OROP · pension

A Tale Of Two Parities

I had mentioned in my previous blog post dated 18 Aug 2016 that it would be better if the two very distinct grounds for re-fixing of OROP for pre Dec 2004 Lt Col veterans were represented on separately by individuals, groups and Associations.

Both issues have their own different strengths. In any case, one need not be pushed at expense of the other. In this regard my previous submission, in the blog-post dated 18 Aug, on the need for not getting confused by “differentials in status” etc might have a special relevance.

The differences in the two issues and approaches at resolving these are best highlighted in a table and a chart as follows (All data is for comparison and illustration only and is subject to correction/amendments):

QS

OROP LtCol/LtCol(TS)

OROP Col
(TS)

OROP Col

Difference
Between  OROP Pensions Of Pre Dec 2004 Lt Col (Select Only) And OROP Pensions
Of Current Col (Select) Pensioners Sought By Some Veterans And Associations
To Be Covered Up For Older Lt Col (Select) Pensioners On Basis Of Same Posts
Held

Difference
Between  OROP Pensions Of Pre Dec 2004 Lt Col (Both Select And TS) And OROP
Pensions Of Current Col (TS) Pensioners Sought To Be Covered Up For Older Lt
Col (Select and TS) Pensioners On Basis Of Same Length Of QS Reqd For
Time-Bound Rank Of Col(TS)

Figures From
PCDA Circular 555 (Subject To Re-check)

20

31305

31305

31990

685

 

20.5

31305

31305

32963

1658

21

31713

31713

33320

1607

21.5

31713

31713

33320

1607

22

32428

32428

33320

892

22.5

32428

32428

33685

1257

23

32428

32448

33685

1257

23.5

32428

32950

33690

1262

24

32428

33451

33770

1342

24.5

32428

33968

34055

1627

25

32775

34485

34485

1710

25.5

32813

34485

34485

1672

26

32813

34485

34485

1672

1672

26.5

33225

34485

34485

1260

1260

27

33225

34835

34835

1610

1610

27.5

33225

34835

34835

1610

1610

28

33225

35230

35230

2005

2005

28.5

33225

35230

35230

2005

2005

29

33225

35235

35235

2010

2010

29.5

33918

36130

36130

2212

2212

30

33918

36130

36130

2212

2212

30.5

33925

36130

36130

2205

2205

31

34303

36130

36130

1827

1827

31.5

34303

36130

36130

1827

1827

32

34765

36130

36130

1365

1365

32.5

34765

36130

36130

1365

1365

33

34765

36130

36130

1365

1365

Graphically, the distinction can be seen here (Readers may use the arrow button in the frame of the chart for a magnified view): { If that embedded chart does not open, readers may view it by clicking on this link}

{Edit}: A line graph with some observations may help in obtaining further clarity on related issues (Readers may use the arrow button in the frame of the chart for a magnified view):

If that embedded chart does not open, readers may view it by clicking on this link.

Advertisements

One thought on “A Tale Of Two Parities

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