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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Please relax on OROP / PIP

There has been a flow of negative emotions on OROP / PIP.

While it may or may not meet our expectations, I would request everyone to hold on to such outbursts till the policy is laid before the public in black and white.

The Govt has tried to club pre-97 and post-97 retirees and bridge their gap with post-06 pensioners. Till the time the actual tables come to light, it would not be correct to base our arguments on assumptions.

Officers’ pensions were never expected to be upwardly revised. And even earlier, this blog had forewarned readers about raising false hopes. Even at the sake of repetition, I shall reproduce it once again :

“It would not be proper to rejoice over such tables. Neither would it be proper to take hopes to such levels which result in serious frustration and embarrassment at a later stage.”

“…the new pension regime would be based on a formula or a rank-wise one time increment (OTI) to bridge the gap between past and present pensioners. It is also unlikely that officers’ pensions are made amenable to the new system. My only request to veterans is to refrain from circulating mails which may raise false hopes and cause (avoidable) discomfiture at a later stage.”

Unknown to many, In 2004, the govt had announced improvement in the scales of PBOR which had almost resulted in OROP for Sepoys, Naiks and Havildars. According to that policy, the pensions of all three ranks were linked with top end of 5th CPC scales irrespective of vintage of retirement. Further an additional weightage of 10, 8 and 6 years was granted to past and future pensioner Sepoys, Naiks and Havildars respectively. Hence, contrary to common belief, PBOR always had a system of pension calculation which was different from Commissioned Officers and other Civil Govt employees. On the other hand, the system of pension computation for officers had always been absolutely similar to civilian employees, the only difference being that unlike the 5 years weightage available to civilians, officers of the defence services were granted higher weightages to cater for early retirement since while military officers retire between the ages of 54 and 62 depending upon arm / service and rank, most civilians retire between the ages of 58 and 60 (though certain categories of personnel of the CPOs retire earlier). Now to say that officers should exactly be at par with PBOR would be a little controversial. We cannot compare employees who start retiring at the age of 33+ with another set of employees who retire at 54+. So this conspiracy theory about the govt employing a policy of ‘divide and rule’ between officers and PBOR has no credibility since the govt has merely continued what was in vogue earlier. If at all there have been sinister moves in this whole 6th CPC imbroglio, the same may have been perpetrated by lower level bureaucracy which always manages to stump both the higher bureaucracy and people in uniform.

Having said that, I still maintain that OROP for all ranks and all employees (civilians included) would be an ideal structural form. A Major General who retired in say 1995 has to buy the same atta, dal and chawal and at the same prices as a Major General who retires today and in this light OROP definitely makes sense. But to say that it should be granted to officers on the same terms as PBOR or that officers of the military should be treated differently than civil servants may cut ice within our community but would widen the wedge between faujis, and dare I say it, the outside world.

Back to the point. There are two major sufferers in the officer community – Majors, who form the bulk of the officer retirees from the earlier eras and Non-Army Commander Lt Generals who retired prior to 2006 and who shall not (as per rules in vogue presently) get the pensionary benefit of HAG+. Leaving aside our personal opinions, we should convince the govt to atleast grant the following to the officer cadre which may well be within the rules of equity and fairplay :

(a) Grant an across the board increment of Rs 3000 on account of MSP to existing pensions of commissioned officers upto the rank of Major. It may be recalled that the benefit of MSP is practically available only to Lt Cols and above based on Annexure-II pension tables of GoI / MoD letter dated 11 Nov 2009 and the same is not extended to Annexure-I pension tables. It also may be pointed out here that in the distant past, some Majors used to retire in their 40s.

(b) Grant pension based on HAG+ to all past retirees who retired as Lt Generals. There is a strong case for this since past DsGP who till 4th CPC were at par with Lt Generals (non Army Commanders) are now drawing a pension of Rs 37750 while pre-06 Lt Generals (non Army Commanders) are placed @ Rs 27700.

Our approach should not be emotional but realistic, practical, pragmatic and extremely logical. Wait till the new scheme is officially announced and we shall bring to light the infirmities therein.

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

MRP said

Thanks Maj Navdeep for bringing out the latest clear and legal picture. rightly said the worst suffers are majors retired with 20 yrs or more service pre-2006. Even as per old formula the govt should fix notional pay of majors as on 01 Jan 2006 as per their last pay drwan and then work out pension in equitable manner. BUT RIGHTLY SAID WE HAVE TO WAIT AND WATCH.
Hope you continue with this mission.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry but I do not agree with much of what has been said. We as soldiers must fight out and not accept fait accompli a comparison with civilian counterparts. We all know that there is no comparison to the service conditions, sacrifices et al made by service personnel.

True we may not get anything as unfortunately we are governed by civilian officers for decision making. However, it will be travesty of justice if we dilute our stance due to such realist ( read 'defeatist') attitude

rock said...

Dear Maj navdeep thanks for the latest update and open view on OROP. could you pls have some kind of information on what were the recommendation both for officer and PBOR . I retired as Naik TS in july 1997.
thanks
P B Karki

Kaps said...

Another balanced and to the point view Maj Navdeep. However, I think, in today's information hungry world, Govt can do well to may be dish out information in such a way that it does not leave any doubt nor it give any space to rumour mongers. The heart burn due to lack of information/disinformation in the wake of 6th CPC imbroglio is a case in point.

Although sloth like manoeuvring of the bureaucracy can act as a safeguard against hasty actions, but it does give a huge amount of space to rumour mongers whose only job is to discredit the armed forces and spread misinformation amongst its members.

Anonymous said...

dear anonymous posting at 0853

if you think that this post is 'defeatist' or the author of the post is defeatist in any manner, then lord be with you.

we are not people with special needs, we already have MSP for serving officers and MSP pension fitment for retd offrs to take care of our truncated career and hardships. let us focus more on regaining the lost glory and status rather than having unrealistic dreams and illusions about our services.

