The VII CPC Matrix : Over To Mr. Anderson

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.

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?

OROP : Some Considerations Relevant To Time Bound Promotions

The veteran community was more than just a little concerned when references to implementation of OROP failed to materialize in the budget speech on 28 February 2015.

If OROP does come through soon, the only conceivable doubts can be about what would be the cut off date selected for equating pensions of older retirees with current ones and what would be the procedure adopted, if any, for ensuring that pensions for the same service in the same rank stay at the same level.

When there is constant talk of "modalities" and "calculations", the lack of sincerity becomes a bit obvious. What modalities and which calculations? All that is required is to see what was the maximum pension on 01 April 2014 of a current retiree in a certain rank and with a specific number of years of service. Then, all that has to be done is to ensure all previous retirees in the same rank and with the same service get the same amount of pension from 01 April 2014. Where is the calculation involved? It is just a matter of reading records from a table composed of existing pay details.

On the Aerial View Blog, a copy of the services DGL, made available for all to read, makes it very clear how straight forward the issue is. Here is a link for reference https://bit.ly/2Ry3RFO

What is really pertinent is how sincere the implementation will be in providing solutions, in the case of veteran Officers, to issues that resulted from disparities in pensions applicable to time bound ranks. The term "Select" and "Time Scale" is, on purpose, not being used in view of the welcome, though much delayed, instructions from Army Headquarters to do away with this far from dignified method of qualifying a rank for no real official or administrative reason.

The services DGL is quite specific on this. The letter makes it clear that the pension of an old time Major veteran who had completed 20 to 25 years of service at retirement ought to get the OROP pension of a Lt Col (now a time bound rank) with an equal number of service years on the cut off date, similarly, a veteran who had retired as Major or Lt Col before cut off date after completing 26 years of service, should get  pension equivalent to that of an Officer with the present time bound rank of Col with equal service.

The services DGL also clarifies that in case the service required for time bound promotion reduces in future, then the pensions of older retirees would have to be re-fixed accordingly. As an example, if the time bound Col rank is given in future at service of 23 years instead of 26, if not earlier as it rightfully should be given, then all previous pensioners holding ranks of Maj and Lt Col with more than 26 23 years of service would become eligible to the pension of a retiree with time bound rank of Col.

What is strange is that reports of very recent meetings between some representatives of ESM and Hon'ble RM do not convey the impression that these aspects have been touched upon. There was just a mention of the pension of pre 96 Majors with 21 years of service needing to be made equal to that of Lt Col. Some details of that meeting are available here http://goo.gl/dyz3Ba

Even now, when the whole OROP subject is stated to be nearing some sort of finalization, there is an urgent requirement that all affected veterans recognize these issues and that associations representing veterans' interests are fully abreast.