"Rank Last Held" vis-a-vis "Rank For Pension"

A reading of one of the blog-posts on Maj Navdeep Singh’s blog “Indian Military Services Benefits And Issues” (link at the end of this blog-post) drew attention to a portion of the circular issued for implementing OROP.

Para 11(b) of PCDA circular 555 mentions a distinction between ranks in which ESM retired and ranks to be used for computing pensions.

The context, in which the para finds inclusion in the Circular, remains unclear. At first glance this appears to relate to those specific cases of PPOs in which the two types of ranks have been endorsed for payment of pension to holders of such PPOs.

However, just the knowledge that such a provision can exist helps to indicate a way out for establishing parity of pensions for older and current retirees.

We know that para 11(a) of Circular 555 provides for payment of Lt Col pensions to post 01 Jan 1996 retirees in Maj rank with more than 21 years of service. This would be one example of “Rank For Pension” being different from “Last Rank Held”. As to how OROP can ever be OROP if pre Jan 1996 Maj retirees, with the same service of 21 years, do not get the same pension as post 01 Jan 1996 Maj retirees, is not a matter that should be left for a judicial commission to sort out.

This anomaly does not end with the 21 years matter. The afore-mentioned blog post in Maj Navdeep Singh's blog mentions the fact, and I quote, ”nobody retires in the rank of Major as per the current dispensation, the pension of past retirees was to be based on notional fixation”. All very understandable so far. But the blog-post goes on to suggest, I quote again, “figures in the tables however fall below the notional fixation for the said ranks. An officer of the rank of Major, if taken as not promoted to Lt Col and progressing in his own rank with due increments in his own pay-band…”. 

Here we get into a zone of imagination that centres on what if the older Maj retiree had continued to draw increments in his own pay-band? I would like to ask here, why that idea should limit the true concept of being "notional" about fixing pensions for older retirees?

The older Maj retiree who had put in 20 years, or more, of service would have retired as Lt Col, on time-bound basis, with equal service after 16 Dec 2004. If we have to start imagining things and arrive at “notional” fixations, what is wrong with the “notion” of the older Maj retiree having actually progressed, on time-bound basis, to the pay-band of Lt Col, a notion based on an actual post 16 Dec 2004 parallel, rather than imagining non-existent increments in the same rank?

Besides, giving a time bound promotee who retired prior to 16 Dec 2004 less pension, fixed in a lower pay-band, than another time-bound promotee with the same service who retired after 16 Dec 2004, is as clear a case of discrimination as can be thought of. It is all very well to cite fortuitousness as a basis for such differentials. Cut to the basics, it is all a result of capricious whimsy and arbitrariness rather than a ”fortuitous” outcome of some administrative process.

I clearly recall a case being cited online when a serving Officer of the armed forces had stated that ”it was opined....”, a phrase very useful for justifying administrative logic of the reprehensible kind, that there are “....bound to be loosers(sic) and gainers” in Govt decisions such as the selection of date of implementation of AV Singh Committee.

The concept advanced by that individual, of the Govt acting as a croupier in a game of chance at a casino, is so unspeakably repugnant that one yearns for a metaphorical blow-torch to enable incineration of such loathsome ideas at the source, taking care, of course, that the brain-cells that produced such logical travesty be only mildly singed in the process, in deference to provisions of human rights, or, in view of the dubious state of evolution of neurons and synapses that could produce output of that nature, principles of SPCA may be invoked, if applicable, to ensure a post-obliteration certificate of the kind "no kind of life-form was harmed in the obliteration of that vile idea of Government-as-croupier".

Therefore, if we are to implement parities as called for in a paradigm changing concept such as OROP, we need to jettison some intellectual baggage that keeps us rooted to ways of old. The distinction provided for in Circular 555 points us in the right direction.

Just imagine, if the administrative machinery could issue the appropriate orders and PPOs could be endorsed as follows:

• Endorsement In PPOs Of Maj With Service More Than 20 Years And Less Than 26 Years : “Rank Last Held   : Major; Rank For Pension : Lt Col”

• Endorsement In PPOs Of Maj and Lt Col with Service More Than 26 Years : “Rank Last Held : Major/Lt Col (as applicable); Rank For Pension : Col(TS)”

This would come close to the idea of the previously spoken about variable veteran rank and remove a major anomaly arising out of “One Rank” of OROP not being really “one rank”. Let us not forget, yesterday’s Major with 20 years service = Today’s Lt Col with the same service. It is a central concept in the whole gamut of ideas and views on OROP.

As to why the stalwarts keep repeating OROP as implemented being “One Rank Several Pensions” and lose sight of the fact that OROP should also not be “Several Ranks And One Pension” is something that will need to be looked into and put up for consideration at a subsequent date.

Reference : Item (b) of blog post  

OROP Pensions Vis-a-Vis Pensions based On VI CPC Pay Band

It is nobody's case that making a hypothetical calculation based on the VI CPC pay-band, as applicable to a specific rank, would yield the "average of minimum and maximum pensions in calendar year 2013".

Nevertheless, an estimation can be made to the actual process that could have gone in to the making of the OROP tables.

Some interesting, as well as puzzling, observations also arise when the two sets of pensions are viewed graphically.

As an example, the rank of Lt Col can be examined. The graph covers the QS period from 13 18 years to 30 years, the pay-band being considered to have the starting point at a service of 13 years, when an Officer picks up the rank of Lt Col. {Edit: The graph has now been updated to include OROP for Col(TS) as well as an approximation of PB4 based 6 CPC Pension that could apply in case of Col(TS)}

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.