U P Mathur said...

Are the Civilian Central Govt officers pay and pension not protected by the new rule of getting non functional pay rise equivalent to IAS officer 2 yrs junior posted to Centre as per DOPT letter No AB.14017/64/2008 Estt (RR) dated 21 May 09. He will enjoy the benifit of higher pay being automatically going up as soon as a bright young IAS gets promoted. His performance and promotion is delinked with pay and thereby his pension.

Anonymous said...

Could we take up this issue in this fashion?

OROP across the board (with Civ angle thrown in by Navdeep) is administratively too Utopian and will not take us anywhere. So how about - in all fairness - seek OROP till 60 yrs of age across all ranks. Beyond 60 yrs, we could go on at par with civil services with ‘deemed to have retired at 60’ clause. This will bring in equity for early age retirement as well.

Any suggestions...

Col VT Venkatesh(Retd) said...

This is convoluted thinking.
I feel PBORs should be given full OROP & Officers should be given parity with new pensioers i.e. all old Offr pensioners should be given he lowest pension of the same rank .This would take care of all Offrs including Hony Commssions
While you have compared with Civil offcials,you have not thought of comparing Defence with the Defence pensioner.This is not logical.
Realism is a very misused word.
Franky I am very surprised by your post.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous 9,34

Lord is would those who dare and take on challenges face-on, my dear. I pride myself belonging there - apparently you do not

Anyway it is my opinion vs yours and lets leave it there

Anonymous said...

Yeah! Both pts about veteran rk Majs and Lt Gens should have been resolved -now at least priority resolution.
In fact,
all those Majs with more than 13 yrs svc are as good (even better with those services during wars of 1948,1962,1965 &1971) as present grade of Lt Cols with no war svc .So are Lt Gens.AG br and MOD have been visibly silent on this issue-since they are not effected and those wars were of past with everybody enjoing the present peace and tranquility;further ,the past glory of ARMED FORCES.
How does a 2IC or OC of Inf BN during wars of 1948...etc,was lower in grade/rk/svc/appt than present 2IC or OC of even a smaller Unit ,ie;a Lt Col and Col of post 1996 period.In fact all those past Lt Cols with 26 yrs and more svc are to be equted with present Col.Also those LtCol sel gr with Col.

Let me add a pt of recent ..even gays have org and managed to get sec 377 of IPC,set aside by judiciary,but we have not been able to get this irrational and illogical differential weightage of yrs ranging from 3 to 9 yrs set aside so far ;even after knowing fullywell that civilians get 5yrs wt whereas, for rigorous mil svc Lt Col (TS),Brig and Gens get 5 to 3 yrs.Is this not rediculous,mockery of mil svc and inequality with in mil svc. Let me also further say here against any counter arguments-that those rks have the RIGHT AND LIBERTY of, voulantary retirement after 20yrs svc ,irrespective of their posn for pro ;this pre-mature ter is coined by ser and is not statutory .
THEREFORE KEEP DEMANDING LEGITIMATE AND DO NOT CONCEED U RT.

Anonymous said...

@Navdeep: As per the details available at http://pcdapension.nic.in/govtOrders/appdxA.htm PBORs already had almost OROP. I think the latest move by Govt is to bridge the gap between pre and post 2006 PBORs only.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous 8.53

Agree irrespective OROP or no OROP, remember "Girte hai sahe sawaar hi maidan e jung mein,

Wo tilf kya girenge jo ghutno bal chale"

Pardaman said...

Navdeep, you have stated that weightage is given to cater for early retirement. Then what is the logic to give 5 Yrs weightage to Lt Col (TS) & 7 yrs to sel grade,when Ts used to retire at 51 & Lt Col(S) at 52. Though I am not affected,it seems illogical & unfair for Lt Col(TS). For your valuable comments please

Naren said...

We seem to be losing sight of the larger picture and context.Majority of the Pre-96 officers pensioners retired at ages 50 and earlier (before the 2 years extention granted sometime in 1998).Now only the AF personnel have ranks and retire by rank (including officers),civilian officers cannot therefore be claimants to OROP or its equivalent.
It would therefore be wrong to deny OROP for AF officers because civilians are not getting it!!
Have we been using identical yardsticks? If so prey what is the rationale for granting 25% of Basic pay as additional allowance for civilians posted in North East and some such other fancy permutations worked out by Babus without even any sanction of 6SPC?
The fact of the matter is that the AF officers have been continuously downgraded and denied both financially and status wise inspite of the very vital role they have served in maintaining the independence and integrity of our country at great personal sacrifice and cost.
Now to be denied OROP on such flimsy grounds because civilians are not getting it seems to be pre-postorus and would be rejected summarily by all affected officers.
I am sure that the veterans will not accept it lying down and that our just demands will have to be met and sanctioned and the struggle will continue in all appropriate forums.

Penmil said...

Dear Major Navdeep,
Congratulations for linking up almost all the issues that are debatable in a single post and having drawn every ones attention to the formulae that go into making the pension tables.
You have highlighted everything the 6th CPC had thrown up.
It is very heartening to see you had brought into focus, apart from the unjust pension awards to PBOR, which could have been rectified much earlier, had there been a strong will, the issue of pensions of erstwhile major retirees as well as the lowering of pensions of erstwhile Lt Gen retirees.
Firstly it is very encouraging to note that you had now agreed that Lt Gen,at least notionally, for the purpose of pension,are to be reckoned to be in HAG+; you had earlier taken a stand that in no civil service had officers been directly placed in HAG+ on promotion from SAG scales. But here the base(for past pensioners) of Lt Gen has been lowered to the start of PB4 where as the base for(past pensioner) DGs P had been elevated to HAG+. One can always make a line longer by making another shorter!
Hope the GOI/MOD will be convinced to think ‘out of the box’ at least in this case.

