GM 20140716 – Comment on DGL for Implementation of APIP (‘OROP’)
Dear General Agarwal,
Your prompt acknowledgment of the copy of Memorandum to 7CPC and positive response is soothing to say the least. I am sure you will find enough material that can help in shaping our demand more in the interest of the Nation’s sovereignty than the interest of individual soldier.
I am attaching another document that deals with some reasonable comments on the draft Government letter on implementation of pension revision based on the concept of APIP. The DGL has caught the spirit of APIP. My comments are in no way in contradiction to what has been stated in the draft. My comments are aimed at clarity and specifics so that there is no scope for misinterpretation as it happened in the case of Rank Pay during 1986 – 95 and the case of Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band during 2006 till date.
Regards RN Radhakrishnan
..................................................................................................................................................................
DGL on APIP
and Effect of Future Enhancement
Section 1
SUGGESTIONS
IN NUTSHELL
I suggest
rephrasing the following paragraphs of the Draft Government Letter on APIP
(OROP):
Para 3(a) “In
the event that future retirement in a particular rank that was prevalent in the past does
not take place, the rank holders of the past pensioners of that particular rank shall be
deemed to have been granted non-functional financial up-gradation to the next higher rank
for the purpose of revising their pension and their pension shall be
accordingly revised”.
Para 3(d) “If
any provision is made that alters the pay structure, pension and the service condition
such as to enhance the pension of the personnel retiring in a future date, the prevalent
pension rule / table must be so modified as to extend the same enhancement to the past
pensioners, who are of the same rank and qualifying service, as well”.
Para 3(e) “It
is intended to ensure that all Armed Forces Pensioners of the same rank and same
qualifying service, are eligible to same pension, wef 01.04.2014. This will be achieved by
revising the pensions of all pensioners with reference to the maximum pension drawn by the
pensioners who retired wef 01.07.2013. The minimum qualifying service that has entitled
the maximum pension shall be considered for equating the qualifying service of the past
pensioners”.
Para 9(b)
“The linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is removed for all
pensioners”.
Effect of
Assured Career Progression “A sound principle has been proposed in Para 9(n),
taking into
account that officers are retiring in the rank of Colonels after 01.01.2006. This proposal
should also be extended to all pensioners of the rank of Jawan to Havildar,
enabling
them to draw
the pension at par with Nb Sub”.
DISCUSSION IN
DETAIL
1. The battle for grant of Absolute
Parity in Pension (APIP) seems to have been, at last won. (Please
note that I prefer the use of ‘APIP’ in place of ‘OROP’ as ‘OROP’ by itself
conveys a definition,
unintended by us). I use the word ‘seems’, because I still fear that the
bureaucracy
may not have
the grace to concede so easily and accept the Draft Government Letter (DGL),
prepared by
the VII army Pay Commission Cell, copy of which has been forwarded to the
President
IESL on 16 Jun, 2014 for comments. I am hopeful and confident that the
Legislators
of the
present Parliament, the Defence Minister and the Prime Minister are quite clear
on what
the Armed
Forces Veterans expect from them, as for APIP is concerned.
2. I have some observations to make on
this DGL. I have discussed those in the succeeding paragraphs.
Major Dhanabalan had interpreted the correct application of the clause on rank pay,
recommended by 4CPC. It has taken more than two decades. Yet, the
interpretation has not been
accepted by the Government for implementation in its entirety, in spite of
clear and repeated
directions by the Apex Court of Law. Similarly, I had interpreted the correct application
of the phrase ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ way back in Jan 2009 and had written to
all concerned, including the three Chiefs. But the matter had to be taken to
AFT, CAT and the
Courts. SC had ruled in our favor, not once but thrice. Yet, we are waiting for
the implementation.
We have seen, in many cases, how words were twisted to mean entirely
differently
and therefore, there is prudence in leaving no scope for ambiguous
interpretation.
With such
intention I have studied this paper and made these observations..
