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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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

Monday, February 8, 2016

Some pertinent incongruities in the OROP tables and the Circular issued for implementation of OROP by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions)

On careful perusal of the OROP tables issued by the Office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) vide Circular Number 555, the following preliminary observations take shape:

(a) The Circular, on its own, has added many ifs and buts to the parent Government of India/Ministry of Defence Letter dated 07 Nov 2015 on OROP. These additional clauses are not a part of the OROP Scheme as implemented vide the above letter of the Ministry.

(b) As per Govt of India Letter above, pensions of past retirees are to be re-fixed on the basis of 2013 retirees of the same rank and same length of service. However, in the Circular, the PCDA(P) has reintroduced the distinction between the ‘rank last held’ and ‘rank for pension’ [See Note (b) under Para 11 of the Circular]. This has been apparently stated so because prior to 2006, service of 10 months in a rank was required to earn pension for that particular rank. Hence, as per the PCDA(P) Circular, if a Naib Subedar had served only for 6 months in the said rank, he would be paid the pension of a Havildar and not that of a Naib Subedar. This stipulation is incorrect since the parent MoD letter does not discriminate between ‘rank last held’ or ‘rank for pension’ which is a dispensation anyway abolished w.e.f 2006. The pension, as per the Ministry’s letter, is to be based on ‘same rank and with the same length of service’ and not as per ‘rank for pension’ [See Para 3 (ii) of the Letter].

(c) As per the PCDA(P) Circular, pension is only to be granted as per maximum terms of engagement existing at the time (See Para 7 of the Circular). So for example, if the maximum term of engagement for a particular rank was 22 years but the person was made to serve for 26 years, or had 26 years of combined service based on two spells, his pension would be capped at 22 years. This also is a condition superimposed by the Defence Accounts Department and does not find mention in the Ministry’s letter. The Ministry’s letter is simple: pension is to be based on live data of 2013 based on similar rank and similar length of service. Hence, if a person retired in a particular rank with 26 years of service, he is to be paid a pension in accordance with a person of the same rank with 26 years of service retiring in 2013, nothing more, nothing less, and as simple as that. An imposition of an additional condition is undue display of creativity.

(d) It seems that the system of full pension at 33 years and proportionate reduction below the said length has again been applied in the tables, which is incorrect, since as stated above, the pensions are to be linked with live 2013 data as per the Govt of India letter. Hence for example, if a Colonel had retired in 1996 with 22 years of service, he is to get his pension in accordance with a Colonel retiring in 2013 with 22 years of service, similarly, if a Colonel had retired with 33 years of service, he is supposed to get pension in terms of what a Colonel with the same length got in 2013. The system of 33 years is not applicable after 2006 and since OROP is based on live pension data, it cannot be brought back by circumventing the main notification.

(e) The pension tables of Territorial Army personnel seem incorrect. The system of non-grant of weightage to TA stands abolished in 2006 and the pensions are to be granted as per the live pension data of 2013 wherein TA and Regular Army personnel were at par. However, still, the system of calculation is woefully off the mark. For example, a Lt Col of the Regular Army with 33 years of service has been shown with a pension of 34,765 while an officer of the TA of the same rank with same service has been granted a pension of 16,405, the logic of which is totally incomprehensible since both TA and Regular Army Lt Cols in 2013 were in receipt of the same pension with the same length of service.

(f) Pensions of Lt, Capt and Maj of AMC, ADC and RVC seem awry. For example, the pension of a Major of the AMC which should be much more than other Arms due to addition of NPA, is shown as 17,010 while that of a Major of other branches is shown as 23,815.

(g) Calculation of pensions for the ranks of Major and below, on notional basis, have not been undertaken correctly. Since nobody retires in the rank of Major as per the current dispensation, the pension of past retirees was to be based on notional fixation. The figures in the tables however fall below the notional fixation for the said ranks. An officer of the rank of Major, if taken as not promoted to Lt Col and progressing in his own rank with due increments in his own pay-band would retire with a higher pension than what has been recorded in the tables.  

(h) Rounding off of qualifying service has been undertaken based upon various cut-off dates in the circular (Para 10). This is incorrect since the concept of cut-off dates in now otiose in view of the Ministry’s letter- pension is simply to be based on the live pension data of 2013 linked with the length of service with the same length of service, which takes into its ambit the system of calculating the said length of service too.