The fact that pension as per Annex I is more than that in Annex II/III for any rank, post 6th CPC, is an indicator to
(a)Either erosion in the ‘real’pay or(b)A serious error in the pension formulae.
In the case of the majors, post 6th CPC there is erosion in the pay.
The major’s pay prior to 6th CPC was
11600 - 325 -14850 Plus Rank Pay of 1200
The pensioners of that rank would have got a minimum pension of Rs.6400/-which when migrated to 6th CPC pensions would have yielded Rs.14464/-.
But the Minimum Pay of a major in 6th CPC is in
PB-3.. 15600-39100..with a Grade Pay of... 6600.
This even after adding an MSP of 6000 did not yield. a pension more than 14100.
It is clear that without the MSP post 6th CPC major would have received lesser ’real’ pay than a 5th CPC major.
You know what caused this. MSP. But all of us consider MSP an additional element of pay/pension!
What possible reasoning would be extended to improve the pensions of past major pensioners? They already have the MSP.

The past pensioner PBORs up to the rank of Havildar have also faced this erosion in ‘real’ pension post 6th CPC, but there, it has been a wrong formula for pension post 6th CPC.
Let us hope it has been corrected.

Col VT Venkatesh(Retd) said...

It has been a torturous path for AF offrs.Firstly even the Brigs & Cols were placed in PB 3.The Services HQ then woke up & took a stand.The gov then relented & placed them in PB4.Then the same story was repeated for Lt Cols.The pension of past pensioners(Lt Col,Col & Brig) increased only when the serving got PB4.
No civilians were placed in higher sclae of PB4 after he first announcement since they were all placed in PB 4 right from the beginning.
Can some one explain why the AFs were not given the due right in the beginning ?
Even now the act of the govt is based on SC judggement & nothing else.
These acts of the govt were deliberate since AF is considered as an inferior service & we are not going to get any thing with out a fight!
The need of the hour is to stay united & not get carried away for largesse for any one rank (PBOR,Maj & Lt Gens etc etc)
Then only we can hope to get full OPOP for PBORs & parity for officers(old & new Offr ESM pension parity at the lowest scale of new pensioner i.e. post 2006)

Col VT Venkatesh(retd) said...

Furtehr to my last post the govt also quitely changed PBOR's pension from 70 % to 50 % with out first implementing the lateral absorption scheme.
These are all measures by the civil lobby to cut the so called pension burden since the AF has been percieved as toothless organisation & exists only to do & die.
They dare not do such things to any other civil org thanks to their unions & political connections.

Col NR Kurup (Retd) said...

Anonymnous 12.07,

I agree with one of your pleas. Since the Lt Col (S) rank is abolished, it is a reasonable argument that a Lt Col who has been drawing pension of 7550 prior to 2004 should be given the pension of Col.
Reason: - Imagine that Class-2 is abolished and students at class 1 on promotion is decided to be put in Class-3 in the middle of the term. What happens to the students already on class-2 ? Mind you that they had already passed class-1 6 months back . Are they to be put back on Class-1 or put on Class-3 along with those now going to Class-3 on passing class-1 ? In Kashiram's Palton or cucumber city, they are demotted and put in class-1 ? This is what happened to pre 2004 Lt Cols.

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Col Venkatesh.

Yes, the status of officers of the military has been constantly degraded but your recent post is misleading to readers.

Civilians equivalent to Brigs and Cols too were not placed initially in PB-4. When the 6th CPC presented its recommendations, PB-4 was only reserved as a replacement scale for the erstwhile scale of Rs 5900-6700, that is, Maj Gen on the military side and JS to GoI on the civil side. However when PB-4 was brought down to Director to GoI level - though Cols and Brigs were covered, Lt Cols were left out and hence the controversy.

Please do not convey to readers facts which are incorrect. Though I agree with you on your angst towards the establishment, it would not be proper to paint an incorrect picture in the minds of readers thereby leading to an unnecessary contempt towards the system.

Anonymous said...

COl VT VENKATESH RETIRED

Sir,

It is funny to see that you always must have the last word on this blog.

Things have come to such a pass that we are unable to take balanced views in the right perspective, especially those views which do not play to the gallery of our veterans. Navdeep has a right to be independent in his views, he is balanced unlike most of us who blast everyone left right and centre.

Col VT Venkatesh(Retd) said...

@Maj Navdeep
The general pattern is very clear & majority from the AF feels the way I do.There are too many acts of commssions & omissions which are the cause of the problem
Even the latest budget announcement is a misnomer since it is not OROP at all.
Of course there is no constitutional defn of OROP.How ever all of us know what OROP means & it is not certainly what FM was refering to.
The govt has really no concern.It is only trying to implement the SC rulings with out explicitely admitting to it.
This will become more clear when the PBOR tables are known.
I would even say the govt is only trying to score brownie points by not announcing the tables along with the budget.This is deliberate misinformation in the age of RTI.

Col VT Venkatesh(Retd) said...

@Anonymous at 5:37 PM
The blogs are for public debate.No one can have the last word.Every one can have his views.
The blog owner has the right not to publish other's views & one can do nothing about it since that is the beauty of the blogs.
Blogs are opinion deciders & these are serious issues being debated.
Please don't get personal since you can publish your own views instead of calling some one funny or otherwise.Of course one needs to do research & some times we may be wrong.At least I dont hide my identity :)
Please also remember no one is ultimately right or wrong.Please read history to undersand it.

I D Sharma said...

