how did they get the minimum and maximum pensions for Officers retiring in 2013 with Lt Col(TS), Lt Col, Col(TS) ranks and having a QS of 6 months?

When the letter dated 07 Nov 2015 very clearly stated, and I repeat, "Pension will be re-fixed for all pensioners on the basis of the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service", did it leave any room for doubt as to how the OROP pension was to be calculated/fixed/displayed in the tables? When the letter dated 03 Feb 2016 clearly mentions that the tables are for implementing the letter dated 07 Nov 2015, there is even less room for doubt that the letter dated 07 Nov 2015 is a commandment of sorts.

How do we then explain the pensions for Lt Col(TS), Lt Col, Col(TS) ranks at a qualifying service of 0.5 years as mentioned in the table when, obviously, there was no pension, minimum, maximum, or average in calendar year 2013 for a QS of 0.5 years? That figure has not been calculated as per the rule stated in the letter dated 07 Nov 2015. Some other method has been used to establish that figure. Why has the process or method of calculation not been clearly spelt out?

Where is the guarantee the entire table is not based on some manner of calculation other than just getting the "the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service"?

Was the calculation based on the pay-bands for different ranks and not on the "the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service"? Was it some increment based calculation as in the case of the 7 CPC matrix? Was it some other thumb rule devised by the specialists in accountancy that some veterans are in such awe of, perhaps with good reason?

To further illustrate the ambiguities one can associate with the tables, how is it that the afore-mentioned table mentions the OROP pension of a Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) at QS of 32 years as 34765/- ? Where was this figure obtained from? Did officers with Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) with a QS of 32 years actually retire in "calendar year 2013" based on whose minimum and maximum pensions this OROP pension was calculated? Can the reason for a Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) with 32 years of service, retiring in that rank in "calendar year 2013" be shared with all the older Lt Col retirees whose pensions are to be fixed based on that figure?

Such doubts, in the absence of clarifications, attach to all the tables. It can only enhance trust and understanding if the authorities and those in the forefront of obtaining a just OROP share these basic details with all stake holders.