7 CPC Pensions For Maj / Lt Col : Co-Relating Years Of Service Of Older Retirees With 7 CPC Matrix Increments

I had touched on some aspects of the 7 CPC matrix in the previous post. I have always tried to reason for establishing some equitable basis of pension parity for older retirees given the reduction in years of service required to attain the same time-bound ranks as compared to earlier times.

With the arrival of 7 CPC recommendations and the still far from clear outcome of the fixation process under OROP, it can't hurt to try an make sense out of the prevailing confusion.

For the purpose of this blog post, I have tried to focus on older retirees in the ranks of Maj and Lt Col as they are most affected amongst officer veterans by the reductions over the years in service required for getting promotions based on length of service, putting them at a severe dis-advantage to current retirees in their erstwhile cadres and streams.

I have tried to co-relate the years of service now required to attain ranks on time bound basis as against the increments specified in different levels of the 7 CPC matrix. It becomes apparent, the number of increments attained by currently serving Officers for the same years of service is much higher than older retirees. So, for the same length of service, an older retiree would have fewer increments in the same level.

If the pension of an older retiree is fixed on basis of increments given to him in the corresponding pay-band,when he was in service, his pension could be equal to that of a current retiree with much less service than him. This could run totally counter to what OROP is supposed to bring about.

Then there is the old aspect of pension parities required with current retirees, with equal service, who get automatically migrated to higher Matrix levels, as compared to older retirees, due to faster time-based promotions (link to a previous blog-post introducing the need for pension parity points is placed at the bottom of this blog post). In this specific example, there is the issue of Majors who retired with more than 20 years of service and Maj/Lt Col who retired with more than 26 years of service. 

To put the whole matter in, and I must stress this, a hypothetical table, I have assumed that level 12 A 11 of the matrix applies to the rank of Major and the first increment would start at a service of 7 6 years; Lt Col would be governed by level 12A, his first increment stage in Matrix starting at a service of 13 years and level 13 for Col must be seen to have the first increment stage at 16 15 years.

With these assumptions we can attempt to build a first approximation of how pensions ought to or can get fixed as follows (Table can be enlarged or made to pop-out) (Edit: Table was amended based on feedback)

  

{Edit: Here is a link to a blog post that tries to explain the justification for pension parity points for older and current retirees based on equal service and reductions that have taken place in service required for attaining the same time-bound rank.}

RE-VISITING THE CONCEPT OF “VARIABLE RETIREMENT RANK”

One of the peculiarities of following topics online and occasionally engaging in exchange of views, on subjects that concern sizeable sections of veterans, is that sometimes it is hard to track previous discussions involving concepts or ideas that one had put forth oneself or been fortunate enough to have received by way of an input from other stake holders. Nevertheless, regardless of whether or not a track-back is possible, an idea lives, if not forever, then certainly for a very long time till proven to be absolutely without merit.

One such idea is that of a “Variable Retirement rank” or “Veteran Rank” as against that of the present fixed “Retirement Rank”.

Most of the thrust in the campaign for OROP has been based on taking the “Retirement Rank” as a gold-standard benchmark for ensuring pension parity of current and past retirees. I have repeatedly tried to highlight the “variability” of “Rank” as against the solid, ground-level parameter of length of service. Please consider following the link at the bottom of the blog post.

Certainly, it is nobody’s case that for true and fair parity in OROP, with the length of service being equal, pensions should be equal, regardless of rank at the time of retirement. It would certainly be less than a serious contention to try and propose the notion the pension of Maj Gen should equal that of a Lt Col if they have the same number of years of service at retirement.

However, as has also been repeatedly pointed out on this blog, when ranks are defined based purely on years of service, then there is an urgent need to maintain pension parity between older and current retirees with the same years of service even if they retired in different time-bound ranks, as the years of service required to attain ranks can change from time to time. This gives rise to the basis for treating time-bound ranks as “variables” and not “constants”.

To be sure, and this too is a repetition of what I’ve stated previously, ranks based on selection too are variable as are the QRs for attaining them. However, there appears no clear-cut logic with which to establish a relationship between ranks attained through the selection process in the past and those attained, also by selection, in the present scheme of things. Of course, based on statistical models that took into account all the variables of selection in different eras, some viable algorithm could be generated, by a think-tank consisting of Operations Research eggheads, for deciding whether a Lt Col retiree from the 70s would be equal to a current retiree in the rank of Brigadier in terms of selection-basis parameters.

