A Straight Forward Set Of Pension Parity "Equations" For 7 CPC : Maj, Lt Col, Col(TS) Pensions {Pre Dec 2004 Retirees}

{Matrix Figures Updated}

At the present moment, there is no sign of any movement on implementation of 7 CPC recommendations regarding pensions of armed forces veterans.  {Edit: The 7 CPC recommendations were subsequently implemented using a inter-CPC formula based "notional pay" method instead of using increments, which too did not attempt to normalise fixation of "notional pay" based on qualifying service.}

If and when some orders are issued, these are likely to be only for fixing pensions by multiplying either VI CPC or OROP pensions by 2.57. Multiplying VI CPC pensions by 2.57 is likely to yield January 2016 pensions nearly equal to or less than OROP combined with the January 2016 DR.

In a scenario like that, with OROP anomalies still not sorted out, it may be hoping for the impossible to expect rationalization of the good old 20 years Major and 26 Years Lt Col pension anomalies.

Enough has been posted about that. Here is a brief summing up, as a kind of "impossible to realize wish-list", in the form of two "equations":

P_{L11;i(8--->20)} = P_{L12A;i(1--->13)} for older ( pre Dec 2004) Maj pensioners.

P_{L11;i(21--->28)} = P_{L12A;i(14--->20)} = P_{L13;i(12--->18)} for older ( pre Dec 2004) Maj and Lt Col pensioners with PCs.

P ---> Pension corresponding to a specific increment-stage cum matrix-level combination.

L ---> 7 CPC Matrix Level.

i ---->7 CPC Matrix index number increment stage for level.

As an example, the first equation states pension calculated for level 11 increment stage 9 should equal the one for Level 12A index increment stage 2, but won't.

Pensions corresponding to appropriate cells can be calculated based on the pay in the matrix as follows and then checked for the requisite but eternally elusive parity as per equations above (even though implementation of 7 CPC pay fixation is reportedly being held in abeyance, the of principles of pension parity, as illustrated in the following tables, would still be valid regardless of any enhancements in pay levels that might come about):

{Update: With recent, May 2017, amendments to IOR (multiplication factors), the figures displayed in different “levels” may changed and will be are now updated in a subsequent this blog-post. as and when amended Matrix is made available. The suggested manner of parities for pre 2016 retirees in time bound ranks still remains relevant}

Pay Band à	15600-39100	37400-67000
Grade Pay -à	6600	8000	8800
Level –>	11	12A	13
1	69400	121200	130600
2	71500	124800	134500
3	73600	128500	138500
4	75800	132400	142700
5	78100	136400	147000
6	80400	140500	151400
7	82800	144700	155900
8	85300	149000	160600
9	87900	153500	165400
10	90500	158100	170400
11	93200	162800	175500
12	96000	167700	180800
13	98900	172700	186200
14	101900	177900	191800
15	105000	183200	197600
16	108200	188700	203500
17	111400	194400	209600
18	114700	200200	215900
19	118100	206200
20	121600	212400
	125200
	129000
	132900
	136900

Even though such charts have been prepared and shared in dozens of other formats, based on the above considerations a rough indicator of the manner in which 7 CPC pensions need to be calculated is as follows:

Pay Band	15600-39100			37400-67000
Grade Pay	6600			8000		8700
Entry Pay (EP)	25980			45400		48900
Level	11			12A		13
Qualifying Service	Increment Stage		Increment Stage			Increment Stage
6	1	69400
7	2	71500
8	3	73600
9	4	75800
10	5	78100
11	6	80400
12	7	82800
13	8	85300 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	1		121200 ✓
14	9	87900 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	2		124800 ✓
15	10	90500 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	3		128500 ✓	1	130600
16	11	93200 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	4		132400 ✓	2	134500
17	12	96000 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	5		136400 ✓	3	138500
18	13	98900 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	6		140500 ✓	4	142700
19	14	101900 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	7		144700 ✓	5	147000
20	15	105000 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	8		149000 ✓	6	151400
21	16	108200 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	9		153500 ✓	7	155900
22	17	111400 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	10		158100 ✓	8	160600
23	18	114700 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	11		162800 ✓	9	165400
24	19	118100 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	12		167700 ✓	10	170400
25	20	121600 (Pay of level 12A should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	13		172700 ✓	11	175500
26	21	125200 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	14		177900(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	12	180800 ✓
27	22	129000 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	15		183200 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	13	186200 ✓
28	23	132900 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	16		188700 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	14	191800 ✓
29	24	136900 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	17		194400 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	15	197600 ✓
30		141000(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	18		200200 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	16	203500 ✓
31		145200(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	19		206200 (Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	17	209600✓
32		149600(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	20		212400(Pay of level 13 should apply for calculating 7 CPC Pensions)	18	215900 ✓
33						19

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:

Check Points For 7 CPC Pension "Awards" For Armed Forces Veterans

That implementing recommendations of a pay commission has not taken the customary two to three years, is in itself an achievement of sorts and worthy of praise. How far the implementation will go in justifying the lofty principles enunciated in the text of the 7 CPC recommendations remains to be seen.

