Some Ideas On Possible Manner Of OROP Fixation

In order to not misinterpret or over-interpret the statement issued on 05 September 2015 regarding the outlines of OROP, there is a need to raise more queries. Even if no one provides answers to these queries, at least the possibilities get narrowed down and a clearer understanding can emerge on where the OROP pension fixation could be headed, at the same time keeping firmly in view where it should be headed.

The Hon'ble RM had clearly stated,  "..Pension will be re-fixed for all pensioners retiring in the same rank and with the same length of service as the average of minimum and maximum pension in 2013..".

This had been the subject of some speculative reasoning in a previous blog post.

However, we need to introduce some rationality into assumptions. Some of the restrictions that can be placed on the previous interpretations can be summarised as follows:

*The average pensions mentioned in the statement could, most probably, refer to the average of pensions of ESM actually retiring in the calendar year 2013. (It is well known there are ongoing representations and discussions that it should be Fin Yr 2013-14 or the period 01 Jul 2013 to 30 Jun 2014, but for the time being, let us stick to what the statement contains, viz., calendar year 2013).

*The average pension mentioned in the statement would not only be in respect of one rank but graded as per years of service for retirees in that rank. This is an essential requirement based on the definition of OROP. For example the average pension for a Col with 24 years of service would be based on max and min pensions of retirees in 2013 with that many, i.e. 24, years of service. It would be calculated separately for a Col with 25 years of service, based on max and min pensions of retirees in 2013 with 25 years of service and so on.

If we take actual pensions (or potential pensions, as explained in the table and the text that follows) for 2013 into consideration and do not wander off, right at this stage, into the rather grey area of fixing OROP pensions based on pay-bands (more on that in a subsequent blog-post), we could draw up a table, more to give an idea of how OROP could/should be fixed rather than to provide actual figures. The table, for reasons of simplification, applies to Officer retirees but the concept applies to all ESM. (Please click on the embedded table to obtain a pop-out enlarged view) :

Based on some alarming over-simplifications reported on the blogosphere, as here, it might be useful to keep some things in mind:

*Pensions of older retirees should not be based on those of current retirees or on pay of currently serving personnel if the current retirees/serving personnel are in a lower rank due to denial of time-bound promotion to the next rank on disciplinary or medical grounds.

*In case there is no actual normal retiree in 2013 for a certain rank and service-years combination, the potential pension based on max and min pay of serving persons in 2013 with the same rank and service-years combination could be a logical way to establish the OROP pension as shown.

*In case personnel normally retire, currently, on time bound basis, in a higher rank with the same years of service, then the "parity zones" such as those shown in the table need to apply.

Again, these ideas are subject to verification. That is all the more reason for official thinking on the subject to be placed in the public domain for a meaningful and transparent dialog.

A Letter On OROP Seeking "Widest Circulation"

I came across this in a blog not exactly known for exchange of comments or for discussions. But blogs serve several purposes and can be used in the fashion of  "bulletin boards" for effective dissemination of others' views or ideas.

I cannot, however, vouch for the authenticity of this communication. I have seen a lot of other e_mails purportedly originated from the same source as well as from other functionaries of the same association, all without authentication of any sort. These are just passed on via e_mail, on blogs or linked to in tweets or chatroll posts here and there.

To my mind, an issue deserving to be handled with appropriate seriousness would at least deserve a duly authenticated blog, if not a web-site, regularly updated by people who are not keyboard challenged. That is nowadays the accepted platform for even minor issues. In this case, the welfare of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of ex-servicemen is involved. A slightly more up to date interface can't hurt the cause.

There was a clamor, from a lot of veterans affected, for details and modalities of OROP implementation to be made public by the Govt and the ESM Associations. But the tables in the above communication are not exactly what would meet that need for transparency or bring smiles of hope to all faces. My immediate reaction was to highlight the most ambiguous of the contents in a shade of appropriate grey. There are notes placed alongside, but these may not be view-able on all platforms so here is a gist of the very serious doubts that the contents raise:

*What is meant by "These can be used to work out" at para 3 of the communication? Is application of a thumb-rule being advocated here? Is that all the ESM associations have been able to work out after all the hype that has flooded the media for months now? I hope not. I'd still like to believe, this is not the full picture and the ESM reps are holding something up their sleeves. But I also have serious misgivings that such a superficial view may actually reflect the real level of reasoning at work. I am firmly of the view there is no room here for a "simplest method to implement realistic OROP". I think a bit of complexity for arriving at an actual OROP would meet the requirements a lot better than individual perceptions of "realistic".

