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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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

Friday, December 18, 2009

Parity between pre and post 2006 retirees : Story not over yet !!?!!

The government had officially closed the chapter for grant of any additional benefit to pre-2006 retirees or any improvement in the modified parity already implemented (2.26 of old basic pension OR 50% of minimum of new pay band + Grade Pay + MSP when applicable, whichever is higher). Similarly, the government had also officially closed the chapter for grant of full pension to retirees who had been released between 01-01-2006 and 02-09-2008 after putting in 20 years of service. As we know, the government has already relented on the latter aspect and even issued the letter granting the benefit. Now it seems that there is going to be a re-think on improving the modified parity granted to pre-2006 pensioners.

In a meeting between the National Anomalies Committee on the 6th CPC Chaired by the Secretary Personnel, Govt of India, and the Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers, the government has decided to consider the issue once again. It would be worthwhile to state that almost all pensionary modalities made applicable to civil employees are extended to defence personnel also.

More details on the meeting can be accessed by clicking here.


War Veteran said...

This is indeed heartening news. The stipulation regarding 33 yrs service for full pension should be removed for pre-2006 veterans. As such, it was aimed primarily at AF - few civilians retire without qualifying for full pension. And in the AF itself the main victims are, you guessed it, OTO - Other than officers. Does OTO sound better than PBOR? Hmmm....

VNatarajan said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,
A slight aberration in the report. Mention of pre-2006 had been carefully AVOIDED. Only pre 1986/ pre-1996 parity (notional) wrt post 2006 is envisaged as of now- as I can also make out from the record made/ available on the net.There are some undiscussed items- and undiscussed statements- and a general comment to the extent that parity between past and present pensioners irrespective of the date of revision will be maintained etc. This is neither here nor there!
Let a critical examination be made.

Anonymous said...

Is the issue of revision of rates to % basis of disability pension of pre-2006 Armed Forces retirees also being included in this?One wonders!since it is not applicable to the civil side.

Rajeev Behal said...

Dear Navdeep,

Good Morning,

It is in reference to National Anomaly Committee held on 12th Dec 2009 and Item No. 7: Fixation of pay on promotion

As in the case of promotion Basic Pay of the employee (being promoted) can not be less than the direct recruits.

My point is that basic pay to be counted for Pension should not be less that the direct recruit under the subject Grade Pay.

With best regards

Rajeev Behal
93571 - 72728

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep,

Thanks for the update.

best wishes

Anonymous said...

Though the pension for pre 1-1-06 retirees/pensioners Lt colonels has been revised to Rs 25700 pm and ordinary family pension to Rs 15420 pm ; Enhanced Rate of Family Pension is being revised in terms of MOD letter dt 11-11-08 .
The enhanced rate of family pension should be revised to 25700 pm.
There should be NO restrictions like income limits etc for family pension for Unmarried /widowed/divorced daughters and their names should be endorsed in the PPO by PCDA(P) at the time of retirement.

Anonymous said...

Hi Navdeep Can you please put the following letter on your blog for the benefit of the community.

Tel: 011-25684945                                               Central Organization ECHS
Mil: 3683                                                              Adjutant General’s Branch
                                                                             IHQ of MOD (Army)
                                                                             Maude Lines
                                                                             Delhi cantt-10
B/49770-P/AG/ECHS/Referral                             05 Apr 07
IHQ of MoD (Navy)/DGMS (N) for OIC ECHS
HQs SC, EC, WC, CC, NC, SWC (A/Med)
1.      Ref this HQ:-
             (a)     Letter No B/49774/AG/ECHS/Referral dt. 01 Sep 04.
             (b)     Letter No B/49762/AG/ECHS dt. 02 Aug 06.
2.          Several instances have come to notice where certain Polyclinics have either denied or are reluctant to provide treatment to outstation ECHS members. Some polyclinics have even demanded Temporary Attachment Certificate (TAC) prior to entertaining any out station patient. Some other Polyclinics have refused treatment in spite of TAC on the ground that TACs are meant only for issue of medicines.
3.          It is once again reiterated that ECHS patient will be provided treatment for all diseases; including referral to empanelled hospitals at any polyclinic he reports. The purpose of TAC is to enable issue of drugs for longer duration to chronic patients. However, this does NOT debar a patient from availing of requisite treatment without a TAC.
4.          When a patient seeks planned/specific treatment in a station other than the station of his Parent Polynic, a specific referral is to be generated by Parent Polyclinic to the ˜other” station to enable further management. However when an ECHS beneficiary falls sick or require treatment while visiting some other station, he is fully entitled to report to the nearest Polyclinic and avail of any treatment.
5.          You are requested to issue necessary instructions to all concerned, so that allpatients are provided treatment while on visits to any station in the country through the nearest ECHS Polyclinic.                        
                                                                                              (G Ghose)
                                                                                               Dir (Med)
                                                                                               For MD

Penmil said...

