After issue of the recent press-note on the subject, total uncertainty prevails over whether VII CPC pensions will be meaningfully re-fixed for armed forces veterans.
There are some issues that need to be considered before proceeding with even guess-work on the matter:
- Would the VII CPC Pension re-fixation take place by multiplying the Circular 555 OROP pension with higher multiplication factors now applicable to some levels (eg 2.67x in-place of 2.57x for Lt Col)?
- Would the OROP fixed vide Circular 555 have to be first converted to an equivalent notional VI CPC Pay which then would be multiplied by the new multiplication factor and the nearest higher VII CPC pay in the “revised matrix” then be selected to establish a notional VII CPC pay for working out the revised VII CPC pension?
Conjecture and guess-work point towards a few alternatives, tabulated here for the rank of Lt Col, for feedback and views:
|Estimates Of Refixation Of VII CPS Pensions As Co-related To OROP : Pre 2016 Lt Col Retirees|
|Q.S.||OROP Vide Circular 555||Notional VI CPC Pay Equivalent To OROP Fixed Vide Circular 555||2.67x(Notional VI CPC Pay+GP)||Nearest Estimated 2.67x Multiplier Based VII CPC Matrix pay||VII CPC Pension As presently Applicable i.e. Rounded OROPx2.57||Estimated Revised VII CPC Pension Based On Estimated Notional Pay Corresponding To Notional Pay||Estimated Revised VII CPC Pension Based On Circular 555 OROP x 2.67|
|33 and above||34765||55530||169625.1||172700||89347||94100||92823|
To be absolutely clear, the above approximations come nowhere near what a proper fixation ought to be. Firstly, the OROP used as a basis is itself in need of rationalization. The OMJC recommendations on OROP anomalies are not yet in the public domain and the implementation status or timeline are not known. Also, till such time the matter of linking up QS of pre 2006, especially pre Dec2004, retirees with levels and index numbers of VII CPC matrix is resolved, the “inter temporal equity” principle enunciated in recommendations of VII CPC would not have been complied with. Though the figures in that earlier blog post were based on unmodified IOR of 2.57x, the contents still serve to illustrate the issues involved.
A linked and important issue is that for level 12A, parity for QS more than 26 years actually needs to be based on Level 13 applicable to Col(TS).
For a purely speculative guesswork based estimate, a view of the expected modification to Levels 12A and 13 of the matrix with IOR of 2.67 in-place of 2.57 and showing the sought-after 26 years parity point for Lt Col and Col(TS) pensions, a table may be viewed with this link for providing feedback, corrections and views.