*Why is the term TS being used in the table when it is widely acknowledged, even at the level of services HQs, that use of such a suffix is undignified? It has been officially done away with. I'm sure display of a bit of courtesy on such matters will not be out of place and would be appreciated by veterans whom the ESM associations seek to represent. Apart from that, more importantly, why have separate rows been made for OROP pensions for Col promoted by selection and Col promoted on time bound basis? Everyone knows pensions are the same for both as tabulated in PCDA circular 500.

*Why is the table silent on OROP pension for Lt Col retirees with service more than 26 years? Do the ESM Associations have no view on the required parity of pensions of erstwhile (pre AVS-I) Lt Col retirees with more than 26 years of service with pensions of Col promoted on time-bound basis on completing 26 years of service after implementation of AVS-I?

*Similarly, why does the table say nothing of pension parity of Major retirees with more than 20 years of service with pensions of post AVS-I Lt Col with service of 20 years? Most importantly, where did they get figures for a Major retiring between 01 Jan 2014 and 31 March 2014 with service of 24 years? Was there actually a Major with that many years of service who retired in that period? Ever since 16 Dec 2004, Majors are promoted to Lt Col on time bound basis after completing a service of 13 years. Any Officer who retired with 24 years of service as Major between Jan 2014 and April 2014, as the table in the communication states, might have been one who could not be promoted even on time-bound basis due to reasons of being unfit for time-bound promotion or being of a different cadre altogether. Are the ESM associations seeking to peg the pensions of erstwhile older Major retirees to the pension of such a case?

Earlier on, reps of some of the same ESM associations were speaking of pensions based on actual pay-bands. Now, on the other hand, we see a fairly un-representative table based on some pensions actually drawn, with more questions than answers. There is also the most alarming view, in the communication, that some sort of extrapolation, "working-out" be resorted to on the basis of this most inadequate data. Stake holders can only hope more details of modalities based on systematic logic on the subject would emerge.  

Table Time, Again!

A recent statement in news media by a representative of IESM threw some light on thinking on the ESM associations' and, probably the Government's approach to calculating OROP pensions for older retirees.

The rep spoke of asking for fixation at top of pay band rather than based on the average of the pay band. This makes me feel that the old manner of pension fixation across CPCs, through fitment tables and then fixing minima on older pensions, still governs reasoning on OROP. To my mind a radically new approach is required as OROP is a totally different paradigm.

The statement of IESM rep gives rise to several questions:

*If the OROP pension is to be based on the average of pensions for a rank in the base year, which in turn, as per inference drawn from the statement, is to be calculated on the average of pay (for that specific rank) in the pay band, then how would the element of years of service be taken into account? Let us not forget, post 2006, there is no pro-rata reduction in pension. If we calculate on the basis of the average of  pay in pay band for a particular rank, the pension will be the same regardless of number of years of service (from 20 to 33). Also, as the pay band remains constant, the average of pay in the pay-band remains constant. So how is it expected to increase from year to year for which an annual review is being sought?

*The same logic would apply even if top of the pay in pay band was used. How would variation in number of years of service  and variation from year to year be accommodated in such a pay-band based pension calculation?

*Are we to infer that top of the pay-band would have been reached in the base-year for someone with a certain number of years of service? This is another way of asking the same old question as to what is the average of pensions? Average of pensions actually paid in base year or of pensions based on pay in pay band? Or are they going to see the highest pay and the lowest pay drawn by a certain rank with a certain number of years of service, even if not retiring in the base year, and then calculate the average pension for that "rank_years of service" combination?

