Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Govt finally junks demand for full pension on completion of 20 years of service for individuals who retired between 01 Jan 2006 and 01 Sept 2008

As readers may recall, the removal of the condition of 33 years’ service for earning a full pension was dispensed with by the govt on the recommendation of the 6th CPC. Employees are now entitled to full pension on completion of the requisite minimum years of qualifying service pension for earning a pension, that is, 20 years (15 years for PBOR of the defence services). However the catch is that this was enforced from the date of its acceptance which is 02 Sept 2008 and not from 01 Jan 2006 which was the date from which the recommendations of the 6th CPC were to take effect. Hence, the old pension regime of 33 years was made applicable to employees who retired between 01-01-2006 and 01-09-2008.

Many representations were made to the govt by all sections of employees, but the Department of Pensions, Govt of India, has now finally rejected this proposition and stated vide this letter dated 12 May 2009 that no changes would be made in the instructions already issued.

The issue is hence closed, from the govt’s side that is.


Anonymous said...


This is a generic letter. We are already fighting for OROP ie against 4 different cats now. By accepting this request specific to AFs, the Govt could have easily brought it down to 3. It will happen...Lets look at Poll results first.

Anonymous said...

Well it's like that only that our Govt handle affairs of its employees.
Another fact I would like to bring to your notice is that as per para 4.10.102 of 6th CPC, Leave encashment allowed for Defence personnel is 300 days irrespective of service. But some LW sections of our Good CDA (O) are refusing to pay 300 days leave encashment to officers who have taken PMR before 22 years of service. On contacting these wise Account Officers of CDA (O), the reply is either that they do not know about this ruling at all, or that the new ruling is applicable to only officers retiring on final superannuation and not PMR. Net result is that many officers are loosing upto Rs 70,000/-, just because some Accountant is interprating the 6th CPC in his own style. There should be some measure to held such people responsible.

Anonymous said...


How about using Navdeep's advise thru RTI. Just ask the names of Dealing JCDA, accountants etc and under what rule they have refused action. But ofcourse you may have to write a registered application seeking full 300 days payment.

Poor CDA fellows...won't know what hit them. Personally though I feel CDA(O) does a good job.

guest said...

In cse of PBOR, the full pensionary benefits stands wef 01 Jan 2006. But however, the leave encashment which have been approved to 300 days for PMR is paid from 02 Sep 08 only. Means PBOR who took PMR between 01 Jan 06 and 31 Aug 08, will get full pension but only leave encashment will not be effecive as per SCPC. What a strange calculation and interpertation . As i understand leave encashment is one of the pesnionary benefits.

bsk said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,
Appears Dept of Pension is likely to apply similar logic/approach to counter representations against Fixed Rate Disability Pension to Pre 2006 retirees of Armed Forces.But they will have to revise rates of DP to same fixed rates for Pre 2006 Civilian retirees as well.Can they do so?Will the civilian set ups accept this reduction in DP? Also it defeats what was intended by the 6CPC ie bring DP for Armed Forces to be at par with civilians, to mitigate injustice done to AF's for so many yrs on this count.

Anonymous said...

The loss of BJP may work against the Armed forces.God help us

ttaraja said...

Is it possible to approach court of law, since such difference in category is done by the Govt, without any fault of the individual

madana said...

This 33 years of qualifying service for Defence Pensioners on par with civillians, was introduced by the V CPC. Prior to this qualifying service was based on the Rank held at the time of retirement. (24 years for Lt.Cols, 26 years for Cols etc).

Now that VI CPC has removed this stipulation , It appears logical to restore status-quo-ante to those affected. This letter is the making of Babus and would need to be questioned.
Incidentally as a lawyer of standing you may advise how a person who is unionised (by their associations etc) can lead the ministry having about 1.2 million personnel, who are denied this previlege of forming associations under article 33. Is it ethical.Retired Generals were good for ambassaders, Governors and why not for the post of Defence Secretary.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone throw some light on the delay for the orders for pensioners [Lt Cols] on PB4 ?

Anonymous said...

Some one up here talked about CDA(O) limiting number of days of leave encashment to previous CPC. Now a question: Did CDA(O) give him balance of leave encashment amount, based on 6 CPC based Salary figures - if not, that is a bigger loss of money...??

madana said...

Now coming to the main issue of pension eligibility after completing 20 years of service, present Babus interpretation of VI CPC appears to remind one of the parable of four blind men and an elephant.
CPC Report is the wise elephant crafted by Hon Justice Krishna. who had authored an extremely comprehensive report in the limited time given to him with insufficient staff.
I reproduce below relevant portions of Para 5-1-56 which is very clear and unambiguous in its content and intent along with portions of para 5-1-33. The babus holding the reins of implementation, seem to read the report out of context, to bring about their version of the VI CPC bringing to naught and distorting the spirit of the comprehensive CPC report!


5.1.33 Presently, full pension is payable only on completion of 33years of qualifying service.
The rules also allow grant of up to 5years of additional qualifying service for purposes of computing
pension subject to certain conditions. Hence, an employee presently has to put in a minimum 28 years
of qualifying service to become eligible for full pension.-------------------------
. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum
pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received
during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring
employee. --------------
With this, qualifying service will cease to have any relevance as full pension will
be payable once minimum pensionable service is put in without any reference to qualifying service.
Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes
of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer
be relevant.


Pensionary benefits of Defence Forces Personnel
Retiring Pension for Commissioned Officers

5.1.56 Pension of Commissioned Officers is fixed on the basis of average emoluments drawn during last 10
months. Pension is paid at the rate of 50% of the average emoluments. Minimum qualifying period of service
is 20 years and full pension is payable on completion of 33 years of qualifying service. These rules are
identical to those prevailing in case of civilians.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. The Commission has recommended payment of pension at the rate of50% of the last pay drawn
or the average emoluments, whichever is higher, irrespective of the number of qualifying years of service
completed (subject to completion of 20 years of qualifying service). All reference to full pension being payable
only on completion of 33 years of qualifying service are proposed to be removed. No justification,
therefore, remains for allowing any weightage. ------------------- The Commission recommends accordingly.

Due to this misinterpretation, my submission is that

now that Defence Tribunals are established, this matter would merit reference to the Tribunal for application of rational mind in consonance with principles of natural justice and equity. I am confident Justice would prevail in the long run like several instances when the judiciary had corrected the irrational interpretations of the Babus, to the detriment of Defence Forces ( borne un doubtedly out of prejudice ).

Anonymous said...

SIR. I am ex air force officer and getting my pension.Can any body clearify wheather i am eligible for both Dearness Allowance (on pension and on my salary from the bank) since i am working as a manager in on of the govt under taking bank.

vasudevan said...

Sir, I took premature release from IAF after serving for 14 years and 2 months. Now I joined Navy as a civilian employee and my former service counted towards civil pension. Can my accumulated annual leave in IAF be added to this Service? Can you please clarify the Rule position?

Anand said...

Sir, Can you tell whether service period of PBOR is counted for pension ,if he becomes an officer through ACC (army) or CW (Navy)