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

The Difference Between Cut-And-Paste And Embedding

It is gratifying when one's views are shared by others and, as a result, get disseminated.

However, while sharing a few simple rules do apply. Basically, providing a link to the original content is the safest form of sharing content.

On this blog, beneath every blog-post, a sharing button is provided. That covers all the sharing permissions that a reader can avail of.

Cutting and pasting of content, however, has a host of issues attached, even if some attribution is provided. The cut-and-paste option provides a basis for unintended mischief as content can get altered by other viewers and circulated in hoax mails or on their own web-sites or blogs.

Embedding another person's blog-post, which provides a link-back to the original content and web-page, can be an acceptable form of sharing provided it is done with good intentions and in the proper context.

An example is this blog post of another blog which in turn displays content in the cut-and-paste form. Here the intention is sound and serves to disseminate information in the proper context. But, the cut-and-paste also removes the dynamic features of the original blog-post such as comments which lead to generation of newer ideas and points-of-view. It also destroys the formatting the original author may want his content to be viewed in. Besides, the blog-post made by the other blogger also contains text that tends to attribute opinions and views to the original blogger (myself) that may not (in this case "are not") shared by the original blogger.

My request to all those who wish to share content would be to use the share buttons provided or to embed content with link-back.

Thanks.

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.

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.}