(i) Honorary Naib Subedar and Naib Subedar are supposed to be at par w.e.f 2006 since the grant of Honorary rank of Naib Subedar is now to be treated as a regular promotion for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Further, the distinction in pension between pre and post-2006 retirees of the rank of Honorary Naib Subedar has been struck down and upheld as such till the Supreme Court, hence the wide difference in the tables of both seems to be a little incompatible and perhaps more clarity would be required on the same.

As per my opinion, various disabling factors that existed earlier as per old dispensations including some of which have already been set aside by judicial fora, have been reintroduced by the Defence Accounts Department in the tables and in the Circular while giving effect to the Ministry’s letter dated 07 Nov 2015 whereas no such conditions were imposed by the said letter of the Ministry. Needless to state, the DAD/CGDA/PCDA(P) could not have superimposed their own conditions over and above of what had been prescribed by the Ministry of Defence. I am sure the Services HQ would convey the above (and other anomalies) to the concerned competent authority and that the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, as also the Judicial Committee, would take note of the infringement of the conditions of the letter issued by the Govt of India on 07 Nov 2015.

The above is an analysis only after a cursory glance. Shall update in case more issues crop up.

Let us work towards resolution of all anomalies in a methodical manner. 

30 comments:

Sailorboy said...

again Maj Navdeep you are doing yeoman service .
hope these anomalies are resolved rather than carry forwarded.

Manohar AM said...

All points brought out by you with a cursory glance are relevant for correction immediately. The PCDA assumes that it is the supreme power and its dictates must be accepted by the soldiers faithfully with no questioning. I doubt that till a time these matters were taken to the courts, the PCDA will not relent. I hope on further examinations by you will unveil many more anomalies. We thank you for your unflinching efforts to do justice all the time for the serving and retired soldiers. Jai Hind.

Sandeep Pandit said...

Dear Major Navdeep, I was under the impression that as OROP pensions are based on average of min and max pension of offr retiring in 2013, the issues of full pension (50% of last pay drawn) and weightage will have been covered in the OROP table. Because, the pension of an offr retiring in 2013 will certainly be calculated factoring in weightage and without pro-rata reduction as offrs retiring post-2006 are getting full pension and not pensions reduced pro-rata.

Bharat said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

As always, an excellent and incisive analysis. Thank you for the wonderful job that you have been doing in the last few years. More strength to you.....

anil nair said...

Navdeep there is also a separate table for SS/EC Offrs where the amounts of pension are significantly lower than that of regular offrs with equal service . Could you clarify on this please?

Rajali1910 said...

Sir,
ensuring that all the affected remain tangled with leagal battle alone for what is rightfully theirs.......accountability of those concerned to be in both fronts both legal and financial fronts...system want o b fair but the intermediaries .......feeding on the dead////
regards
rajalingam

anil nair said...

Navdeep could you please clarify regarding the separate table for SS/EC offrs and the large difference in amounts .

SQUADRON LEADER(RETD)SM DUBEY said...

Very nice and genuine observations. Request to project these with one man commission constituted by GOVT. Suitable representation be submitted for pre 2006 Majors retirees, since as on 01 Jan 2013 since OROP has been accepted by that Govt no commissioned officer has retired as Major'

Col Raman R Rao (Retd) said...

Good work done I am sure you will bring out all anomalies

Sqn Ldr C S Gandhi said...

There is one more glaring discrimination. Para 11 (a) of PCDA circular 555 says that officers retired on or after 1.1.1996 in the rank of Major and who have completed 21 yrs of service have been allowed the pension of Lt Col. Then what happens to those Majors who retired before that date? How this cut off date has been fixed? The seniors must get the same benefit. This point also needs to be taken up.

Anonymous said...

http://sharad10525.blogspot.in/2016/02/just-few-of-weaknesses-report-of-7th-cpc.html

Anonymous said...

Woes of Majors continue......again badly shortchanged....sigh

Anonymous said...

Maj Navdeep,
Following points may also kindly be noted and projected -
1. Lt Colonels (incl. T.S. ) with 26 or more years of service ; who retired before the provisions for promotion to Col (TS) ; should be given pension at par with Col (TS)
2. For service more than 33 years ; pension should be proportionately increased.
or the tables should be drawn for service upto say 40 years .
additionally orders on the following are also to be issued -
1. Extending the benefit of rounding of disability percentages to 50%,75%and 100% to those who retired on superannuation ( pre 2006 ).
2. Payment of disability element at rates corresponding to minimum guaranteed pension has been made wef 24-9-2012. same need to be paid wef 1-1-2006 as has already been done for service element of pension.
Thanks
Lt Col (Retd) A K Jain

Anonymous said...