3. Under Paragraph 2 of the DGL a quote
from DESW order (file reference of the Order is missing),
as reproduced below.
The DESW
order also reiterates “The principle of OROP implies that uniform pension be
paid to the Armed Force 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 automatically passed on to the past pensioners.”
(The emphasize, by way of underlining, is mine.)
These words
are the same as found under paragraph 3 of the Report, dated December 16th,
2011, by Shri
BHAGAT SINGH KOSHYARI, Chairman Committee on Petitions, on a petition by
Shri Rajeeve
Chandrasekhar on behalf of a few Armed Forces Veterans. The paragraph deals
with the
‘Concept of One Rank One Pension’. This report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha
and I
presume that
the Rajya Sabha had adopted it, unanimously.
4. A lot of water has flown under the
bridge since then, and we find a draft DGL being
circulated
for comments by the Pay Commission Cell AHQ. The draft by and large has
captured the spirit of
the concept of APIP, as defined by the Veterans and as reflected in the report
by the Committee
of Petition. However, a few aspects need fine tuning. These aspects have been discussed in
reasonable detail in the succeeding paragraphs.
Para 3(a)
5 It is
stated: “Rank of the pensioner at the time of retirement is same as serving officer.”
This statement does not convey proper meaning. The rank of the pensioner is the
same as the one in
which he served at the time of the retirement. We understand that, with time scale
promotions having been accepted for implementation, there is perhaps no scope
for future direct
commissioned officers retiring as Lt to Lt Col. Most of them will rise to the
rank of Colonels and
retire in the future. However, I presume honorary ranks and ranks of SL Commissioned
officers are likely to be in the range of Lt to Lt Col. Rank prevalent in the
Armed Forces at the
time of retirement must be honored. In the event that no future retirement in any
particular rank is envisaged, then the past pensioner holding such a rank must
also be deemed to
have risen to the nearest higher rank, in which future retirement takes place. Similar must
be the case for all ranks from Jawan to Sub Maj. I would suggest that this statement
being redundant should be removed. Alternately the sentence may be rephrased as follows:
“In the event
that future retirement in a particular rank that was prevalent in the past
does not take place, the rank holders of the past pensioners of that
particular rank shall be deemed to have been granted non-functional financial
up-gradation to the next higher rank for the purpose of revising their pension
and their pension shall be accordingly revised”.
Para 3(d)
6 It is
stated: “future enhancements in pension will automatically be passed on to past
pensioners”.
The note in brackets clarifies it as ‘This does not imply yearly increments.’
It
further
states that ‘This could be bunching, could also be in the regime of Pay
Commission, as
well as
future awards regarding pay and pension’.
7 This needs
specific clarification. As a matter of fact the prevalent situation is that the
higher
pension is being drawn by an officer of a rank retiring later than his senior
who has
retired in
the same rank with equal or more qualifying service, very much because of the
increments to
which the personnel serving in and after 2006, are eligible to. Therefore, the
sentence
‘This does not imply yearly increment’ is likely to very much mislead.
8 The pay
fixation as on Jan 01, 2006 and further progress in the revised pay structure
was flawed
due to,
a. Arbitrary
multiplication formula for stepping up consolidated pay in the pay scale
prevalent
prior to Jan 01, 2006
b. Bunching
up as a result of (a) above
The result of
the faulty pay revision is that the most-senior in the prevalent scale, having
stagnated and
got as many as three stagnation increments, was permitted just about four to
five
increments, not the full compliment, in the revised pay scale, thereby
permitting juniors to
draw more, as
many as eight, increments and consequently, more pension.
9 The concept
of APIP deals with just this anomaly. Bunching up does not result in
enhancement
of pension. On the contrary, it is faulty as two officers of the same rank,
differing in
qualifying years of service by one year, stand to draw same pension on
retirement.