But when it comes to time-bound ranks, the issue is straight forward. Without getting into considerations based on Quantum Mechanics or the speed of rotation of Earth, it won’t amount to a risk of inviting too much of ridicule in putting forth the point of view that 21 years in 1976 equal 21 years in 2015.

If the time-bound retirement rank of, let us take the case of Officers as an example, an officer retiring in 2015 with 21 years of service is Lt Col, then the retirement rank of a Major, who retired in 1977, also with 21 years of service, is equivalent to the current retirement rank of Lt Col in terms of service rendered. Provided, of course, they belong to the same cadre and the types of their commissions are identical.

There have been attempts in the recent past to establish parity of pensions based on such considerations. Even a copy of the services DGL on OROP, that had been doing the rounds on the web, had suggestions for equating pensions for older time-bound ranks with those of current ones. None of these attempts have come to fruition so far. Even with OROP, a Maj may not get the same pension as a present Lt Col with equal service even if the former had put in 20 years of service. The same applies to a Maj or Lt Col retiree who had put in more than 26 years of service and who ought to get the pension of a current Officer retiring in the time-bound rank of Col.

OROP insists on variability of pension of older retirees to match pensions of current retirees based only on “Retirement Rank” which is ‘fixed’ for any specific individual. The fundamental thing to consider is, if the concept of fixing a pension based on certain criteria such as pay drawn at retirement, is to undergo a paradigm shift by making it keep pace with the pension of current retirees, then there is nothing outlandish in suggesting that the fixed “retirement rank” too needs to be converted into a parameter that would take into account the variability of all the factors that determine a current time-bound rank.

We could simply state that the retirement rank of any individual past retiree be made equal to the retirement rank that is currently attainable on time-bound basis with the same years of service put in by him. This new retirement rank could be promulgated through corrigenda to PPO’s and pensions re-fixed, under OROP, based on the revised retirement rank.

It can also be suggested the concept of "veteran rank" be seriously considered. Even if the “retirement rank” stays constant, the current “veteran rank” could change and be promulgated through PPO corrigenda based on any reductions introduced in service required to attain time bound ranks.

Such a mechanism would not be a “notional promotion” but a means to deliver bare-minimal standards of parity, based only on time-bound ranks, but within the ambit of OROP. Use of a veteran rank would also provide justifiable social parity with current retirees. Some civilian benefits earmarked for armed forces, in terms of allotment of land, membership of clubs etc is based on the nomenclature of the veteran’s retirement rank. A Lt Col retiree with 28 years of service may be currently ineligible to apply for a benefit available to a current retiree with the time-bound rank of Col with just 26 years of service.

This would also take care of most retrospective issues in respect of pension. When it is decided to upgrade a veteran rank, it would be required to specify the date of up-gradation. A Maj or Lt Col with 26 years of service would have his veteran rank upgraded to Col with effect from 16 December 2004 on which date the time bound rank of Col at 26 years of service came into being. Pensions would be upgraded to that of the up-graded veteran rank synchronously i.e. a Maj or Lt Col would be eligible for pension applicable to time bound rank of Col wef 16 Dec 2004 if the Maj or Lt Col had completed 26 years of service at retirement.

In such a case, the pensions of upgraded veteran rank of Col from retirement date to date of implementation of OROP would be governed by the existing minimum pension of rank in pay band for Col with equal service, and from date of OROP implementation, pensions would be equal to pensions under OROP as applicable to Col with equal service.

If at a later date someone decides to reduce the service required to attain the time bound rank of Col to 23 years, the veteran ranks, and hence pension, of Maj and Lt Col with 23 years of service would stand up-graded to that of Col with effect from that date.

It must be highlighted here, once again, such a mechanism would not deal with any discrimination caused in the past in respect of pay, allowances and seniority of Officers while they were in service, such as in the case of arbitrary selection of date of implementation of AVS-I. That, as I have stated previously, is quite a distinct area that needs a careful and measured legal evaluation.