Now, regardless of the way they decide to calculate the OROP pension, there are rough indications available how it would impact pensions after OROP is implemented. Firstly, let us go back to the GOI letter of 2008 that spelt out how pensions would first be consolidated. Would that be the case here? Considering it is the pension in the base year that is to be a benchmark for earlier pensions, there is a need to skip the consolidation bit. Let us not forget it is not a transition from one CPC to another. The only parallel could be the application of the minima to older pensions. Here the ESM rep's statement and the Govt statement appear to suggest that instead of the minimum of pay in payband specified in 2008, as embedded below, it will be the "average" pension in base year based on average of pay in pay band.

Min of Pay In Pay Band Stipulation : GOI Letter Of 2008


 

PCDA circular 500 described this manner of fixing the minimum pension as modified parity as shown here :


 

Whether or not that will be the manner in which OROP pensions will be calculated remains to be seen. But it is not difficult to generate figures based on pay in pay band considerations and arrive at different, purely hypothetical, figures for OROP for some relative comparisons as shown in the following table :

 

Even with these hypothetical figures, it is easy to see how the enhancement in pensions could vary from one manner of fixation to another. The actual amounts may differ but the range of variation in percentages could be in the same region.

 

The above, purely speculative, exercise can only serve to indicate what other surprises may be in store. It may not be out of place for the Government and ESM Associations to bring everyone on board by sharing the precise modalities that the OROP implementation letter is to be based on. Perhaps inviting feedback in a transparent manner could resolve issues faster than keeping the cards close to their chests.

Contempt Petition On Rank Pay Case _ Epilogue

On 18 August 2015, the final hearing took place at the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition 328 /2013.

On the RDOA blog, there was a terse announcement in a blog post dated August 18 2015, stating in relation to the disposal, "Court did not accept our plea for change of Pay scales of 4th CPC & 5th CPC, The case has been finally disposed off". That blog post subsequently disappeared from public view, the quote having been made verbatim from a cached copy of the blog post when it had been posted freshly on 18 Aug 2015. {Edit} Another RDOA blog post finally appeared on 25 August 2015

There is still a blog post dated 18 August 2015 on the Aerial View blog with comments, mostly "on topic".

While searching for material related to the case on Twitter, I came across tweets from learned counsel of RDOA and I have linked those here:

Recently SC disposed of our Contempt Petition with liberty to approach appropriate authority for remaining issues

— Gp Capt. K.S. Bhati (@Gp_Capt_Bhati) August 28, 2015

We are planing further course for getting relief for Min & Max fixation & also6th CPC benefit .Ref Rank pay case

— Gp Capt. K.S. Bhati (@Gp_Capt_Bhati) August 28, 2015

Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court too is brief and can be viewed here



The foregoing constitutes mere collation. What is of the essence is where do affected parties go from here? Perhaps the answer to that would lie in examining these queries linked to the case and trying to find answers:

*What exactly are the "remaining issues" referred to in one of the tweets linked to above? Are these the issues listed in the rejoinder affidavit filed by RDOA in 2014?

*Are we to surmise from the RDOA blog-post of 25 August 2015 and the second of the tweets, linked to above, that only the issue of revision of scales and fixation in the same now remains the area of concern for RDOA?

*Would the "further course" involve litigation or would that be preceded by some sort of representation by affected individuals or collectively by RDOA through proper official channels?

*Whether, in the context of the judgement, it is to be understood that though the basis for linking the "other issues" to the rank-pay litigation may not have been agreed to, the justification and rationale for resolving these still exist?

RDOA have done a herculean job, as I never tire of mentioning on various platforms, but communicating further directions for all stake-holders would only serve to strengthen the process on related matters. In this regard, if RDOA choose to share information in a blog post or even the minutes of the AGM, that was planned to be conducted on 12 September 2015, perhaps affected veteran Officers would have greater clarity on the next steps they could take under the auspices of RDOA.

From Contours To Vague Outlines

It has been more than one year since an attempt was made by me to list out the various possible shapes of this entity called OROP, given all the options floating about in the air at the time. It was a kind of an abstract, admittedly half-baked, exercise in imagineering.

A lot of water has flown under the OROP bridge since then. It would be uncharitable to say that we are nowhere closer to knowing what OROP will be after all the recent sloganeering, fasting and shouting coupled with some very true to norm lack-of-clarity from the powers that be.

We do know a few things now that were shrouded in mists of uncertainty back then. These are:

*Under OROP, pensions of older retirees would be bench-marked to "average of minimum and maximum pension in 2013".

