(Updated): This has been elaborated upon in very many blog posts, on this blog and else where.
The following annotations made on the 7CPC concordance table for Lt Col are an attempt to illustrate how the absence of a direct co-relation between Notional Pay and QS makes an equitable parity impossible between pensions of older retirees and pensions of those retiring after 01 Jan 2016. This is particularly significant for ranks that are attained on time-bound basis viz., Lt to Col (TS) at present.
{Edit: These issues have become even more relevant now in view of some documents, obtained through RTI by an eminent blogger and posted by him online, in which an assertion has been made by CGDA that with the implementation of 7CPC, to quote the document, "The notional pay formula brings all past pensioners to current rates, almost as if they were serving under VIIth CPC". In the case of Officer veterans, who retired before 31 Dec 2004, in ranks which are nowadays time-bound, the veracity of such assertions does need a circumspect examination. They may well have just grounds to "clamour for" a relook at the whole matter of pension fixations under OROP and now 7CPC}
Essentially, why the method of using formulas for notional pay between successive pay commissions can’t deliver on principle of “equal remuneration for equal work” is that it does not normalise notional pay across CPCs by not keeping in view how fast, in terms of QS, a Lt Col serving or retiring past 01 Jan 2016 reaches an increment stage in the 7CPC matrix compared to a pre December 2004 Lt Col retiree.
This becomes very clear in the case of Lt Col(TS) retiree of pre 16 Dec 2004 era and Lt Col of VI CPC and Lt Col of VII CPC. All the three are time-bound ranks. What the concordance table implies, in effect, is that if an Officer retired in rank of Lt Col(TS) after serving for around 30 years in regime of 4 CPC, or about 25 years during regime of V CPC, then the notional pay of those Lt Col veterans would be equal to pay of a Lt Col with about 16 years of service, now also a time-bound rank, during regimes of VI and VII CPC.
In other words, with the Concordance Tables, an Officer who retired during period of 5 CPC as Lt Col (TS) in November 2004 or earlier with a service of 28 to 29 years, would have his 7 CPC notional pay fixed from 01 Jan 2016 equivalent to the pay of a Lt Col in January 2016 having a qualifying service of approximately 16 to 17 years, in spite of both being time-bound ranks.
The concordance table and notional pay method do not even begin to touch upon the issue of how notional pay of a Lt Col of IV and V CPC with more than 26 years of service, based on parity and equity principles cited in VII CPC report, would in fact need to have his “notional pay” fixed at par with a Col (TS) of VI and VII CPC with equal service. {Edit: But in light of very recent legal developments, it may be in order to stop seeking pension parity with pension of a specific "rank". Ranks, as mentioned previously, are not a "constant" construct. They alone can't provide a true measure of entitlement of a deferred wage or provide a basis of parity for time-bound ranks. Parity of pension for Officers of a specific type of commission who retired in time-bound ranks of their era of service has to be based on broad principles cited in the pay commission report itself and on constant, defining measures of service rendered by such veteran officers in the past viz., the type of their commission and their QS in their time-bound rank}
In the present case, parity is not maintained even in the same rank based on years of service.
Essentially, why the method of using formulas for notional pay between successive pay commissions can’t deliver on principle of “equal remuneration for equal work” is that it does not normalise notional pay across CPCs by not keeping in view how fast, in terms of QS, a Lt Col serving or retiring past 01 Jan 2016 reaches an increment stage in the 7CPC matrix compared to a pre December 2004 Lt Col retiree.
This becomes very clear in the case of Lt Col(TS) retiree of pre 16 Dec 2004 era and Lt Col of VI CPC and Lt Col of VII CPC. All the three are time-bound ranks. What the concordance table implies, in effect, is that if an Officer retired in rank of Lt Col(TS) after serving for around 30 years in regime of 4 CPC, or about 25 years during regime of V CPC, then the notional pay of those Lt Col veterans would be equal to pay of a Lt Col with about 16 years of service, now also a time-bound rank, during regimes of VI and VII CPC.
In other words, with the Concordance Tables, an Officer who retired during period of 5 CPC as Lt Col (TS) in November 2004 or earlier with a service of 28 to 29 years, would have his 7 CPC notional pay fixed from 01 Jan 2016 equivalent to the pay of a Lt Col in January 2016 having a qualifying service of approximately 16 to 17 years, in spite of both being time-bound ranks.
The concordance table and notional pay method do not even begin to touch upon the issue of how notional pay of a Lt Col of IV and V CPC with more than 26 years of service, based on parity and equity principles cited in VII CPC report, would in fact need to have his “notional pay” fixed at par with a Col (TS) of VI and VII CPC with equal service. {Edit: But in light of very recent legal developments, it may be in order to stop seeking pension parity with pension of a specific "rank". Ranks, as mentioned previously, are not a "constant" construct. They alone can't provide a true measure of entitlement of a deferred wage or provide a basis of parity for time-bound ranks. Parity of pension for Officers of a specific type of commission who retired in time-bound ranks of their era of service has to be based on broad principles cited in the pay commission report itself and on constant, defining measures of service rendered by such veteran officers in the past viz., the type of their commission and their QS in their time-bound rank}
In the present case, parity is not maintained even in the same rank based on years of service.
Formulas applied from one pay commission to the next one can lead to a reasonably rational fixation of the 7 CPC notional pay for most cases. But in the case of armed forces veteran officers who had retired prior to 31 Dec 2004, unless another formula is applied for the pay-rank-QS combination existing prior to 16 Dec 2004 and the same combination post that date, this notional pay fixed by this manner of merely using formulas for pay from one pay commission to the next will always fall well short of what an equitable notional progression would have brought about as suggested in (please click to access —->) this table.