Further the
word ‘automatically’ does not place responsibility on any for such passing of
enhanced
pension to the past pensioners. Therefore, I would suggest the following
clarification
to replace
the existing one:
“If any
provision is made that alters the pay structure, pension and the service
condition such as to enhance the pension of the personnel retiring in a future date,
the prevalent pension rule / table must be so modified as to extend the
same enhancement to the past pensioners, who are of the same rank and
qualifying service, as well”.
Para 3(e)
10 In this
Para it is stated: ‘Therefore, current pensioners are the pensioners who
retired
between
01.07.2013 and 31.03.2013 while past pensioners are those pensioners who
retired
earlier’.
11 This
statement implies that there are two classes of pensioners based on date of
retirement
which aspect was the bone of contention and stands well settled by the Judgment
of
a
Constitution Bench of Apex Court. There cannot be more than one class of
pensioners based
merely on the
date of retirement. What is intended by means of this clarification note is
that
the datum for
revising the pension of all the past pensioners is taken from the pensioners
who
retired
between 01.07.2013 and 31.03.2013. Of course, it is rightly presumed that the
maximum pension in
any rank as on 01.04.2014 is likely to be from those pensioners retiring during
this period. It
must be borne in mind that the maximum pension and the minimum years of
qualifying service must
be the basis for granting APIP.
12 Therefore,
I believe that it would be better to remove this classification of current and
past
pensioners based on date of retirement. Instead the following provision may be
included:
“It is
intended to ensure that all Armed Forces Pensioners of the same rank and same
qualifying service, are eligible to same pension, wef 01.04.2014. This will be
achieved by revising the pensions of all pensioners with reference to the
maximum pension drawn by the pensioners who retired wef 01.07.2013.
The minimum qualifying service that has entitled the maximum pension shall
be considered for equating the qualifying service of the past pensioners”.
Para 9(b)
13 It states:
“The linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is removed for
all past
pensioners like in the case of current pensioners”.
14 As
classifying pensioners as past and future amounts creating two classes of
pensioners,
the reference
to past and current may be omitted, as given below:
“The linkage
of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is removed for all pensioners”.
Assured
Career Progression
15 It is the
intention of the Government to ensure a minimum of three promotions in the
interest of
Assured Career Progression to the extent possible. Accordingly, a Jawan is
entitled
to the
promotion to the rank of Nb Sub. I do not know how this is being implemented in
the
Armed Forces,
as the retirement age has not been increased to suit time scale promotions. I
suppose that
non-functional financial up-gradation is being adopted. If not, it should be.
And
such up-gradation
must be extended to the all pensioners, irrespective of the date of
retirement. I
suggest the following for consideration:
“A sound
principle has been proposed in Para 9(n) taking into account that officers are
retiring in the rank of Colonels after 01.01.2006. This proposal should also
be extended to all pensioners of the rank of Jawan to Havildar, enabling them
to draw the pension at par with Nb Sub.”
Keeping the
above in view the pension tables attached to draft letter needs modification.
The
present
tables show the pension eligibility of the pensioners of the ranks of Lt to Lt
Col, only as
per those
ranks. Their eligibility in terms of Para 9(n) has not been incorporated.
Similarly,
the table
must be modified for the ranks of Jawan to Havildar, to honor the promise of
assured
career
progression. In other words, all of these three ranks with Qualifying Service
of 15
to 23 years
are entitled to a pension of 11635.
16 Wherever
mention of current/ past pensioner is made, suitable rewording may please be
adopted.
(The above section
was forwarded to VII Pay Commission Cell 0n July 01, 2014, however some minor
modifications have been carried out subsequently and incorporated in this
version)
Section 2
Pension for
Commissioned Officers of Ranks below Colonel
17. Applying similar
principle as given above and keeping in view Para 9(n), I suppose all
directly
Commissioned Officer who retired in rank below the rank of Colonel should also
be
entitled to
the pension appropriate to the Rank of Colonel as given under column for Colonel,
in
the Table of
Pension for Officers.