We are yet to see the shape of tables and manner of calculations that normally translate the intent of the recommendations into actual delivery of the award. The VI CPC imbroglio over "PB III or PB IV for Lt Cols" Or the "Minimum of Pay In Pay Band" controversy are still fresh in our minds.

Much has been made of the fact how the VII CPC matrices will ensure OROP for civilian pensioners as well as for armed forces veterans. There has been some informed analysis on blogs, chat-rolls or group-mails over pension fixations.

To avoid needless speculation in the absence of factual data, the stress should be on what would be a correct and equitable pension fixation for pensioners. This becomes very crucial in the case of time-bound ranks. Some time ago, I had made an attempt to illustrate the issues involved with the very simple example of pensioners who had retired in the ranks of Major and Lt Colonel.

We do not know how such parities can be or will be accomplished. If at all. Several options do exist and these have been discussed in the past, such as :

• Establishing parities by endorsing applicable pensions in PPOs.

• Considering anomalies holistically and jettisoning the discrete approach to basic principles that apply to parity of pensions.

• Appreciating the need to do away with differential treatment for same class of veterans, whether it is related to OROP or 7 CPC. {Edit: And, retrospectively, even in relation to pensions fixed by 6 CPC}

In this context, I've read several opinions as to how the 7 CPC matrix would need to be applied in the case of older pensioners. Perhaps it would need specific elaboration in the implementation orders as to what index and which level in the matrix would apply to older pensioners keeping in view their qualifying service.

As among Officer veterans, the two time bound ranks of Major and Lt Col are most affected by these disparities, in the absence of any concrete figures at present, veterans in this category can only wait and see how close the actual fixation is to the following desirable "check point".

Another Bonanza For Pre-Mature Retirees

We had barely stopped cheering the relative advantage pre-mature retirees had received on account of OROP fixation (please view the previous blog-post) when along came the great news that the pro-rata reduction had been removed on pensions of those who had retired before 1st Jan 2006.

Till such time MOD and PCDA issue details of the revision, it would be a bit pre-mature to rush to making arrears calculators though some have already started appearing. But, just taking the revised PCDA order on VI CPC pensions, of those who had retired before 1st January 2006, it has been possible to make a first estimate of how their pensions will increase.

It is obvious that since it is pro-rata reduction on pensions that has been removed, those who retired earliest would benefit the most. From the graph prepared on the basis of the table of pensions applicable from 1st January 2006 till 30 June 2014 for, this must be emphasized again, pre 1st January 2006 retirees, it would appear pensions of Lt Col(TS) would receive the biggest boost of about 31.9% at QS of 20 years, followed by pensions of Brigadier retirees at about 28.15% for the same QS of 20 years. Lt Col(Select) and Col/Col(TS) would get nearly identical increases of about 22.21% at the same QS of 20 years. In fact, percentage increase graphs for Lt Col(S) and Col/Col(TS) are nearly merged. The percentage increases reduce as QS increases for all ranks.

But these are percentage increases over the existing pensions calculated in the table after applying pro-rata reduction. Equal percentage increase won't mean the same increase in Rupee terms. The graphs should be just a rough reckoner for PMR retirees and we need to wait for the final word from PCDA. (Viewers may access and use the zoom/pop-out facilitations on the frame below by hovering the cursor over the frame with the mouse)

But there is a buzz, not easy to ignore, that though removal of pro-rata reduction was absolutely justified, the principle of equal remuneration for equal work would appear to indicate the necessity of some sort of pro-rata enhancement of pensions of those pre 1st January 2006 retirees who had served more than the number of years required to get the pension based on minimum of pay of rank in the VI CPC pay-band, and as this pension will now be paid to everyone regardless of their QS.

This needs to be looked at from another angle. Though there is no pro-rata reduction of pensions for those retiring after 1st January 2006, a Lt Col taking PMR at 20 years of service will not get the same pension as one taking PMR at 23 or 24 years. Their pensions will depend on the number of increments they have drawn in their pay-band, the only difference being these pensions will not be subjected to pro-rata reduction.

So, if there is now parity between pre 1st January 2006 and post 1st January 2006 pensioners in the matter of there being no pro-rata reduction, should there not also be parity of manner of fixation of pensions for post and pre pensioners based on their QS or increments drawn?

In fact what 7 CPC has proposed by way of basing pensions on increments earned at time of retirement won't be OROP but the sort of full parity that could now be justifiably asked for in respect of pensions from 01 Jan 2006. As to how 7 CPC recommendations could cater for OROP, please refer my previous posts on that subject.