OROP Revision As Applicable To Pensioners In Rank Of Lt Col

OROP as revised wef 01 July 2019 for Lt Col pensioners suffers from the same ambiguities as the original OROP fixation with effect from 01 Jul 2014.

Though OROP was fixed and revised based on the average of actual minimum and maximum pensions of ESM retiring in 2013 and 2018, respectively, in the same rank and with the same qualifying service (QS), it is well known that after Dec 2004, no Officer with a regular commission and with QS more than 26 years would have actually retired in rank of Lt Col. So there is a total lack of clarity about the basis for fixing OROP, and its recent revision, for Lt Col rank with QS more than 26 years.

The question reduces to which Lt Col specifically had the minimum pension in 2013 and 2018 and which specific Lt Col had the maximum pension in these two years. Why weren’t these Lt Cols in the rank of Col(TS) at QS of 26 years in 2013 and 2018?

With this background, what can be the logical basis for fixing and revising the OROP of old Lt Col pensioners with QS more than 26 years?

If an older regular commission Lt Col pensioner was serving beyond Dec 2004, he would be in the rank of Col(TS) on time-bound basis. It has been frequently suggested that a suitable basis for pension parity for a Lt Col with QS more than 26 years would be the pension of a Col(TS) with equal QS. It needs to be understood very clearly the case of asking for Col(TS) pension for older Lt Col pensioners with QS more than 26 years is a legal minefield and needs to be avoided.

What older Lt Col pensioners with QS more than 26 years ought to consider demanding by way of information is the exact basis on which their OROP had been fixed from 2014 and now revised from 2019, when no Lt Col with as much QS would have retired in 2013 or 2018. The basis has to conform with the principle of inter temporal equity clearly enunciated by 7 CPC.

In such a situation, the matter of rank becomes a secondary factor. It has been argued that older Officer time-bound ranks were not the same as current time-bound Officer ranks due to the stark difference in QS required to attain the two.

In this case, the basis for establishing parity and equivalence in terms of OROP have to be the common factors of the regular commission and QS. Obviously, the older Lt Col pensioner would seek equivalence based on pensions attained in 2013 and 2018 with the same QS in ranks that are time-bound, not some higher select rank.

The older Lt Col pensioner with QS more than 26 years can seek parity based on principles of equal remuneration for equal work and inter temporal equity, not specifically for the pension of a higher rank. It is for the authorities to decide how the parity is to be established. If there were no retirees in Lt Col rank in 2018 with QS more than 26 years, it can’t be the basis for limiting the revised OROP for this rank-QS combination at a 7CPC pension applicable at a QS of approximately 25 years even if the older Lt Col retiree had put in more service than 25 years.

The recent OROP revision for Lt Col pensioners with QS from 26 years to 31+ years has fixed the revised OROP at the same level of Rs.95400/- which roughly translates to the pension applicable in 7 CPC Matrix Level 12A, in respect of a hypothetical Lt Col retiring in 2018, with a QS of approximately 25 to 26 years. So any Lt Col pensioner who had actually retired with QS more than 26 or 27 years in the past stands discriminated against even while using the pension of a hypothetical Lt Col retiree of 2018 as a basis. The loss would be different if the pension applicable to Col(TS) for the same QS was considered a basis for parity.

A table is placed below by way of illustration

As an example

• • Can it be said that a hypothetical Lt Col retiring in 2018 with a QS of 30 years would be at increment stage 18 of Level 12A of the revised 7CPC Matrix (Stage 1 is assumed to start at 13 years for the Lt Col retiring in 2018)?

  • Would the hypothetical Lt Col not have been drawing a 7CPC pay of 192800/- at increment stage 18 for which the pension would have been 107850/-? So, the revised OROP of Rs.95400/- for a Lt Col with QS of 30 yrs would be less by Rs.12450/- as compared to the pension of the hypothetical Lt Col retiree of 2018 with a QS of 30 yrs.

  • But that is hypothetical. In reality, the 2018 retiree with QS of 30 yrs would be a Col (TS) with a 2018 pension of Rs.100900/- as revised from 01 Jul 2019 by the Govt in Table 1 of the Policy for OROP revision. Again the revised OROP of 95400/- of a Lt Col with QS of 30 years would be less by Rs. 5500/- than the Col(TS) retiree of 2018 with equal QS.

  • In any case, the revision of OROP for Lt Col with QS of 30 yrs at Rs.95400/- definitely needs clarification as this pension corresponds to Stage 13 to 14 in Level 12A of 7 CPC Matrix, ie a QS of app 25 years. If no Lt Col retired with a QS of 30 years in 2018, there is a need to decide what would be the logical and fair basis of revising and fixing OROP of a Lt Col with a QS of 30 years. Fixing his pension at the level of a 2018 Lt Col retiree with a QS of 25 years may not be the proper solution.

To fully understand the OROP anomaly relating to Lt Col, this blog post too needs to be referred to 👉🏼 http://bit.ly/2JdMWou