OROP · pension

OROP Anomaly : Maj Pensioners With QS >20 Yrs and Lt Col With QS >26 Years

The notification that the one man Judicial Committee on OROP anomalies would be visiting several places for getting direct views of veterans on anomalies, has led to a spurt of online discussions.

I noticed a reference to the widely cited anomaly regarding pensions of veterans who retired in the rank of Major, and equivalent, and had served for more than 20 years. They seek parity of pensions with those of 2013 Lt Col retirees with equal service. Here is a link to a group conversation.

The questions that need to be asked are:

  • From where were amounts of min and max pensions of Maj retirees of 2013, with more than 20 years of service, obtained to calculate OROP for older Maj pensioners when no Officer with a PC retires as Maj with more than 20 years of service. They are all Lt Col on time-bound basis at a QS of 13 years.
  • If any “notional progression” yardstick was adopted, what exactly was it? Why was “notional progression” or “extrapolation” not based on the actual realities of 2013 when Officers with PCs naturally progress on time-bound basis to rank of Lt Col at a QS of 13 years?

Exactly the same logic applies to Lt Col pensioners who had retired with more than 26 years of service before Dec 2004. Some months ago, I had seen some colorful graphical data on how OROP pensions vary with QS and as against pay-band based pensions. The anomaly related to Lt Col pensioners with more than 26 years of service can be summed up by reframing the questions applicable to older Maj pensioners, viz.,:

  • From where were amounts of min and max pensions of Lt Col retirees of 2013, with more than 26 years of service, obtained to calculate OROP for older Lt Col pensioners when no Officer with a PC retires as Lt Col with more than 26 years of service. They are all Col(TS) on time-bound basis at a QS of 26 years.
  • If any “notional progression” yardstick was adopted, what exactly was it? Why was “notional progression” or “extrapolation” not based on the actual realities of 2013 when Officers with PCs naturally progress on time-bound basis to rank of Col(TS) at a QS of 26 years?

Taking a cue from the graphical representations elsewhere, the anomaly for Lt Col can be concisely represented as follows (readers can use the “arrow” button in the frame for getting a magnified view) :

The data for OROP for Col(TS) pensions for QS less than 26 years published in the Govt tables (PCDA circular 555), as shown circled in the graph, again raises the query
from where were amounts of min and max pension figures for Col(TS) pensioners of 2013 with QS less than 26 years, obtained
when no Col(TS) can retire before QS of 26 years.

The same issues were presented in a slightly different context in this previous blog-post.

A similar graph applicable to Maj pensioners will follow shortly.

{Edit}: The graph for Major is as follows (readers can use the “arrow” button in the frame for getting a magnified view) :

Also, as mentioned previously, there are several charts and graphs on the web illustrating how OROP fixed for some ranks does not match the pension calculated based on pay-bands of VI CPC. Granted that there may not be some rank and QS combinations available for actual retirees in 2013, but how were OROP pensions then calculated?

In the case of a Wg Cdr/Lt Col/Cdr pensioner with 29.5 years of service, for instance, how was OROP pension fixed at Rs.33918/- ? If we calculate the pension based on PB 4, it comes to around Rs.40570/- with the starting point of PB-4 being taken as QS of 13 years. Either the OROP has to be based on that methodology or, as no Wg Cdr (with a PC) would have retired with more than 26 years of service in 2013, it has to be based on parity with actual OROP pension of a GpCapt(TS)/Col(TS)/Capt(TS)(IN) with 29.5 years of service, i.e. Rs.36130/-. Other than those two alternatives, what was the basis for fixing the OROP?

A self-explanatory graph, inspired by one I had seen, though arranged differently, is placed as follows. Please provide feedback in case some errors are detected (readers can use the “arrow” button in the frame for getting a magnified view):

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “OROP Anomaly : Maj Pensioners With QS >20 Yrs and Lt Col With QS >26 Years

  1. Prabhakar

    1. Sir, as per Govt of India Min of Defence Department of Ex-Servicemen welfare letter No 12(1)/2014/D(Pen/Policy)-Part II dated 03 Feb 2016 the rates of revised pension are to be implemented with effect from 01 Jul 2014 and pension of those who are in receipt of pension as on 01 Jul 2014 is to be revised in accordance of the pension tables annexed to the ibid letter. However, there is nothing mentioned about the revision of pension to those defence personal who retired after 01.07.2014. Please clarify this aspect. Further, a JCO retired on or before 01 Jul 2014 after rendering 30 years service in gp Y was granted basic pension of Rs 11970/- as per 6th CPC and his basic pension under OROP scheme is to be revised as Rs 12690/-. The same way a JCO of similar rank and service retired after 01 jul 2014 was also granted basic pension of Rs 11970/- but their pension has not been revised under OROP scheme. Thus not revising the pension of those who retired after 01 Jul 2014 is injustice with them. Please clarify this issue.

    Like

    1. Hi,

      The pensions of those who retired before 01 Jul 2014 is not the issue. The pensions of past pensioners was to be based on average of min and max pensions of 2013 retirees in same rank and with equal service. If the pension of a past retiree was less than this average, then his pension was raised to this average level. If the pension of someone was already equal or higher than this average then the pension was not changed.

      As the average was chosen, someone will always have a higher than average pension after 01 Jul 2014. If the point about choosing the highest pension drawn being used as basis for fixing OROP is accepted, then this variation will end. {Edit}: Also, variations in pensions for same rank and equal service for those retiring after 01 Jul 2014 would be brought under OROP at the next review, which some associations say should be done annually and not every five years. With the VII CPC matrix coming into effect from 01 Jan 2016, even the annual review may not be required as pointed out in this blog post (please click to read).

      Let’s see what is the outcome of all the representations made.

      Regards.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s