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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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, November 27, 2010

More pension to juniors than seniors : Anomaly redressed

As per the current stipulation in vogue, the minimum guaranteed pension of personnel of some junior ranks was more than pension of senior ranks with the same length of service. This happened since the admissible weightage of junior ranks at places was more than senior ranks.

The said anomaly has been addressed and the MoD has issued a new letter rectifying the problem. Consequently, fresh amended annexures (i.e, Annexures II, IIA and III) replacing the ones appended with the earlier issued MoD letter dated 11 Nov 2008, have been promulgated for officers as well as JCOs and OR.

The said letter, alongwith another letter on medical boards, may be accessed by clicking here. It may however be noted that the family pension of a Lt Col has been mentioned incorrectly in the fresh letter as Rs 8760 per month in this letter whereas it actually is Rs 15420 (30% of minimum of Pay Band-4 + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay). The MoD has by mistake printed the family pension for the rank of Lt Col as per the old (Pay Band-3) scale.

17 comments:

VNatarajan,President Pensioners' Forum, Chennai said...

Dear Major Navdeep,

Something interesting.

1.Has it any relation to the AFT Juedgments of Pre-2006 Retd Majors/ SqdrnLeaders/Lt Cdrs parity to some extent- direcxtly or indirectly?

2.Does it solve the problem of Min Guaranteed Pensions os such pre 2006 retirees in any way?

3.Has the New Instant Separate Pay/Pension Commission (for Defence Personnel) started its activities?

Pl clarify and kindly forward me a copy of the orders (if you have time pl). Regards

Accts Sat Paul Mittal School said...

Dear Major Navdeep,

Good Morning,

Anomaly removed or a new big anomaly created.

Letter and annexure given for PBORs is not relevant, since pension for PBORs is already improved vide circular 430 and Annexure –III (Revised) is not showing the figures of pension as already improved.

Since as per Circular 430, vide with improvement in pension was released all the Sepoy of X/A/I AND Z GROUP will be drawing more pension than L/Nk or Naik.

All the HFO are already drawing fewer pensions than MWO of Indian Air Force under X group, as per the same circular. And their equivalent in Navy too with the same case.

Govt. needs to clear these anomalies too by issuing fresh guidelines.

In case you have different opinion, then please comment.


Regards
Rajeev Behal
9357172728
accts.spms.ldh@gmail.com

Raxas said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

Isn't there any way to take these undersecretaries who are dishing out incorrect Government of India letters without applying their brains / knowledge their job entails? Or is just being an IAS Officer posted to Delhi qualification enough for creating confusion / chaos.
Do they get some immunity that allows them being utterly inefficient and putting down signatures (without the requisite knowledge and living in their cocoons), dishing out half insane letters. Who becomes a Lt Col (TS)- {let alone a higher rank} at 10 yrs of Service. Where can you find a Lt with 30 yrs of service (13500 pension)? That means quite a few rows and columns of the letter are redundant and made without adequate knowledge or application.
More so in the case of PBORs. My brain hurts.
It is high time that Defence has its own Pay and Allowances Cell which approves all the letters sent out by some unknown "Under Secretary" to the Govt Of India from Finance / unknown cells and only after that the letter should be implemented. The govt should also pay 8% Interest on the delay (pipedream i know) - cut from the Pay of the UnderSecretary's pay (Yeah).
Examples of these Mandarins. (a) HRR increased to Rs 10000/- in Delhi and other A1 cities.
(b) Letter regarding travel by IAC only at the phenomenal prices. And paying 30% Income Tax on LTC, thus subsidising Air India from our pockets.
(c) Letter regarding staying in certain Hotels (run by Min of Travel or suchlike) when on TDs.
(d) Letter for Family Acoomodation Allowance (for PBOR living in Billets) reaching units 20 days before the letter is going to become time barred(ltr dated 17 Nov 08).... I think half the bureaucracy is busy playing catch and the other half is busy signing letters from compartmentalised Airconditioned offices without applying their brains.

s.kanthiah said...

Dear Sir,
it is good news , no doubt. But if you really compare , the anomaly is not redressed. For E.g A Hav(Prer-06) of Gp.X'15yrs is getting less that a Sepoy pension as per Annexure-III. of CDA cir 397 and CDA cie 430 And A Lt.Col. of MNS is getting less as per Annexure-IIA. Also a Sub-A (Post -06) is getting less pension than a Nb.Sub (Pre-06) of same Gp and same length of service, Kindly look in to these anomalies..