BABUS will never understand the difference between MILITARY & NON MILITARY (BABUS) because :-

(1) Military recruits Officers directly based solely on IQ/Merit (No shortcuts)
(2) Civilian Organisations - Have army of decision making authorities/Officers from various routes (Majority from- Non-IQ, Seniority, Quota etc.)

Therefore, decision making, progress, advancement of nation etc. suffers.

Niranjan Chandra Bakshi said...

You are a unique friend on financial matter. Go ahead for the benefit of Veterans.

Vishnu Chari said...

OROP for the ranks upto Major in MNS cadre officers have not been shown in the OROP table with remark that "due to nil retirement in the rank of Lt, Capt and Maj. in MNS category no rates have been indicated. The existing pension drawn by them shall continue".How can the GOI so short sighted and blunt on the issue. There are so many retired MNS officers upto the rank of Major who are alive and drawing pension.In olden days MNS officers would be released from service on getting married. Later on GOI changed this rule and MNS officers were permitted to remain in service with out further promotion. After some years the GOI had further amended the rules and regulations and MNS officers not only retained in the service but also considered for promotion after their marriage. So MNS officers who were married whilst in service started retiring from service in the same rank at which they got married. Since nobody retires in the rank of Major as per the current dispensation,how can the GOI blindly sweep aside such MNS officers who retired up to the rank of Major and not consider them for the OROP benefits. The pension of past retirees up to the rank of Major is to be based on notional basis. Calculation of pensions for the ranks of Major and below, on notional basis, have been left out completely.

I would therefore request you to take up the matter on behalf of all MNS officers retired up to the rank of Major.

Ashok Shrimal said...

Sir, In the orop table of or jco and hco .nk(ts)pension is 7170/of QS 15 yrs and same pension 7170/- of QS 26.what a hochpoch prepared by pcda ......Ashok Shrimal nk ts signals corps

LT COL S K KHANNA said...

What can WE THE RETIRED ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL DO in a country which really does not care about its SOLDIERS. The political parties only play vote bank games. Has Mrs Sonia Gandhi or Mr Rahul Gandhi even cared to comment on the tragedy in Siachen? In a country actually ruled by Babus( Read CLERKS) and Auditors deciding what is best for the security of our Nation such things are bound to happen. The Bureaucracy is just too happy to let the Armed Forces Personnel suffer year after year. LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC.

Lt Gen Manmohan Singh said...

The tables for family pension of offers of AMC,ADC, & others also seem to ignore the NPA element.

CM ARUNAGIRI said...

NCO: I have retired 2010. In my total service of 24 yrs, 15 yrs served in the Havildar rank and retired. Due to no vacancy to next higher rank up to 24 yrs. Such type
of persons should be upgraded during their active service within stipulated periods of policy. So basic pay and allowances of next higher rank and pension calculation automatically according to this.

Anonymous said...

Sir
PCDA.P has not made compliance of AFT orders for pension of hony Naib Subedar despite MOD Army order dated 2 / 4 November 2015. Gurdip Singh Faridkot. gurdipbrar@gmail.com Kind regards

Anonymous said...

the cda seems to think that he is a power over the government and the ministries.how did this come to happen.why is it that all those who are adversely affected by such incongruities taking it lying down.

amit singh said...

Dear sir,
Veteran who retired on or before 2008 are benefitted with orop updation for pbor.pl. clearify pension updation according to 7 th cpc is applicable?. Ex.Sgt. Amit Singh

Sunder Kadian said...

Dear Major, X group Hav of 19 years service getting equal to Y group Nb sub of 22 years service. That Hav was served under the supervision of Nb Sub in his service career. Is that group is more than the Rank?

Manohar AM said...

The MNS officers up to the rank of Major are not covered at all in this Circular 555, but why?

Archie said...

Sir,
My Basic pension was refixed and an Cor PPO was issued and have been drawing pension based on this. However now during OROP calculation sheet they have not considered this and taken my Basic Pension based on initial PPO. Where and to whom do i address this with my PPO's copy? Request advise.

vijai kumar dudi said...