For more reading on the matter, this link may be of use.

Parallels Between Efforts Of Sqn Ldr C Singh And Accomplishments Of Maj Dhanapalan

Some years ago, I think it was on a chatroll previously featured on a popular blog, I distinctly recall making a suggestion to the effect that serving and veteran officers had, in all probability, also been denied proper fixation of rank pay at the time of implementation of recommendations of V CPC.

To put this into context, at that time all discussions were centred on the rank pay issue related to IV CPC and how Maj Dhanapalan's valiant battle to right that wrong was about to benefit everyone else. RDOA had already taken up the legal process to extend a similar benefit to thousands of others affected. But in those days, details of the litigation were scarce and it was largely out of conjecture and online discussions that facts and details were beginning to emerge.

In response to my suggestion about a similar wrong-doing at the time of V CPC as well, I'd received a response of "I'm gobsmacked" from another knowledgeable and active member on the blogosphere and the erstwhile chatroll. He later on went to suggest that perhaps Maj Dhanapalan's great act relating to IV CPC was being repeated by me afresh in relation to V CPC. It wasn't, of course, as RDOA had already taken all those aspects into account in their litigation. The subject was clarified in brilliant detail by RDOA in their subsequent posts.

But I have often been troubled by the idea that we have probably missed the chance to acknowledge another "gobsmackingly" valiant effort by Sqn Ldr C Singh who waged a legal battle on a different front that too could have affected thousands of veteran and serving officers. His battle did not end in outright victory as his application was rejected at the level of an Armed Forces Tribunal. But he was the first one, at least to my knowledge, who took up a cause that affected thousands. Just as in the case of Maj Dhanapalan's case, as thousands had just "lumped it", after the IV CPC recommendations were "implemented" to the stake holders' collective disadvantage, and only one individual took up the matter, so did Sqn Ldr C Singh on quite a different issue.

To this day, I have not been able to find out if he filed an appeal in a higher court or if some other litigants had sought to represent on the same matter. But the issues that struck me as relevant in 2010, when I first learnt of this case, remain, to me, more relevant today due to more recent judgments that make the issue of "discrimination" a lot clearer for all stake holders.

The matter that Sqn Ldr C Singh had taken up was the way the phase I recommendations of AV Singh Committee were implemented. It had denied him the retirement-rank and retirement benefits relating to the next higher rank, in his case, of Wing Commander as he had retired prior to the implementation.

But the matter will not cease to hold the interest of all those with a sense of the legal implications the issue could have or ought to have had at the time. In brief, as the matter has been fully covered previously (there is a link in the last paragraph), the following salient matters bear repeating:

• The implementation dated March 2005 was retrospective but from an arbitrary cut-off date (16 Dec 2004).

• The choice of the implementation date divided a homogeneous class into two groups, with one group getting benefits and the other not.

• The choice of implementation date, if rectified (let us call it the "potential rectified-date")  would result in arrears of pay and allowances to all Officers who were serving at the time of the "potential rectified-date", as their subsequent promotions under AVS-I would be deemed to have taken place earlier, as governed by the earlier "potential rectified-date".

• For those who retired in Nov 2004 and earlier, prior to existing implementation date, their retirement ranks would have to be suitably amended to the higher time-bound rank admissible under AVS-I, with effect from the "potential rectified-date". Let us not forget, those who retired in Dec 2004, Jan and Feb 2005 also had to be regularized retrospectively from existing implementation date in the higher rank after the issue of the Govt order for implementation in March 2005.

• The rectification of the implementation date would have a cascading effect on pay, allowances, promotion dates and pensions of all those who served between the "potential rectified-date" and a day prior to actual implementation date.  

But, there is no place like the beginning to follow the matter. Those interested could consider reading the contents (now suitably highlighted and amplified), and following the links in my blog post of 2010.

EXTENDING THE WG CDR VS TOMAR (RETD) LITIGATION TO OTHER ISSUES

{Edit: A brief chronology of the matter has been added at the end of the blog post}

Issues do not exist in water-tight compartments, nor can principles that apply in one case be automatically extended by rule of thumb to another.