18. However,
this aspect needs careful and prudent evaluation. Government’s acceptance of
APIP seems to
have created a lot of resentment in the bureaucracy. Allotment of 1000 crores
in the recent
budget has raised some doubts if APIP is proposed in its entirety or some
riders
are being
considered by the bureaucracy. I, for one, believe that the present Government
will
not risk
irking the Veteran Community. Therefore, prudence dictates that we let the Government
Order be issued and implemented. If anomaly arises, we can take it up subsequently.
Seeking perfection at this stage may suit the bureaucracy to delay or even
defer till
7CPC concludes its recommendations.
Unreasonableness
of Qualifying Service
19 It is seen
from the table that a Colonel. a Brigadier and a Lt Gen earn their maximum
pension on
completion of 33, 35 and 39 years of Qualifying Service, respectively. This is
reasonable as
the average age on commission is likely to be around 21 and a Colonel the
Brigadier and the Lt
Gen retire at the age of 54, 56 and 60 respectively. However, the Qualifying
Service for maximum
pension in the case of the Major General is not in tune with the trend. A
Brigadier retires at
the age of 58, generally, thereby putting in Qualifying Service of 37 years
only. Therefore, it
is obvious that stipulating 39 years of service for Major General at par with
Lt Gen is
anomalous. See the figures below picked up from the table appended to DGL:
Rank Colonel
Brig Maj Gen Lt Gen
Qualifying
Service in years 33 35 39 39
20 From the
table above, it is very obvious that the Qualifying Service requirement for
Major General
is out of the trend and the stipulated figure of 39 is either arbitrary or the
result of
irrational revision of pay for the Major General. This needs to be corrected to
read as
37, keeping
in the trend of 33, 35, 37 and 39. Let us not forget that the enhancement of
retiring age
for each successive rank is a uniform 2 years, all along, in the history of the
Armed
Forces
Service.
Disability
Pension and Ordinary Family Pension
21 The table
reflects the disability pension for 100% disability. It is observed that the
Disability
Pension for 100% disability in the cases of all the ranks from Sepoy to General
except that of
Lieutenant is the same as the Ordinary Family Pension. In the case of
Lieutenant it is less by 2000
as shown below:
a. Ordinary
Family Pension 15036
b. Disability
Pension for 100% disability 13036
This is
anomalous. It perhaps is typographical error, as disability pension for 100%
disability is
@60% of the
service pension, similar to the Ordinary Family Pension. Therefore, a note to
the
effect
“Disability Pension for 100% disability is at the rate of 60% of the Service
Pension”
should serve
the purpose better. However, I will personally recommend that Disability
Pension for
100% disability must be at the rate of 100% or much more of the service
pension,
depending on the age when the disability occurred.
22. Similar
note should be added for the ordinary family pension as well, reiterating the
principle
behind the figures in the Tables. Ordinary Family Pension, however, should be
at
par with the
Pension drawn by the Pensioner. Is it fair to penalize the widow for the loss
of
her spouse by
reducing the pension? The pensioners while living would have supported by the
spouse by way
of possible additional income plus moral and physical support. Is it fair for
the
Government to
adopt a system that leads to earning revenue at the rate of 40% of the Pension
at the cost
of the demise of the pensioners?
Modalities
for Initial Fixation and Future Enhancement
23 Para 9(a)
describes the implementation modalities and it reads:
“In order to
implement OROP, the initial up-gradation of pension will be made with
effect from
01 Apr 2014 and thereafter on 01 July every year starting 01 July 2014 (after
taking into account the annual increment). This will ensure automatic enhancement
of rates of pension for past pensions based on the future pensions.”