My Dear Bloggers,
I was taught to present a problem with at least three solutions. The problem of OROP though talked about for so long I have not come across any solution proposed by any one as yet.When pay was based on rank, we demanded that one should continue to get annual increment so that he could draw more pension when he retires. We got it partialy. How two officers of same rank who joined early will put in more number of years of sevice, hence more increments will get higher pension. How on earth both can get same pension?
6th CPC has conceeded partial parity as aproved by 5th CPC in para 5 of it's report but in para 6.3 it worded its'recommendations in such a way that they gave one pension to all selection grade officers ie 50% of minimum band pay in place of minimum pay of the rank as on end Jan 2006. If the govt uses formule of 5th CPC there would have been lesser heart burns. This would have resulted min pension of the rank as on End jan 2006. However all those who retired after 2nd sep 2008 would have got additional due to M S P and Increments, which could not be helped. Though there is no end to greed all Fd offrs exept majors are getting handsome pensions coupled with ECHS. But Still MERA BHARAT MAHAN. Cribing is our birthright. Jai Hind. I D.

Anonymous said...

Maj Navdeep's rationale regarding this model of OROP is not only correct and convincing but also absolutely justified.
As already brought out by him in the past that real difference in pension was affecting mainly OR who retire at much younger age than officers.

It has also been correctly observed by him that among the officers pre2006 retiree Majs and Lt Gens ( Non Army Commanders) are also adversly affected and MSP factor must be added to their pensions to meet the ends of justice.

It is in fact a privelege to have such a comrade who is so clear about things and is doing selfless service to AF freternity for every ones benefite and is able to weigh issues so clearly.Why can't we have such competent and dedicated people in our pay cells etc.

Col P B

Anonymous said...

I fully support Major Navdeep's views. I understand that Govt of Kerala has already implemented OROP for its civilian employees.

Anonymous said...

I do not agree with Maj Navdeep arguments.

Firstly there is no comparision with civilian and military officers. They retire at 60 and most of us retire at 54. Infact Govt should give us pay, increments, HRA etc till 60 like a regular officer even when we sit at home idle if Govt can't laterally absorbed us in equivalent civilan posts. After all we have not choosen early retirement.

Also MSP can not comensate us for our trucated carrieer. It just compensates for the hardship, remote & frequent postings and seperation faced by us. Pls dont give us pension on MSP provided we are assured of employment till 60 and promotion policies as exist to civilan Grade A officers.

IndianACE said...

The logic of granting OROP/PIP/ nearPIP to the ranks while not to officers is understood even if not appreciated .

However the earlier issue of grant of periodic increment (Non functional) to officers of all civilian services while that not being applicable to service officers makes us lose a considerable amount over the course of career and ultimately retire with much lower pension.

A double whammy.
So protest seems to be in order.

Anonymous said...

We never had officers like NAVDEEP in all those pay com cells of past.That was the route cause of down gradation .Even most top brass in AF were clueless and indifferent of the issues.All those AGs were passive and had no vision of pay and pensions ,except to take irrational and illogical arbitrary decisions.They thurst upon these arbitrary decisions by the blunt force of Army Act by drafting and printing (kalpana and rachana) SAIs and AOs.SAI 1987 consequent to 4th CPC of that integrated pay scale and rk pay is glaring testimony.
The MOD and GOI are evading the real issues as evident from FMs statement on OROP-how false and misleading? It was more out of compulsion after supream court judgement.
Finally ,I HAVE AN APPEAL TO ID SHARMA,VENKATESH ,KURUP...ETC TO UNITE AND CONVERGE ON ISSUES RATHER THAN REACTIONS ON IRREVALENT EXPRESSIONS,funny,crib..etc (may be weak exp of real issues) and participate to cristallise points and enable course of action.It is great contribution and source by NAVDEEP on inter net for our cause and benefit .

Anonymous said...

If OROP has been given for the Army Chief and the Army Commanders, who retire at the age of 62/60, why should it not be given to the other officers. We are of course happy that some "PIP" has been given to the ORs. What we wanted was not PIP but OROP. We simpletons (officers and ORs - all faujis) have been cheated.

Col NR Kurup (Retd) said...

The plea that OROP is not practicable is a bogey. Atleast our Hon'ble Defence Minister from Kerala State is suppossed to know that OROP has already been implemented by Kerala State Government for its civilian employees.

AS said...

Premise that “Military officers should not be treated differently than civil servants” is fundamentally flawed.
The terms and conditions of service, the law which govern them and their day to day functioning, the denial of fundamental rights, being on the call 24*7 for duty , the oath taken by them to be willingly prepared to lay down their lives for the motherland,promotion stagnation,maintaining two establishments frequently etc etc are substantially different from what is applicable to civil servants.
A simple computation, listing and study of ALL such differences (major & minor) will clearly indicate that it would be ridiculous to draw any comparison between the two categories. It is because of the this that most countries have a separate Pay commission/Boards for the military headed & staffed by eminent persons who know all about the military. Also it is not as if these pay boards will dole extraordinary benefits to the military, in most cases they will justly and adequately compensate military personal keeping in view the overall interests of the nation and what it can afford.
Mercifully our political leadership has at last realized this & hopefully we can look forward to having a separate pay commission for the military, unless it is scutlled by the baboos, lower or higher
Our OROP demand can only be justified by listing out the HR & Financial implications of ALL the differences (each one of them) of military services vis a vis civil, bringing home the point with justifications that No comparesion can be drawn between the two and hence there should not be any linkages in their compensation,barring very generic ones. Therefore rather than submit and circulate various pension tables, we should first give justification for OROP for the military (all ranks) vis a vis civil and have it debated and accepted by the Govt.

Harry said...

@ Maj Navdeep

Sir you say
"...Now to say that officers should exactly be at par with PBOR would be a little controversial. We cannot compare employees who start retiring at the age of 33+ with another set of employees who retire at 54+."