Dear Shri V Natarajan,
Thanks for the analytic insight.Pre 2006 Pensioners of the period 1996-2006
have not been mentioned ay where in those minutes under reference.
If notional fixation of pay of Pre 1986 into Post 1986 and then those of Pre 1996 into Post 1996 are being looked into, then it stands to reason that Pre 2006/Post 1996 be also notionally fixed into Post 2006,that is into the
current(Post 2006) scales, for pension calculations.
But will that much reason prevail?
Indeed, the fixation formulae for pay of the current employees and the fixation formulae for pensions of those who were past employees were different.
As pointed out, the current employees moved from pay scales to pay scales and then into pay bands and grade pays, the pensions of past employees moved to the minimum of the Pay Bands,thus totally ignoring the effect of their pay scales and consequently the notional minima of their respective pay scales in the new pay bands.
( the dicusiins in the minutes brought out the applicability of the same fixation formulae for pay and pension in terms of Para 4.1 but actually the discussion should have also brought out the non application of the pay fixation formula while calculating the minimum pension in terms of Para4.2).
Let us wait and see what comes out of the relook by the government into pension fixation.

Lt Col G Kameswara Rao said...

The pre 1-1-96 retiree /pensioner doctors i.e. medical, dental and veterinary officers, have already been denied total parity (notionally wef 1-1-86) and modified parity with post-1-1-96 retiree pensioner doctors while revising their pension wef 1-1-96 after the V CPC. As per the modified parity a pre-1-1-96 retiree should receive an amount of pension at least equal to the amount being received by a post-
1-1-96 retiree who was drawing the minimum pay of the V CPC scale of pay at the time of retirement.In the case of all other arms/ services modified parity has been achieved eg: a non-medical pre-1-1-96 retiree and a non-medical post-1-1-96 retiree Lt Col (drawing the mininmum of the basic pay of the V CPC scale of pay at the time of retirement) receive the same amount of Rs 7550 applicble at the mininmum of the revised pay scale of V CPC for that rank,(which is 50% of the reckonable emoluments for those cadres -basic pay 13500+Rank Pay 1600=15100). However a pre-1-1-96 Lt Col Doctor has also been fixed at the amount of Rs 7550 while the post-1-1-96 Lt Col Doctor retiring with the minimum Basic pay of 13500 has been receiving an amount of Rs 9438 which is 50% of the Doctor's reckonable emoluments at that minimum basic pay of the VCPC scale of pay. This has come to be so because the Govt equated the pre-1-1-96
Doctors' reckonable emoluments from 1-1-96 with those of other Arms / Services for revision of the pension from 1-1-1996 . while the reckonable emoluments for doctors retiring on or after 1-1-96 continue to be higher than that of non-doctors, and as such receive an amount higher than the pre-1-1-1996 retiree doctors wef 1-1-1996.. The equation for parity / modofoed parity should have been with the same cadre of personnel but theat has been given the go by in the case of the pre-1-1-1996 doctors.
This has been further compounded after the VI CPC where in for the purpose of the minimum guaranteed pension the reckonable emoluments of the doctors retiring after 1-1-2006 are not made applicable to the pre-1-1-2006 retiree doctors for revising the latter's pension wef 1-1-2006 This has and will continue to have a csacading effect throughout till doomsday and the Powers that be, THE Babulog donot want to set it right while the politicians have got no say because of the lack of correct perception.
I am sorry that I have written a large comment. It is only to draw the attention of all our veterans to the state of affairs which the govt adopts and we cannot depend or believe that some justified thinking wildo some good to us. So I Donot believe that the assurrance about the parity being reviewed can be lokked upon by us aa a positive achievement in the anomalies committe.

Anonymous said...

Dear Penmil,

Yes. You are absolutely correct.
A little positive effort towards correcting the disparity vis a vis the fitment adopted, is perhaps hinted at so that the fitment benefit may be raised to 50% which as of now is 40% of the minimum of the pre-revised pay scales, and if accepted by Govt., may result in MF being raised to 2.36 which may help correction to some extent in some lower pay scales- particularly those in PB 1 & 2 mostly. But the main dispute of the INJUSTICE rendered because of the deprival of application of MINIMUM OF THE "REVISED" PAY in the pay band, to those for whom it is beneficial & vital, is not calrified- though in general parity is being mentioned! GOD ONLY KNOWS WHETHER ALL THOSE DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT ARE FULLY COVERSANT with the sensitivity OF THE PROBLEMS!
SO IT WONT BE A SURPRISE OF THE "parity between pre and post retirees' story" continues for a LONG LONG TIME and assumes the dimension of an epic!
In the meanwhile the court cases on parity issues are mounting - (lawyers must be happy???) - as on date one CAT case at HYD; one PR CAT Case at Delhi; One Sup Court Case ; One Sup Court Contempt Case (Military);One case of Haryana Gocvt pensioners at Punjab & Haryana High Court ar listed/ waiting admissions; and in the offing are ours- one PR CAT case and one Sup Court case.
Our Law Minister - as Maj Navdeep mentioned must not be too happy to know that it is his own "kids in the "blunderlaw land" who are adding fuel to the fire- either by approving wrong "NOTES" on the file or by "short-circuiting" the reference to be made for the advice of the Addl. Solicitor General" in spite of the DOPW's "correct" suggestion (wh are not "too often" nowadays because of their inertia to overcome their counterpart -the DOE) (!!!)