*The pensions would be reviewed after five years.

Did I mention a "few things"? Well, no, sorry, two actually, if you can call that "knowing", considering the text of the statement holds more vagueness than what we started out with.

I have already outlined all my doubts over this "average business".

The strangest thing is how ESM Associations so visibly, not to forget, vocally in the forefront of the most recent episodes of the agitation, have been seen to be very reluctant to part with details, as if they were almost in competition with the Government in keeping a tight lid on what exactly they are negotiating for and what in their view should be the nuts and bolts of the final OROP paradigm.

The DGL attributed to some sections within the Services HQs hierarchy, un-authenticated, of course, had more to say on the subject than the hundreds of TV interviews with the leading lights, and their support structure, of the "movement" have yielded. Apart from what they have vociferously "rejected".

An interesting example is a recent news item. The ESM representative, while voicing his concern for a pre 2006 retiree in Major rank has simply glossed over the fact that the parity point of the Major retiree may not be the "highest pension" that the ESM association's valiant efforts are directed towards but to a much higher level keeping in view the Major's years in service and the current rank a retiree would automatically attain with the same service.

The ESM representative also does not mention that the "highest pay" for a current Major would probably correspond to a length of service much less than the older Major retiree would have put in, hence, in effect dooming his chances by voicing the opinion that the retirees' pension should be at the maximum of the current scale. I would be the happiest person to be informed that my misgivings are misplaced and based on ignorance. But I'd like to know what would be the factual reason for such information coming my way. 

Arising from that news item, the simplest query to the member of Governing Body and Pension Cell of IESM in that report, would be which Officer with Major rank retired with pensionable service of 20 years in the base year 2013, or the year 2014_15 mentioned by the IESM member, and what was his pension?

The tables with PCDA circular 500 state the pension of a pre 2006 Major retiree is Rs 15447/- to Rs. 17930/- from years of service 20 to 24.5 and is constant at Rs.18205 from years of service 25 onwards as against the figure of Rs.19205/- as quoted in the article. What IESM need to clarify is how will they find Majors retiring with the same years of service in base year 2013 or in 2014-15, forget about bench-marking pensions of older retirees with these "imaginary" post 2006 Major retirees?

This is just an isolated question on the subject, but it does reflect, if not the opaqueness then certainly the translucence of the manner in which information is being shared with stake holders.

PCDA Circulars For Pre 2006 Pensioners

At long last, based on the Govt of India letter, PCDA have finally issued circulars to effect enhanced pensions from 01 Jan 2006.

Considering there were no new tables to be prepared or issued, it is surprising that issuing the circulars took so long.

Circular 547 for revision of pension in r/o pre 2006 JCOs / ORs pensioners / family pensioners : Please click on this link. 

Circular 548 for revision of pension of pre-2006 Commissioned Officer pensioners/Familypensioners : Please click on this link.

Expected Hearing Of A Case With A Possible Bearing On OROP

In their order dated 16 Feb 2015, in the case Civil Appeal No(s). 2966/2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had "...granted three months' time finally to work out the modalities for implementation of the one rank-one pension..." to the Government of India. The next hearing for the case is likely to be on 28 Sep 2015. How the case relates to OROP in general, is for legal experts to outline for the enlightenment of others. But in view of the recent "announcement", the court order could have some effect on, or relationship with, the rolling out of OROP.

Briefly:

*Does the outcome of the case apply only to the respondents or would it imply implementation of OROP for all?

*Does the announcement of OROP on 05 Sep 2015 meet the requirement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the appellants to "work out the modalities for implementation" or would it require the issue, by due date (which has already expired) of the notification and issue of Government orders for implementing OROP?

*What if the Hon'ble Supreme Court finds that non-issue of the implementation order constitutes "contempt"? Would a contempt order then be issued?

*Whether the order leads to implementation of OROP or counsel for appellants submits that OROP has been implemented as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, would it have any bearing on the various claims to credit for having implemented OROP or for having obtained its implementation, considering that it would be seen to have resulted on account of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court?

Though the ongoing dialog on OROP and its implementation would be central to the collective interest and focus of all stake holders, there is just a chance the hearing and judgment could prove to be relevant as well.