Respected Sir/Madam,
Amended fresh request for necessary amendment in OROP table for justice with Honorary Naib Subedar of Y Group is forwarded. This is for your information and further necessary favourable action please .
With reference the table No 7 of circular No 555 dated 04 February 2016.
I 2879637W Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar have served in Army 24 Years & 02 days. My service particular’s is as under –
Date of enrolment – 30 October 1982.
Date of retirement – 31 October 2006 (A/N).
Date of birth – 25 April 1962.
PPO No – S/29763/2006 (ARMY)
Basic Pension as per 6 CPC – Rs 7750/-
Revised Basic Pension on acceptance of OROP – Rs 8425/-
It is observed that pension of X group Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar of 24 years service is equal i.e. Rs 11138/- as per table No 7 of circular No 555 dated 04 February 2016. But basic pension of Y group Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar of 24 years service is different. 24 years service of Naib Subedar basic pension is more than Honorary Naib Subedar of 24 years service & this diffrence between Honorary Naib Subedar& Naib Subedar of 24 years service is Rs 1004. In this circular in table No 7 Y group Honorary Naib Subedar basic pension is Rs 8425 & 24 years service of Naib Subedar basic pension is Rs 9424. It should be equal as OROP as implemented for X group 24 years service of Honorary Naib Subedar & 24 years service of Naib Subedar basic pension are equal.
Hony Rank of Naib Subedar granted to Havildar will be notionally considered as a promotion to the higher grade pay and will be allowed notionally for the purpose of fixation of pension only with effect 01 January 2006. The said decision has been communicated vide Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(8)/2008-D(Pay/Policy) dated 12 June 2009.
On the definition of OROP (Definition of One Rank One Pension – One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.) and government of India Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(8)/2008-D(Pay/Policy) dated 12 June 2009 pension of Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar should be equal in the same length of service.
Keeping view of the above and as mentioned table No 7 of circular No 555 dated 04 February 2016 for 24 years service of X group Naib Subedar & Honorary Naib Subedar basic pension has fixed at same rate or equal, so Y group 24 service of Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar basic pension should also be fixed at same rate or equal. Please consider it.
Please do the needful for necessary amendment or issue related instructions for rectify the observations or variable? An early action is requested.
I shall be highly obliged.
Thanking you with warm regards,
Yours obediently soldier,
Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar
PPO No – S/29763/2006 (ARMY)
Mobile No 09871081782

Chidambaram said...

There are lot of issues with regard to the OROP table and presently the one man commission is looking into it.
Is there any way that the authorities or the commission can publish a list of items or issues that are being examined by the commission, so that the effected parties and the stakeholders can examine it publicly and make sure that nothing is left out of his consideration.
This shall ensure that all aspects are covered and nobody has to run to the courts with grievances later on.

Regards

vijai kumar dudi said...

I 2879637W Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar (PPO No – S/29763/2006 (ARMY)
) have served in Army 24 Years & 02 days. My Basic Pension was Rs 7750/- as per 6 CPC and Rs 8425/- as per OROP.
It is observed that pension of X group Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar of 24 years service is equal i.e. Rs 11138/- as per table No 7 of circular No 555 dated 04 February 2016. But basic pension of Y group Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar of 24 years service is different. 24 years service of Naib Subedar basic pension is more than Honorary Naib Subedar of 24 years service & this diffrence between Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar of 24 years service is Rs 1004. In this circular in table No 7 Y group Honorary Naib Subedar basic pension is Rs 8425 & 24 years service of Naib Subedar basic pension is Rs 9424. It should be equal as OROP as implemented for X group 24 years service of Honorary Naib Subedar & 24 year’s service of Naib Subedar basic pension are equal.
Hony Rank of Naib Subedar granted to Havildar will be notionally considered as a promotion to the higher grade pay and will be allowed notionally for the purpose of fixation of pension only with effect 01 January 2006. The said decision has been communicated vide Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(8)/2008-D(Pay/Policy) dated 12 June 2009.
On the definition of OROP (Definition of One Rank One Pension – One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.) and government of India Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(8)/2008-D(Pay/Policy) dated 12 June 2009 pension of Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar should be equal in the same length of service.
Keeping view of the above and as mentioned table No 7 of circular No 555 dated 04 February 2016 for 24 years service of X group Naib Subedar & Honorary Naib Subedar basic pension has fixed at same rate or equal, so Y group 24 service of Honorary Naib Subedar & Naib Subedar basic pension should also be fixed at same rate or equal. Please consider it.

Saurabh Gupta said...

OROP be based on the pay structure in vogue. It's revision be based on the event of pay changes for any reason. Should be extended to PMR categories as well. A comprehensive paper covering my views on these issues has been written by me and is in circulation on Whatsapp.
Thanx
Col Saurabh Gupta (Retd)