Sgt.S.Kanthiah , Exwel Trust, Tirunelveli-Dist, TN.

VNatarajan said...

In continuation of the above:

I am afraid nothing substantial has been done in the right direction in spite of the several AFT/ HSC slammings!

The pre -2006 category is being treated `as a separate class altogether, particularly wrt the Min. Guaranteed Pension as compared to post 2006 pensioners!

Hfo ravindran said...

Sir, It is difficult 2 understand . Pl comment , any thing done 2 remove anomaly of Mwo getting more pension than HFOs and such other cases.Thank u

Anonymous said...

There is a huge difference in penssion of lt col(TS) & majors with equal commissioned service.Some Majors left before gazette notification as there was very little difference in pension before 1-1-2006.The perception was Majors get absorbed in attractive civil jobs quickly & decided to leave when superceded for promotion.There geievance is not yet taken care of.Is there any hope of justice for such cases?
Suri

sunlit said...

@Anonymous:
".....Is there any hope of justice for such cases?......"

What about the difference between the pensions of Lt Col and Col(TS) which was forced upon pre 31 Dec 2004 Lt Col retirees by the delay in the implementation of phase I of AV Singh committee? Wherever the ways and style of functioning of our Government have a bearing of any sort, some anomalies will always exist :-)

Anonymous said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,
Complete confusion. Could you please summarise as to how many types and kinds of Military pensioners exist ?
In what-so-ever form?
How can we reduce them to an easy and understable structured format?
Please elucidiate.

rajaraman said...

Dear Navdeep,

Apart from other mistakes noted herein by various readers, The family pension in respect of Lt Cols as you have yourself pointed out, is shown wrongly as 8760/- wheres it should have been Rs. 15420/-. I hpe the govt will care to issue the necessary amendment on its own

i hope there won't be a need for some affected widow to go to a court to set right such careless mistake of the Govt official .
I also pray that the lot of affected individuals or for that matter IESM don't have to launch any agitation to make the govt realise their mistake and issue an amendment.

Col Rajaraman (Retd)

s.kanthiah said...

Dear Major Sir,
]
The Annexure-III of MOD letter dated 11-11-2008 is revised as per this latest letter of Dept.of ESM Welfare.Pleas note that after the CDA cir 430, the Annexure - III for JCOs and OR has become invalid. In this order, the Pension of Sep, Nk, Hav of 15 yrs service personnel is the same,(4016) which means there is no value for the Ranks, and length os service, . More over CDA cir 430 is arrived with a Notional formula, but this latest Annexure III has no such formula. Also if you see Table No.4, 11, and 21 of Cir 430, (5368, 5290, 5355 ) you will find that the Sep is getting more pension than a Hav and Nk.
Hence, In my opinion the Anomaly is not redressd at all.It is an eye wash.

Sgt.S.Kanthiah, Exwel Trust, Tirunelveli-Dist, Tamil Nadu.

Anonymous said...

Sir,This letter will create more confusion. Does it intent 2 nullify all the improvements recently effected as per MOD Cir 430.Also there is a gen talk that no interest is taken by authories as no officer is going 2 retire on pension with less than a Col rank.We requst u 2 help us .Thank u

sunlit said...

On the CDA web site, the last circular listed, as on date, relates to a Govt Letter dated 15 October 2010. Let us hope by the time the CDA issues a circular in respect of the letter dated 15 Nov 2010, requisite corrections would have been incorporated.

radhakumar said...

dear maj navdeep

on reading your blog it appears that more than 80 percent of problems of indian army perttains to LT cols .

r they more vocal or have plenty of time to write blogs or govt has done max injustice to them . may god bless them .
regards

radhakuamr

Anonymous said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,
1. Your blog provides us all the updated and accurate information of concered to us.
2. Please update us about the current status of case of reduction in service limit of 26 years to 20 or 22 years for getting the rank of Col (TS)of Army?

prabhas chandra said...

Dear Sir,

Pleasr refer to comments offered by Col Rajaraman(retd) dtd 01 Dec 10. I fully agree with Col Rajaraman and hope the govt would care to issue the necessary amendments soon on its own.

Regards.

Wg Cdr PC Pattanayak(Retd)

ESMA said...

Good morning sir,

I have tried to see circular no 449/450, but it is not available in pcda website.
Can you tell me what is that circular and how it is calculating etc?
other wise can you forward to my email id ?ragu2003@gmail.com.(It will be help full for 100 ex-service man )

Thanking you sir
ragu