Monday 3 October 2016

Item No. 1 Annexure : GOI, MOD, DESW Resolution 30 Sep 2016


Till such time PCDA actually issues a Circular for implementing VII CPC pensions for ESM, it would be prudent, given past experiences, to not quite start pouring out the bubbly.


In any case, the first step of paying out pensions at 2.57xOROP would be well short of the matrix based pensions that VII CPC had recommended. The "Resolution" speaks of implementation of matrix based pensions subject to feasibility. The "Resolution" also raises questions about the methodology of fixing the stage in the matrix for an ESM as has been highlighted in the extract as embedded here:


Nothing seems to have changed from the time in December 2015 when these issues were first mentioned.

Monday 4 January 2016

Left Over Issues Of The Rank Pay Matter : Why Old Anomalies Remain Un-Addressed

Some of the contents of this blog post would be repetitions of what has been stated earlier. However, this blogger felt it relevant to revisit the issue in context of a rather disconcerting experience, a few days ago, while interacting with another blog (now closed-down by the parent Association) that seeks to represent concerns of ex-servicemen.

The issue was the widely recognized anomaly of how the Officers who were promoted on time-bound basis, as opposed to by selection, to rank of Lt Col during the period covered by IV CPC and also by V CPC (till 16 Dec 2004), received the rank pay of Major in-spite of having been given the rank and pay-scale of Lt Col. At that time, this had been based on the strange logic that because the Officers holding, what was called, the time-scale rank of Lt Col were accounted against establishment posts / vacancies of Major so were eligible to be paid rank-pay of Major and not Lt Col.

Everybody and his uncle is now aware, or would be unless they had put on intellectual blinkers that some in the ESM community have a particular liking for, that rank pay is identified by the rank and pay-scale. Rank, Rank-Pay and pay-scale form one integral whole. There are legal judgments on the subject. There was no sound basis at all for giving the rank pay of Major to an Officer who had been given the pay-scale of a Lt Col and substantive rank of Lt Col, whether on select or time-scale basis.

By definition, rank pay has nothing to do with the establishment post or vacancy filled. It has everything to do with the rank and it's corresponding pay-scale. The Government had issued a letter on the subject and can be read by clicking on this link.

The comment that I interacted with on the other blog chose to shrug off the matter by mis-representing some facts. The issue relates to the entire duration of V CPC upto 16 Dec 2004 and not just to IV CPC as the person making the comment sought to project. The monthly loss in rank pay to each Officer holding the time-scale rank of Lt Col was Rs.400/- pm from 01 Jan 96 excluding the DA element.

While being critical of the length of my previous post on the matter and attempting to provide a rather erroneous view in a patchy "gist", one of the prime-movers of the association related with that other blog, in fact served to underline why some important veteran issues never get correctly dealt with or represented.


A link to the interaction on the other blog is at the end of this blog-post. The most important aspect of that little interaction is the resulting realization that if people, ostensibly in the forefront of fighting for veteran causes, choose to take the defeatist stance of, "Its too late to do anything now", or, "We can offer nothing but our sympathy", and, worst of all, "The Govt felt it should be that way", then perhaps the affected persons should make a note of the lack of grasp of issues on the part of entities that ought to show greater awareness of veteran matters.

In such cases, affected individuals need to take a leaf out of Maj Dhanapalan's book and independently get matters scrutinized thoroughly for correction through legal means.

Let us not forget, the rank-pay 'shortfall' also resulted in a a lower fixation of pensions for all of the similarly affected Officers who retired between 01 Jan 1996 and 15 December 2004.

Also, this matter was originally part of RDOA's contempt petition as a recent Twitter conversation reminded this blogger. It was listed at sub-para (h)of their rejoinder. As such, this shortfall ought to have attracted payment of interest as the rest of the rank pay arrears did. It is not clear whether RDOA are at all going to follow up on this aspect as judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court had left it to individuals to obtain correct fixation in respect of the Rank Pay contempt petition.

It can only be hoped this following table would be clear enough regarding the matter to anyone who feels challenged by text:

Shortfall In Payment To An Officer Given Rank Of Lt Col But Rank Pay Of Major (V CPC)
Difference Of Lt Col and Maj RP with DA
Period
Total Difference

400
01 Jan 96 To 30 Jun 96
2400

416
01 Jul 96  To 31 Dec 96
2496

432
01 Jan 97 To 30 Jun 97
2592

452
01 Jul 97  To 31 Dec 97
2712

464
01 Jan 98 To 30 Jun 98
2784

488
01 Jul 98  To 31 Dec 98
2928

528
01 Jan 99 To 30 Jun 99
3168

548
01 Jul 99  To 31 Dec 99
3288

552
01 Jan 00 To 30 Jun 00
3312

564
01 Jul 00  To 31 Dec 00
3384

572
01 Jan 01 To 30 Jun 01
3432

580
01 Jul 01  To 31 Dec 01
3480

596
01 Jan 02 To 30 Jun 02
3576

608
01 Jul 02  To 31 Dec 02
3648

620
01 Jan 03 To 30 Jun 03
3720

636
01 Jul 03  To 31 Dec 03
3816

644
01 Jan 04 To 31 Mar 04
1932

666
01 Apr 04 To 30 Jun 04
1998
Based on DP element of RP and DA on same
684
01 Jul 04 to 15 Dec 04 (Edit: Officers who continued to serve beyond this date would have got rank pay of Lt Col as the Lt Col(TS) rank was abolished from this date. But, Officers given the rank of Col(TS) at QS of 26 years, continued to get Rank Pay of Lt Col till 31 Dec 2005)
3762
Based on DP element of RP and DA on same
Total Shortfall To An Officer Given Rank Of Lt Col But RP Of Maj. The lower Rank Pay could have also affected Pay in 6 CPC as well as Pension.
58428*
*subject to validation.
**Intt ought to have been payable in       addition just as it was on the RP arrears.


{The interaction on the "other blog" can no longer be viewed as the Association had closed it down}.