But recent blog-posts connected with the issue of OROP opened up a train of thought based on related judgements and judicial pronouncements. But then, trains of thought can be runaway trains, going downhill at break-neck speed , inviting a derailment at every curve. There is nothing like the blogosphere for obtaining requisite braking in the shape of comments and counter-views to keep the train on track.

The case of Wg Cdr VS Tomar vs UOI led to this train of thought getting onto a branch line. Para 25 of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs SR Dhingra and Ors (2008) 2 SCC 209, as quoted in AFT judgement on OA 106/2009, would seem to bar an employer from fixing a retrospective date of implementation of a benefit arbitrarily. Now, though the AFT judgement relates to parity of the pro-rata clause related to pensionary benefits for pre and post VI CPC retirees, it could have wider ramifications.

A lay person's appreciation could be the same principle, as enunciated in the judgement, applies to the implementation of phase I recommendations of AV Singh Committee. It needs to be emphasized here, the application would seem to extend to the entire implementation of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee and not in respect of just the pensionary aspects.

Let us consider this:

*The implementation of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee was retrospective.

*The Govt fixed the retrospective date as 16 Dec 2004.

*This retrospective date divided a homogeneous group into two not only for the benefit of pensions but also in respect of benefits of faster promotions AND consequently higher pay and allowances of those who were in service.

This needs to be considered independently of the issue of parity of pensions of pre AVS-I Lt Col/post AVS-I Col(TS) which I had sought to highlight earlier.( <—- Click link to view )

A simple example would be a Captain who had 6 years of service on 01 January 2002. He picked up the promotion to rank of Major wef 16 Dec 2004 when the AVS-I recommendations were implemented in 2005 retrospectively. Whereas another Officer who completed the same service of 6 years on 30 Dec 2004, immediately received the benefit of the promotion, including the higher pay and allowances, also retrospectively. The former would appear to have a case for arrears of a kind different from the Rank Pay arrears that we're all so focused on.

Now just consider the arrears that could arise for all who continued in service, forgetting for the time being the pensionary issue related to Lt Col/Col(TS). 

Depending on a legally correct retrospective date of implementation, Officers, both serving and retired, could be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances on account of promotions and increments extending back several years from Dec 2004.

This matter needs to be examined in relation to my previous blog post wherein it had been suggested ( <—— Click link to view ) there is a strong possibility

of a homogeneous group having been sub-divided in two, though the word "set" had been used at that time in place of "homogeneous group". The homogeneous group would have been the one that required to receive the benefits the Govt. itself had decided were required to be given when it formed the AV Singh Committee.

So what should have been the legally correct retrospective date for implementing phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee? It would have to be a date that defined a homogeneous group for the purpose of receiving benefits that the Govt intended to bestow.

*It could have been 01 Jan 96 for Officers in service as on that date as it was V CPC which first postulated the requirement of ACP which the AVS-I recommendations were an extension of, even though it had been represented at an AFT that there was no nexus.

*It could have been the date on which the terms of reference were given to the Committee.

*It could have been the date the Committee finalised it's recommendations.

*It could have been the date on which the Govt accepted "in-principle" the recommendations of the Committee.

But the concepts of arbitrariness and sub-division of a homogeneous group seem to apply in retrospective selection of 16 Dec 2004 as the date of implementation for passing on benefits of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee.

Whether or not there are sufficient grounds for individuals and/or groups to contemplate further investigative exploration, followed by attempts at a resolution of the matter, would depend on guided collective reasoning being applied to the subject.

{Edit 1} : This issue re-surfaces every now and then, as it did about four months ago.(<——- Click link to view )
{Edit 2} : In order to fully comprehend the manner in which the sub-division of a homogeneous group occurred by selection of the implementation date, here is a brief time line, each date being a point in time where a case exists for a sub-division having taken place, resulting in discrimination:

*Jul 2001 : AV Singh Committee ordered.
*Sometime in July 2002 : Committee recommendations submitted to Govt.
*Sometime in 2003: Govt announced acceptance "in principle" of recommendations.
*December 2004: Govt. Announced acceptance of recommendations.
*March 2015: Implementation notified retrospectively from 16 Dec 2004.

A news item from the era gives a brief outline of the chronology: