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. 

Pension Parity Issue : Of Interest To Veterans Who Retired As Lt Col (Select And TS)

Following upon the previous blog post, and in light of  some blog posts read and discussed in recent years, not to forget the very recent news on the OROP matter, it is perhaps in order to highlight some very concrete issues, concerning veterans who retired as Lt Col, that need to be grasped if these are to be subjected to some form of formal representation.

For this purpose, the relevant portions of the relevant blog posts have been linked to, with highlights wherever applicable, at the bottom of this blog post.

Consider the case of a hypothetical veteran wishing to address the matter. Perhaps the first step should be an application by him to the appropriate directorate in respective Services HQs for a rationalisation of the table at Annexure A to MOD Letter No. 1(11)/2012-D(Pension/Policy) as attached to PCDA (Pensions) Circular No. 500 dated 17 January 2013. The hypothetical veteran would need that pensions shown for the ranks of Lt Col(TS), Lt Col and Col(TS) for a service of 26 years or more be fixed at the same level viz., 27795/-.

The grounds for the hypothetical veteran would be very straight forward:

• I retired in 1979/1989/1999/2003, 'A' retired in Dec 2004/2005.
• I had put in 26 years of service, 'A' had put in 26 years of service.
• I was superseded for not getting promoted to the first select rank, 'A' was superseded for not getting promoted to the first select rank.
• My pension has been fixed at 26265/- in table ibid whereas the pension of 'A' has been fixed at 27795/-.
• The above fixation of pension is therefore discriminatory and needs to be rectified from due date. (Note : It'll probably now be 01 Jan 2006, unlike OROP which will be effective from 01 April 2014).

The hypothetical veteran would need to be pretty clear in advance of the tone and tenor the services HQs would adopt while responding to a representation on those lines. But their response would at least give an inkling as to what the official reasoning is. It would also indicate what future avenues need to be explored for addressing the anomalous award of pensions.

Ideas and views expressed eloquently elsewhere in blog posts, comments and replies are all scattered and this blogger would like to take the liberty of collating and summarising the same here for ease of reference. The theme chiefly comprises of the need to view the uncalled for post-retirement down-gradation, of those who missed the promotion bus while in service, in light of the following:

•  Even if super-session was found justifiable on the basis of the organizational structure (the pyramid), the perceived necessity of having some sort of appraisal system (even if flawed) and the need to empower those placed in authority over others ( i.e. the initiating and reviewing Officers) with a means of obtaining conformance (by any means), it was never intended to be a kind of permanent punishment. Its bad effects after retirement have no justification, whatsoever.

• A superseded Officer more than paid for his error, acts of omission/commission or his plain bad luck, while in service for not having been able to obtain a high enough grading. He had to serve under former peers, even juniors, and never obtained any manner of financial parity with his peer group throughout his service years.

• After having endured, rightly or wrongly, the trials, tribulations and opprobrium of supersession as summarised above, the superseded Officer still has to his credit the number of years of service he had put in. This is a reality that cannot be washed or swept away. His retirement pension has to be determined keeping that in mind and it, by and large, is actually based on reckonable years of service.

• The problem arises only when someone with an equal number of years, also superseded, automatically gets a higher time-scale based rank many years later due to some change in promotion policy and, consequently, begins to draw a higher pension than the person who retired in the past, in-spite of all the normalisations, fitments and adjustments done by subsequent pay commissions.

The hypothetical veteran could do worse than obtaining full justifications from the numerous online discussions on the matter for seeking a correction/rationalisation from respective services HQs. Of course he could not quote opinions read on the web in official correspondence connected with his pension, but the basis for a representation would become that much clearer.

Some of the important online notings and discussions that this blogger has come across are linked to as follows :

• Para 11(d) of Minutes of Dec 2013 AGM of RDOA, with the relevant portions duly highlighted.
• Blog Post of Harmed Forces dated 13 February 2014.
• Blog Post of RDOA dated 06 March 2014.
• Discussions and comments on Aerial View blog post dated 27 June 2014 (Edit: Now no longer accessible in view of their deletion by Blog owner of 'Aerial View' blog).
• Blog Post of Sunlit dated 29 June 2014.
• Blog Post of CGENT dated 14 June 2014.

Short Changing The Non-Select (Up-dated)

There have been a number of references online as to how, during the period when provisions of IV CPC and V CPC were in force, armed forces officers, who had been overlooked for promotion to the select rank of Lt Col/Cdr/Wg Cdr, were denied the basic entitlement of the full rank pay of the ranks of Lt Col (and equivalent) on being given the corresponding Time-Scale ranks.

This subject has recently got attention in the context of the Rank Pay litigation. So, it would appear, these former colleagues, who had fallen afoul of the infamous promotional pyramid, and the sometimes less than rational rules and processes that define which officers would continue to stick onto the pyramid walls and which ones would plunge to career-doom, were further deprived of their dues even after losing seniority and picking up the payscale a couple of years after their peer-group. 

Judging from the amount of exposure the issue is now receiving on various blogs, it is indeed surprising why the matter was not taken up right when it arose. In fact, the role of services HQs relating to these issues is far from transparent. No matter how much blame gets heaped on the bureaucracy and the audit set-up, it is hard to understand how the whole rank-pay matter arose in the first place. Till date we have the rather unconvincing assertions of those who were at the helm, so to speak, to the effect that a very favourable fixation was obtained by them for officers of the armed forces at the time of IV CPC. We now know how far removed that view is from reality considering the manner in which all armed forces officers were deprived of what was their due and how litigation had to be resorted to obtain a resolution of the major issue.

But specific to the issue of rank pay applicable to TS ranks, one is even more puzzled as to why a simple issue was not resolved at the level of services HQs and Ministry of Defence right from the time of implementation of IV CPC. This blog post can merely link up various references to the matter so that this issue can receive attention, suggestions as well as discussion as to whether the matter needs to be taken up independently of the major on-going rank Pay litigation.

Chronologically, as rank pay was introduced by the Government at the time of implementation of recommendations of IV CPC, but independent of it, the confusion arose because probably the CPC OR the implementation authority needlessly arrogated to itself the authority to define what rank pay would apply to some one given the rank of Lt Col (and equivalent) on completion of the requisite length of service. At the most, IV CPC could have defined that officers holding the Lt Col (TS) rank would be accounted against Maj vacancies in the establishment.

If one really thinks clearly about it, perhaps even such a clarification from a pay commission, or in documents implementing the recommendations, was redundant and ought to have been left for the Government to define in other instructions and orders. To obtain further clarification, I had sought to raise the subject in a blog-post by RDOA by way of a comment. It also affected the time scale rank of Col for the period 16 Dec 2004 to 31 Dec 2005. But, at the time, I was wrong in assuming in the comment that a similar error would apply to Col(TS) post VI CPC. I understand now that it does not. A Col(TS) was given the same Grade Pay as a Col (select) with effect from 01 Jan 2006.

The error, or let's call it 'mischief', was further compounded at the time of V CPC which clearly laid down the different rank pays for 'Select' and 'Non-Select' ranks. This was inspite of the fact that a one-time grant of payscale of Lt Col was given to Officers who were given the Time-Scale rank. The fact that, by definition, rank-pay is integral to the pay-scale and the nomenclature of the corresponding rank was ignored on the basis of totally needless confusion created by flawed logic that because the time-scale officers were to be accounted against Maj vacancies they should get the rank pay of Maj. In other words, the non-select officers would be given the rank and the corresponding pay-scale but not the rank-pay defined by these two.

Blogs of Harmed Forces and RDOA had mentioned that the Govt. of India had reviewed the matter and "clarified" the definition of Rank Pay vide a letter dated 29 February 2000. But it remains unclear to this day whether any corrective action, representation or litigation exists in connection with this matter. It is surmised that the DGL on the total rank pay matter, issued by the services HQs, does rectify this anomaly, but that whole issue is now part of a contempt proceedings. It may not really hurt to share information whether there is a possibility to address this matter, independently of the contempt action, based on the Govt letter a link to which I had provided here.

{Edit}: Further reading on the subject on this Blog Post.