This clause
catches the essence of APIP and is in the true spirit. The implications, I am sure,
must have
been well deliberated. However, I would like to spell it out the effect of
enhancement
due to annual increment, for better understanding, as follows (please refer to
the tables 1
and 2 of the Appendix ‘A’):
a. A colonel
retiring during end July 2014 and end December 2014 with 34 years of
Qualifying
Service (QS) stands to get a pension of 39941 after his pay has been
incremented
on Jul 01, 2014, whereas the one who retires during end July 2015 and end
December 2015
with the same years of Qualifying Service, after getting his second
increment on
Jul 01, 2015 stands to get a lower pension of 39045. This is due anomalous
pay fixation
adopted during 2006 to 2015. Thus, pension, upgraded to 39941 as on 01
Aug 2014 is
the maximum for Colonels with QS as 34. It is also seen that a Colonel
retiring in
the period from Aug 01, 2016 to Jul 31, 2016 with 34 years of QS stands to
get a pension
of 40099. The interesting question that arises is that if the 7CPC
recommendations
are not implemented by that time will the Colonels with QS of 34
years get the
pension 40099, and the pension of the past pensioners accordingly
increased.
b. A
Brigadier, however, retiring during end July 2014 and end December 2014 with
34 to 36
years of QS stands to get a pension of 40106, whereas the one, who retires
during end
July 2015 and end December 2015 with 34 to 36 years of Qualifying Service
stands to get
a higher pension of 40950, the maximum possible pension. Thus, pension
upgraded to
40950 on 01 Aug 2015 is the maximum for Brigadiers with QS as 34
and more.
This pension is short of 41500 the pension due to major General short by
mere 550,
half of the difference in the Grade Pays of these two ranks.
24. A
corollary is an interesting question if the pension of Major Generals and Lt
General
will also be
enhanced to keep the existing edge over the junior ranks undisturbed. Natural
Justice
demands it. These are all the maladies created due to the ludicrous
simplification of pay structure
into four pay bands and equally atrocious pay fixation leading to bunching up
and
deprival of
legitimate higher pay for the seniors.
25. Let us at
least make amends while revising the pension.
END OF PAPER
Appendix ‘A’
(Refers to
Para 23)
Table 1 -
CASE OF COLONEL
1 Qualifying
Service in years 31 32 33 34
2 Proposed
Pension as on 01-04-2014 36950 36975 38865 38865
3 Emolument
Qualifying for pension 73900 73950 77730 77730
4 Military
Service Pay (MSP) 6000 6000 6000 6000
5 Grade Pay
(GP) 8700 8700 8700 8700
6 Pay in the
Pay Scale 59200 59250 63030 63030
7 Retirement
Age 54 54 54 54
8 Possible
Age on Commission 20 to 23 20 to 22 20 to 21 20
9 Possible QS
left for Retirement in years 3 2 1 NIL
10 1.
Increased Pay as on 01-08-2014 61237 61289 65182 NA
11 Expected
Pension as on 01-08-2014 37969 37995 39941 NA
12 2.
Increased Pay as on 01-08-2015 63336 63389 NA NA
13 Expected
Pension as on 01-08-2015 39018 39045 NA NA
Table 2 -
CASE OF BRIGADIER
1 Qualifying
Service in years 32 33 34 35 36
2 Proposed
Pension as on 01-04-2014 39020 39025 39025 39025 39035
3 Emolument
Qualifying for pension 78040 78050 78050 78050 78070
4 Military
Service Pay (MSP) 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000
5 Grade Pay
(GP) 8900 8900 8900 8900 8900
6 Pay in the
Pay Scale 63140 63150 63150 63150 63170
7 Retirement
Age 56 56 56 56 56
8 Possible
Age on Commission 20 to 24 20 to 23 20 to 22 20 to 21 20
9 Possible QS
left for Retirement in years 4 3 2 1 NIL
10 1.
Increased Pay as on 01-08-2014 65302 65312 65312 65312 NA
11 Expected
Pension as on 01-08-2014 40101 40106 40106 40106 NA
12 2.
Increased Pay as on 01-08-2015 67000 67000 67000 NA NA
13 Expected
Pension as on 01-08-2015 40950 40950 40950 NA NA
NOTE:
a. Increased
Pay against ser 10 and 12 is by adding the annual increment @3% on the pay
and grade pay
drawn before the increment is due.
b. Pension
against ser 11 and 13 is half of the sum of pay, grade pay and MSP.
END
