The proposed matrix and recommendations under Chapter 5.2 and para 10.2.87, that form part of the VII Central Pay Commission recommendations of interest to defence services, have been more than just a little visible online following release of the recommendations.
It is still very early days yet and one would be extremely rash to jump to conclusions at this stage, especially those relating to post 01 January 2016 pensions of those who retired and will retire before 01 January 2016.
But the matrix does yield some puzzling aspects and perhaps we would need a Neo to come on the scene and be "The One" to sort things out for everyone affected.
Take for instance the levels 12A, 13 and 13A in the matrix. These would appear to relate to the ranks of Lt Col, Col and Brig respectively. The three levels have the same index of 2.57. If the numerals in the extreme left column are assumed to be annual increments, then we come to some interesting speculations.
If a former Lt Col retiree had 26 years of service to his credit, then even if he had retired before December 2004 when the rank of Col on time bound basis at service of 26 years had come into vogue, he would should correspond to the stage with 13 (13+13=26) increments. That would ought to place him at the pay point of 166300. His pension could then assumed to be 83200 90750, after factoring in 50% of MSP.
Under OROP, If a Lt Col did indeed retire in Dec 2015 with 26 years of service, then all previous retirees in that rank and with that much of service would then have to receive as much pension as this Lt Col. The number of increments such a Lt Col retiree would be eligible for would be the ones mentioned previously, viz., 13 (26-13=13).
However, that needs to be viewed in conjunction with the stipulation that the number of increments would be the actual increments earned in the corresponding pay band and not the number nowadays required to reach the number of years of service put in by a veteran.
Under OROP, If a Lt Col did indeed retire in Dec 2015 with 26 years of service, then all previous retirees in that rank and with that much of service would then have to receive as much pension as this Lt Col. The number of increments such a Lt Col retiree would be eligible for would be the ones mentioned previously, viz., 13 (26-13=13).
However, that needs to be viewed in conjunction with the stipulation that the number of increments would be the actual increments earned in the corresponding pay band and not the number nowadays required to reach the number of years of service put in by a veteran.
On the other hand, a Col retiree with 26 years of service would ought to have parity defined by the pay point 168900 under level 13 at 11 increments (15+11=26). That corresponds to a pension of 92200. The same rider, of increments earned as against number of increments required to attain years of service actually put in, applies here as well.
If these assumptions turned out to be correct, it would appear the pre / post AVS-I disparity between Lt Col and Col retirees with 26 years of service would remain.
But if the new matrix does bridge the pre and post AVS-I gap between pensions of Lt Col and Col rank(on time-bound promotion with 26 years of service), it would be a step in the right direction.
At first glance, the matrix does not appear to provide any resolution whatsoever in the case of a Maj retiree with 20 years of service. He is placed at a salary point of (6+14=20) {Edit: Bearing in mind the constraint of the lacuna of increments earned vs increments required to attain actual service} i.e. 101900 under level 11 with an index of 2.67. That yields a pension of 50950 58700. Compare this to the situation applying to a Lt Col also with 20 years of service who would be placed in level 12 at a salary point (13+7=20) of 139300 under level 12. That yields a pension of 73900 77400. The gap in this case is considerable.
But, as in the case of all half-baked speculations, the eventual reality is likely to be entirely different. If the number of actual increments is to be used, the pensions arrived at could be less than the above figures.
That raises an important question. In fact, several questions! If the number of actual increments earned is used, would it take a veteran to the point in the matrix, under the appropriate level, that would correspond to the number of years of service a veteran had actually put in?
If not, then would the criterion of "equal service" under OROP be satisfied by using the matrix? Would that not require that the number of increments required to reach the actual service be used to fix notional pay in the matrix rather than the increments actually earned?
That raises an important question. In fact, several questions! If the number of actual increments earned is used, would it take a veteran to the point in the matrix, under the appropriate level, that would correspond to the number of years of service a veteran had actually put in?
If not, then would the criterion of "equal service" under OROP be satisfied by using the matrix? Would that not require that the number of increments required to reach the actual service be used to fix notional pay in the matrix rather than the increments actually earned?
No comments:
Post a Comment