Fine, you are 100% right! BUT, does this mean we be clubbed with civ govt employees since most of them retire at 60? Our treatment may NOT be as liberal as PBOR but certainly it has to be better than civ govt employees! I don't think I am being ILLOGICAL here. Pls correct me if I am!

I D Sharma said...

Dear Mr Anonymus,
Bravo, when you are afraid of puting your name on your comment in a blog ,One can judge your commitment to a cause. Be a Man of guts before you cast remark on others. You have not given any methodology for OROP.There are some absurd suggestions;-
50% maximum pay reachable by an officer of the rank?
50% of min starting pay as on 01/01/2006 + 1.5 % inrement thereupon til one survives, thereafter 60% of last pension drawn as family pension?
Stop paying increment to serving AF offrs?
All the above will never be accepted by any sane person. I am convinced nothing more than partial parity as accepted by the 6th CPC on the lines of 5th cpc formule will meet the end of justce for all ranks of officers. We all know our real contribution to the nation building and to wards making the Nation Secure. Most of us had worked for our ACRS. That all.Jai Hind. Col I D Sharma( Retd), Arun Vihar, NOIDA.

Anonymous said...

Major Navdeep Singh

is there any hope for 70% pension for PBORs, or the chapter is closed to 50%. your comments plz

Anonymous said...

TO HARRY

Paramilitary officers also retire at 55.

For all these negative aspects, we get MSP during service and 50% of MSP after service at pension. Why are we taking that ?

There are many other employees performing difficult duties, have some sensitivity for them also.

Harry said...

@ Annony at 2:01 pm

Sorry Sir, you are off the mark!!
E.g in CRPF retirement age is 60 (pls see the link http://crpf.gov.in/crp_f.htm ) 60 years retirement for Comdts, almost all regular CRPF offrs reac this rank.

Secondly MSP is for vagaries of Mil Life and NOT short career. Still it is taxable! Whereas it should have been compensatory!

Anonymous said...

Harry has a point. Any answers???

Pardaman said...

Please refer to my comments of 8 July 12.19 PM I have got no response to my quarry.It seems there is no answer to this illogical method of giving weightage to different ranks,if compensation is to be given for early retirement. Anybody including any answer?

Pardaman said...

Sorry 8 Jul !2:47 PM

Anonymous said...

It is said that pension is a deferred wag. If this is correct, then rightfully speaking, the pension should be revised and re-fixed as and when the pay is revised by the Government, be it for civilians or defence pensioners by notionally re-fixing the pay one was getting at the time of retirement in the revised scale.

Penmil said...

@ Anonymous at 2:01 PM, Harry at 2:15 PM and Anonymous5:17 PM.

I understood MSP differently after reading Paras at 2.3.11 to 2.3.14 at Pages 76 and 77 of 6th Pay Commission Report(Main).

Military Service Pay is designated in 6th Pay Commission to maintain the existing edge in pay scales enjoyed by the Service Officers in the 5th CPC Scales and even before, dating back to pre Independence pre IC periods, over the nearest Civil Services Scales.The Commission while noting that a Major's Pay Scale of Rs.11600-325-14850( there is that additional rank pay of Rs.1200 too, which was not mentioned,if equated to the Civil Service Scale Rs.10000-15200, there would be a loss of that edge and therefore has converted that edge into an element called MSP.Thus an exactly MSP equivalent of additional pay was alreday existing in the military pay scales even in the 5th Pay Commission and even during the 4th Pay Commission.
If this existing edge was to cater to the hardships and/or vagaries of service is for individuals to interpret.

But the point is, MSP is not an additional/extra given for the first time in the 6th CPC.
The services wanted an MSP, so a part of the already existing pay was separated and was given as MSP, without creating any additional edge over the Civil Services Pay.

Commodore Ajit Mallick said...

Very surprisingly, there are bloggers who want to justify groups and categories for pensioners just like we have a plethora of reservations and categories in our civil society

I am not a legal expert but surely having a particular pension for a retiree in Dec 2005 and a substantially different one for one in jan 2006 bothers on the ridiculous

There are some extremely competent ESM in the IESM and Naval Foundation who have sweated out for the rest of us to bring OROP to the forefront. Most of us are armchair bloggers who give our views without credence to those actual action-guys

Be it may, in a free society views need to be expressed - but at least lets put our money where our mouth is. Those who strongly feel that OROP is not warranted, will they stand up and forego it based on their strong convictions that they do not deserve it, should it be granted. The answer dear friends is all to obvious.....

Commodore Ajit Mallick

Anonymous said...

@Cmde Mallick

This 'WE ARE SPECIAL' tag will ultimately kill whatever sympathy we have. Yes we are different than the others but so are firmemen, policemen, paramil personnel, coast guard employees and a whole lot of more others. If a person notwithstanding his date of retirement in the military deserves the same pension for the same rank, even a civilian in the same boat deserves the same pension for the same grade. The more you act special, the more the contempt of the society towards us. Navdeep has also not opposed OROP and that is what comes out from his post, he simply says that OROP is an ideal concept and should be applied to all employees, he also says that offrs cannot be in the same boat as jawans because of the huge difference in retiring ages.

Please read these posts on navdeep's blog by one of your fellow naval admirals, he talks sense but most of our vet orgs do NOT :

http://www.indianmilitary.info/2008/05/not-so-pragmatic-god-save-us-from.html

Read this also -


http://www.indianmilitary.info/2008/09/guest-post-6th-cpc-less-than-honest.html


SHED THIS 'SPECIAL' TAG, AND ADOPT THE 'LOGIC' TAG. By getting commissioned into the forces, we have not become God's men who can go about abusing and degrading other services only because our status and profile has been attacked by a select few.

Commodore Ajit Mallick said...

@Anonymous

While I respect your response and views, I do not consider it 'LOGIC', as I understand it

Anonymous said...