Lt Col G Kameswara Rao (retd) said...

with ref to Anonymous comment dt 23-12-09 at 7.38 a.m.on Penmil's comment : may I request Anonymous to give the references or details of the various cases he cited in his commenets and also the PR CAT cases and The Sup Court case being filed by them in regard to the parity issue.I am very much interested in the same as we are also in the same boat and would like to follow suit.Thanks in anticipation of a positive reply. My mail Id : Kamu1932@gmail.com

VNatarajan said...

Dear Lt Gen Kamu
Thanks for the interest evinced.
Pl visit the website of the Retired Railway Employees' Welfare Association(http://www.rrewa.org/currentIssues.aspx) . Most of the cases are listed there and you can even access their full contents.Registration is a mere formality. Even otherwise I think you can access the details. UPIAS Pensioners etc / HVPNL Pensioners / Hyd CAT case S29 Pensioners/ Delhi PR cat S29 Pensioners - are the ones in admission stages- and ours will be for Pr Cat in Jan and Sup Court in Feb 2010. (All these besides the famous Vains contempt case). Email will be sent to you soon.VN

VNatarajan said...

Dear Lt Col Kamu (by mistake last time I typed Lt Gen- pl pardon),
As indicated, I and Shri ARajagopalan have sent you all the material/ info. We shall send you more info if you specify- on pre & post 2006 parity dispute. Also RTI material!.Lt Cdr Avtar Singh has also taken up a fight on some parity issue-he may soon be ready with his group of 64's papers!

penmil said...

Dear Shri Natarajan Ji,
Thanks for the details on the struggle that is going on for parity in pensions of retirees across various pay commission regimes.Even in the action taken by the government, while implementing the judgement of the Honourable SC, in the case of Maj Gen SPS Vains case,where for the first time a notional fixation of pay in the new pay commission regime was required to be adopted, the computations stopped after notionally fixing the pay of pre 1996 pensioners in post 1996 regime. There were no actions reported about taking this application of the principle further to apply the same principle for transition of post 1996 pensions into 2006 regime.
If that is the course of action decided by the government, will it be possible to change the heart of the government,even with another court case?
As you noted this might become an epic in its own right.
As an immediate measure, perhaps the interpretation of of the meaning of eqivalence of a pay scale in the 6th CPC regime(post 2006) may be worth attempting.
I understand your emphasis is on reconning the minimum of PAY SCALE in the 6th CPC regime Fitment Tables instead of adopting the minimum of the PAY BAND.
In this argument it should be brought out that PAY BAND in the 6th CPC regime is an artificial construct not representing the pay scale of a past retiree.A number of pay scales were bunched to make a pay band and the lowest of a pay band represented only the lowest of the pay scale in that bunch. Where as the GRADE PAY of the 6th CPC regime represented a percentage(40% or more) of the maximum of the highest of the pay scales in a subset of that pay band bunch. Thus when we wish to define a Minimum Pension in the 6th CPC regime or ,later regimes to come by, for any past retiree in any past scale, it is the minimum of the pay in the new pay scale, corresponding to the GRADE PAY( of the post in which the pensioner retired) that is to be notionally associated with the pension for computation.
While this is the same as saying 'notionally fix pay of a pensioner in the new pay scale/pay band+Grade pay and then compute the pension', it might provide an argument as to why it is necessary to 'notionally fix pay'.
One may say that several pay scales are linked to a single grade pay. In that case it is natural that the highest of those pay scales is to be reconned as an equivalent pay scale.
In the minutes of the meeting of Anomolies Committe ther is an argument similar to this while pointing out that the principle applied in pension computations under Para 4.1 were wrong.
What is the common thread in the various cases that is made out?

Anonymous said...

Pse post on ur site the website Link of Indian Army from where the Temporary Attachment Certificate [TAC] for ECHS Poly Clinics can be downloaded, or send soft copy of format to my Id : jakes0013@yahoo.co.in.


Cdr. Jacob T Kunnenkeril (Retd)

Sham The Blogger said...

Dear Navdeep

In the interservice organisations like EME Base wksps, Ord depots, DGQA and Army HQs, the issue of interse seniority of army vs civilian officers is confusing and detrimental to the interests of the service officers. Some percentage of posts are reserved for civilian officers and some for service officers. Most of the times there are two posts of Brig/equivalent ranks. Firstly there is no civilian rank in Army HQ or DGQA equivalent to a Brig as there is no gde pay of 8900 for the civilian officers in these deptts. The civilian officers in Gde Pay 8700/- claim to be senior to the Brigs with gde pay 8900/- if they happen to be placed in the appointment of Brig/equivalent. The civilian officers with gde pay 8700 are equivalent to Col (even when the total service of a civilian is half of the army officer! but that is still tolerable). The situation worsens when a civilian officer with gde pay 8700 claims to be senior to a brig. Also, they jump directly to SAG level(GP-10,000)from JAG (GP 8700). Do you have any clearcut policy letter on this. If so please share. Thanks.