Major Navdeep Singh

is there any hope for 70% pension for PBORs, or the chapter is closed to 50%. your comments plz

Anonymous said...

There are disaggrements and diverse views,some of these are due to inadequte understanding of data,basis of pay and proper analysis of service/svc conditions. Let me state few:-
1.officers pay were comparable and had an edge over IAS/IPS/IFS/Gp A ser of GOI.That is to be legitimately maintained.
2.The conditions and terms of svc of Mil are rigorous and subjects of Army Act. Slow pro and not beeing in time scale pro like other GOI ser.The percentage of casualties of inj/death to AF pers as compared to other ser of GOI is high-ref sta data.
3.MSP is additional for x factor besides the basic pay.
4.Annual increments have to be same as other ser in GOI.
5.All Govt ser of Gp A are now getting inc at par with IAS with 2 yrs diff. Same would therefore apply to officers as per terms and prospectus so far.Now if they revise it would be applicable to future entries only with problems already visible of inadequacies in qty qnd qua of intake.
6.Retirement ages are diff to AF and therefore weighatage has to be diff to AF(to vet )
7.6th CPC has alredy given 20 yrs for eligibility of full pension at last pay to all ser of GOI.Naturally same is applicable to AF,incl voulntary retirement after 2o yrs-the phrase of pre mature/mature retirement is misnomer and has no place in GOI.
8.If any additional conditions are to be imposed on AF they have to be additionally compensated.
9,10 11,12 ..if any may be added by readers.
About OROP,pse read write up by Maj Gen RADHAKRISHNAN and ADMIRAL MISHRA in other blog -report my signals/iesm.
Saying insane/impossible to possible solutions to the issues,reflect inadequacy of info and understanding.
Absolute parity+ MSP is every bodys RIGHT . individuals have the liberty of donating their extra pay wealth to deserving individuals/gps /institutions /state or any other .We cannot accept lower levels/down gradation/degradation.
If there is poverty let everybody share,Why AF only? Prosperity,peace,affluence,comfort and higher wages to civil ser of GOI and otherside to AF NOT acceptable.
If we as a NATION cannot afford that sort of parity+ to AF let the str of AF be reduced to MILLION -,than MILLION + .
or have wage freeze to all category of employees ,incl industrial labour ,public sector,all emp of govts...etc.
Pse therefore ,revise/modify u views on the sub of OROP....etc.
by ABR.

Anonymous said...

pse add in the context ,MILLION-(minus)
;so that the NATION has more potent/competent AF.As veteran of ser during those past wars and as a senior citizen I feel there is need to maintain the QR of the officer cadre,because both the junior leaders (whose q of leadership and sacrifices at coy level results succes of battles and adds up to victory in war and the Generals to have that level of skills&brains to win a war.If the q of intake is poor , where are we going to get that type of junior leaders and Generals that ensured victory of those past wars .This has to be at entry level with competent youth ,as good or even better than civil ser of GOI.People of planning and vision must ensure that now because ARMED FORCES cannot have lateral induction/absorption to command units/fmns from civil services when the need arises -reverse is possible.
This is where I imply the parity+ with civil services.
The second world war has such talent of Generals from so many Nations that fought for so many years.Do we have that type of leadership ? That is the context of more potent /competent AF of MILLION-(minus) .
Yes we are more concerned about SECURITY of the NATION,thus ensure Q leadership by demanding Parity+ ,as for living and surviving + or - rupees do not really matter. I am a vet of 70+,individually I feel i have lived my life and few rs does not effect my life.
ABR

Anonymous said...

In that post independence era many of veterans could have easily entered those all india services of GOI,but they consciously preferred and chose AF. They have preserved and maintained unity and integrity of the country at great struggles,suffering and sacrifices .OROP is their RIGHT and resposibility of the NATION.
NOW ,after repeated promises by the GOVTS ,judicial rulings and direction by the PRESIDENT of INDIA-what is relevence of these differing perceptions and views by few individuals .

Anonymous said...

@ABR

Thanks - very well written indeed

In fact those bloggers who are advocating against OROP, are doing great inservice to the efforts of the great stalwarts of IESM mentioned in your blog.

This (some unfortunate authored blog views) is exactly the sentiment which the babus use to defeat us time and again.

All I can say to those who spouse the 'LOGIC' tag or 'fight to restore 'status' tag, please move out and send time with the ESM and feel the hurt that this 'groups among groups' has created amongst pensioners. It is a movement against this feeling of 'injustice' and 'depravity' which ESM like Gen Kadyan and Gen Satbir have so admirably handled.. If one cannot support these noble efforts please do not participate to damage it.

jaagorefauji said...

The goose is getting cooked on a slow fire.
But 99% will not feel any pain as ignorance is bliss.

Did you forget to exercise your right as the DR/ clerk could not get the forms or were you plain lazy?

Anonymous said...

We are hearing a strange line being taken by many in this blogg including to some extent by the blogg owner ie we should not highligt the fact that soldiers are different from others; otherwise we will lose respect in society. What an astounfing arguement. So we have to be suckers to seek respect from this society. And do we require even to say that there is a sea of difference in working conditions of a fighting soldiers and civilians. I do not wish to say it but I am being force to say that this kind of defencive logic could only emmenate from soldiers who do no fighting and enjoy the cushy life all their careers and who have never fired a round outside the range.

Anonymous said...

@Anony : 8.29

Thank you for your very kind comments.

Now have your daily dose of 'you know what' and go off to sleep.

At least respect the blog owner who is not censoring your comments and letting it all show here. Very sad on the part of people like you who cannot respect the thoughts of people who have a different viewpoint on things.

Anonymous said...

MRP said

Thanks Maj Navdeep to allow the comments of all. Most of the comments in this regard are off the mark and ground reality. While I do agree about the sacrificies made by vetorns and IESL taking up the matter, but the fact remains that pension is alltogether a different proposition so far as officer cadre is concerned. Injustice has been done to old retirees continuously since independence and it has increased manifold after 6th CPC.In 4th CPC a very good recommendation of integrated pay scale from 2/lt to Brig was accepted and evey officer was progressing well in his pay till his retirement irrespective of the fact whether he got promotion to the next rank or not. And the AF accepted the pension pattern as prevalent under CCS Pension Rules including counting of previous service in central/State Govt/ranks in the AF prior to Commissioning. However, the trainng period spent in acadmies by GCs was not counted for the reasons best known to Integrated Headquarters of MoD.Under this system, the officers were getting good pension. Then came Vth CPC and again the authorities in the Armed Forces Headquarters got the pay scales fixed for each rank. This was done to ensure that those unfortunate officers who could not reach to the rank of major/lt Col/Col/Brigs should not get more pay than their next rank and this resulted into vast disparity in pension of pre-1996 and post 1996 pensions. For example the minimum pay of a Major was regarded as 3400in IVth CPC integrated scale taking into account his 11 years of commissioned service. Then in Vth CPC minimum pay of major was regarded as 11600 taking into account only 10 years ervice. Consequently pension of pre-1996 was fixed as 6400 i.e. half of BP 11600+RP 1200. Althogh this anomoly was rectified in case of serving officers in 2000 and minimum pay was fixed as 11925 equal to 11 years of service. But pensioners were denied this benifit. Now in VI CPC Lt to Maj were brackted in PB-3 and Department of EX-Servicemen Welfare and Pensions prepared the tables in Annexure A-1 in mechanical fashion without applying even the old formula. No major with 11 years or more service prior to 1 Jan 2006 could get his PAY fixed as 15600 plus grade pay of 6600. The notional minimum pay of the Majors retired prior to 1 Jan 2006 has to be fixed as per old formula and then half of that has to be allowed as minimum pension of that rank. Once this is done then the huge gap between pension of maj and lt Col(all categories) will get reduced. So far as officers of the rank of Lt Col/Col/Brig, their pension has been correctly fixed and no more sub categories or notional promtions for selection grade Lt Col as Col as pleaded by many bloggers is the answer to the problem. Therefore, as rightly said by Maj Navdeep, we have to wait and watch. AND QUESTION OF GRANT OF EQUAL PENSION TO MAJ GENs irrespective of their date of retirement is pending before the Hon'ble Suprem Court and its final outcome is awaited. In case the Govt accepts that, then GRIEVANCE OF all veterns will be redressed in equitable manner. I request to every one to stand united and fight for our valuable right without getting emotional or bringing other issues together like status and respect, which are altogether different.
I hope that you continue with your mission to secure justice.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon@ 844. Thanks for your comments. But you have not commented on the logic of what I have said. Your only compaint is that I am not respectful to the blogg owner. In what way have I insulted him. Is agreeing to whatever the blogg owner says the only way to show respect to him? Is he not open to questioning?? And while I must thank the blogg owner for letting my opinion appear on the blogg I must say that the strenghth of a blogg lie in letting such opinions surface on the blogg. Minus such contradicting view a blogg will die. This is the strength of the blogg and the blogg owner knows it better than you. Now put aside your anger and tell me how is a fighting soldier similar to a civilian. I have a feeling that you yourself are not a fighting soldier

Anonymous said...

We have been focussing on PBOR, Maj Gens and Lt Gens. I wish to highlight the fact that a Brigadier retires at 56 yrs with no provision of re-employment or a second job. Has any one compared this rank with the others wherein a Col or Lt Col can serve beyond 56and upto 58 yrs, an age when all Central Govt employees retired prior to the Cadre Review. Are we adressing this issue?

Col LK Anand said...

After all the assurances given by the Government for looking into the long sought after demand of OROP sympathetically, the recommendations of the committee constituted to look into the demands, it was optimistically hoped by all classes of ex-servicemen that the good news by the Finance Minister in his budget speech was just a matter of time, especially when even in the Presidential address the aspect of OROP for the Armed Forces made a specific mention. Well, the Finance Minister very assuredly did not forget to mention about the debt the Nation owed to the valiant Armed Forces of the Country and that the recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries had been accepted by the Government and that the benefits of one rank one pension was being extended to all personnel below officer rank only.
The neglect of the highly aggrieved ex-servicemen officer class, in the grant of OROP by the Government, sent shock waves down their old and virtually worn out spines.
In fact all the members of the Armed Forces were anxiously awaiting 6 July to be a red letter day for them since they had been pressing for the demand for OROP ever since the Sixth Pay Commission not only failed to redress this grievances and demands but also greatly hurt the aspirations of all classes of ex-servicemen by denying them just and equitable reward for their unflinching, dedicated and valiant services rendered to the Nation in prime of their life in the past. Well, it is no doubt very gratuitous for the Government to now suitably reward the Personnel below officer rank (PBOR) with OROP who no doubt deserve it more for being compelled to be out of service even earlier than the officers.
Yet, denying the benefit to the officer class or cadre is being extremely unjust to them. It is no doubt highly discriminatory for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Committee and rewarding only personnel of one class and deprive the equally deserving personnel of another class. By doing so the Government seems to have very mischievously divided the Officers and PBOR class vertically for unknown reasons. This it is felt may not be in the overall interest of the Government in the long run.
It is difficult to imagine how a responsible Government can afford to differentiate and be unfair and unjust to their officer class. Perhaps the Government or the bureaucracy seems to have overlooked the bravery, distinguished and dedicated services, sacrifices hard work and leadership qualities of the officer class. They seemed to have also overlooked the rigorous and tough training schedules, exercises, services and sacrifices in the remotest and far flung areas and setting personnel examples of bravery and leadership in the battlefield under gone by the officer class.
The dictum “Safety honour and welfare of your country comes first always and every time, the safety honour and welfare of the men you command comes next and your own safety and welfare comes last always and every time” is applicable only to the officer class and this one dictum which an officer keeps close to his heart till he leaves this world. So in my opinion the action of the government in denying the facility of OROP to the officer could not have been so untimely which can easily be termed as a grave omission and a highly unjust decision for the officer class.
It is strongly felt that such a decision may have also been noticed by the opposition benches in both houses of the parliament and it may not be too long before their voices start echoing in the parliament to draw the attention of the treasury benches. It would not be very surprising, if sooner than later the Government may eventually give in to the very genuine and just demands of OROP by the officer class of ex servicemen. Or else it would go down in the history of the Armed Forces to be one of the most unjust decisions by a ruling Government.
All ex-services officers in the country any way are hoping for the best for an announcement of inclusion of officers as well in the grant of OROP.

Gurkirat Singh Dhillon said...

Hi ,

I want to know how would OROP or PIP

(if it happens)impact the pensions

of War widows ?

As an example the widow of a Col

who became a battle casualty in

1994 compared to a similar

casualty in 2009 , would their

pensions become same ?

I am asking because their pensions

are based on the last drawn pay

of their husbands !

Would be great if someone could

shed some light on this !

rgds ...

Lt. Col. N.K.Vashisht (Retd.) said...

Maj Navdeep Singh
Let me first of all congratulate you on your laudible efforts on educating fellow-faujis.
GOI, MOD letter No.17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) dated 21 May 2009 regarding Revised Pension of Lt. Cols. mentions revised Special Army Instruction No. 2/S/2008 dated 21 April 2009, under which Lt. Col and equivalent Officer in Navy and Air Force have been placed in Pay Band - 4(i.e.Rs.37400- Rs.67000) with Grade Pay of Rs.8000/- p.m. and MSP of Rs.6000/- p.m. Accordingly, the rates of minimum guaranteed pension/family pension for the rank of Lt. Col.(Substantive/Time Scale) and equivalent ranks in Navy and AirForce, as notified in Annexure-II(Revised)to this Ministry's above quoted letter dated 20.1.2009, are substitutedwith the rates indicated in enclosed Annexure.
As it stands, the minimumAssured pension of Lt. Cols. is 50 % of the Lt. Col's Pay fixed in the Above Special Army Instruction 2/S/2008 as revised. This 2/S/2008 as revised vide amendment dated 21 April 2009 giving the new Pay structure of Lt Col in Pay Band - 4 also gives a new Pay Structure for Lt Cols. of AMC/ADC/RVC which has taken into consideration the DA on NPA of the Pre-Revised Pay Scales while formulating the new Pay Structure for them. The corollary to this stands that the Minimum Assured Pension Also should be accordingly higher taking note of the NPA which Lt. Cols of AMC/ADC/RVC were getting before retirement. Please clarify and if someone concerned is on the job to rectify this anomaly if that has been so created.- Lt. Col. N.K.Vashisht (Retd.)

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Col Vashisht : This below reproduced letter issued yesterday should answer your query :-(



F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

(Department of Pension & Pensioners'Welfare)

Lok Nayak Bhawan,New Delhi-110003
dated the 14th July, 2009

OFFICE MEMORANDUM



Sub:Implementation of Government's decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission - Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners.




The undersigned is directed to say that in accordance with para 4.2 of this Department's O.M.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 (as clarified vide OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008), the revised pension of pre-2006 pensioners shall, in no case, be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale. Clarifications have been sought by Ministries/Departments as to whether Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) is to be added to the minimum of the revised pay band plus the grade pay / revised pay scale while considering stepping up consolidated pension on 1.1.2006. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).

2.On implementation of the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission, NPA was not added to the minimum of the revised scale of pay as on 1.1.1996 in cases where consolidated pension / family pension was to be stepped up to 50% / 30% respectively. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgement dated 10.10.2006 in Transfer Cases (civil) 72 of 2004 - Col. (Retd.) B.J.Akkara vs. UOI & others, upheld the validity of OM dated 11.9.2001 of Ministry of Defence not allowing the benefit of NPA in the case of retired medical officers of Armed Forces to be added to the minimum of revised scale as on 1.1.1996.

3. NPA granted to medical officers does not form part of the Pay Bands / scales of pay. It is a separate element, although it is taken into account for the purpose of computation of pension. It is, therefore, clarified, that in the case of pre-2006 pensioners NPA is not to be added to the minimum of the revised pay band+Grade pay/revised pay scale in cases where consolidated pension/family pension as on 1.1.2006 is to be stepped up to 50% / 30% respectively, in terms of para 4.2 of Department' of pension & PW's O.M.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 (as clarified vide OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008).

4. It is impressed upon all the Ministries/Departments of the Government of Inida to keep in view the above clarifications while disposing of the cases of revision of pension/family pension. They are also advised to dispose the representations received by them from pensioners on the above issues whithout referring them to this Department.

5. This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) vide their U.O.No.264/EV/2009 dated 9.7.2009.

Gurkirat Singh Dhillon said...

Maj Navdeep Sir,


looking forward to ur shedding some

light on my earlier post ...

rgds ...

Anonymous said...

Dear Friends..

I am an Ex-JWO of Indian Air Force and had completed my initial terms of engagement on 31st May 2005. I would be greatful if any body is clear and can explain about the new pension benefits as per OROP for those who retired Pre January 2006.

Thanks & regards..

devinder kohli said...

shocked to know the the out come of the govt. committee. the granted me
rupee 21/- as enhancement as shown in tables published. what a collarless
devotions to ex servicemen.retired in 1969 rs 21 on that date had some waitage with arrears
kohli ds ex indiannavy..