WRONG FIXATION OF PENSION OF JCOs/NCOs/ORs WEF 1.1.2006
BRIG S VIDYASAGAR VETERAN’S EXPLANATION
Since IESM has taken my name and tried to buttress their argument that everything is honky dory on pension front of JCOs and OR and produce a commentary from Maj Navdeep singh whom I do admire a lot for his work in fighting cases for Ex-Servicemen and widows of ESM, I thought I will be failing in my duty if I do not respond. The learned Advocate has commented “The Brig is unnecessarily asking people to file cases”.
Though I am not a lawyer by profession, I have few comments on the explanation given by Maj Navdeep Singh. I am reproducing his comment as under:-
Comment of Maj Navdeep Singh : In implementation of the decision of the Delhi High Court affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Government has issued the implementation instructions under question. For ranks other than Commissioned Officers, the instructions would apply from 01 Jan 2006 till 30 June 2009 since from 01 July 2009 onwards the anomaly stood removed and rendered redundant since all such personnel were as it is fixed on notional top of scales. For Commissioned Officers and Civilian pensioners, the instructions would apply from 01 Jan 2006 till 23 Sept 2012 since the anomaly was only removed on 23 Sept 2012
My (Brig S Vidyasagar Veteran’s Response. My military common sense tells me the following:-
If all anomalies are removed w.e.f. Jul 2009 then why that pension of NCOs has been further improved w.e.f. 24 Sep 2012? Just see the pension of Sepoy of Y group with 15 years’ service as given in various Circulars:-
A*=R NO
B*=QUALIFYING SERVICE
C*=PENSION AS ON JAN 2006 AS PER CIRCULAR 430
D*=PENSION AS ON 01 JUL 2009 AS PER CIRCULAR 501
E*=PENSION AS ON 24 SEP 2012 AS PER CIRCULAR 501
F*=ARREARS FROM JAN 2006 TO 30 JUN 2009
G*=PENSION ARREARS FROM JUL 2009 TO 23 SEP 2012
H*=TOTAL PENSION ARREARS
A* | B* | C* | D* | E* | F* | G* | H* |
1 | 15 | 3,500 | 4,603 | 5,102 | 73,724 | 28,752 | 1,02,476 |
2 | 15.5 | 3,555 | 4,695 | 5,196 | 75,519 | 28,867 | 1,04,386 |
3 | 16 | 3,625 | 4,787 | 5,291 | 76,669 | 29,040 | 1,05,709 |
4 | 16.5 | 3,694 | 4,879 | 5,385 | 77,820 | 29,155 | 1,06,975 |
5 | 17 | 3,764 | 4,971 | 5,480 | 78,970 | 29,328 | 1,08,298 |
6 | 17.5 | 3,834 | 5,063 | 5,574 | 80,075 | 29,443 | 1,09,518 |
7 | 18 | 3,904 | 5,155 | 5,669 | 81,225 | 29,616 | 1,10,841 |
8 | 18.5 | 3,973 | 5,247 | 5,763 | 82,376 | 29,731 | 1,12,107 |
9 | 19 | 4,043 | 5,339 | 5,858 | 83,526 | 29,904 | 1,13,430 |
10 | 19.5 | 4,113 | 5,431 | 5,952 | 84,631 | 30,019 | 1,14,650 |
11 | 20 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
12 | 20.5 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
13 | 21 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
14 | 21.5 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
15 | 22 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
16 | 22.5 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
17 | 23 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
18 | 23.5 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
19 | 24 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
20 | 24.5 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
21 | 25 | 4,182 | 5,523 | 6,047 | 85,827 | 30,192 | 1,16,019 |
22 | 25.5 | 4,252 | 5,615 | 6,047 | 82,606 | 24,891 | 1,07,497 |
23 | 26 | 4,322 | 5,707 | 6,047 | 79,385 | 19,590 | 98,975 |
24 | 26.5 | 4,391 | 5,799 | 6,047 | 76,209 | 14,289 | 90,499 |
25 | 27 | 4,461 | 5,891 | 6,047 | 72,988 | 8,989 | 81,976 |
26 | 27.5 | 4,531 | 5,983 | 6,141 | 74,092 | 9,104 | 83,196 |
27 | 28 & ABOVE | 4,600 | 6,075 | 6,235 | 75,243 | 9,219 | 84,462 |
What was anomaly and how did it get removed is not explained anywhere!
Let me explain this anomaly by taking help of MoD letter dated 08 Mar 2010 which I am reproducing for your benefit. English is a peculiar language and one word here and there changes entire complexion. Therefore let us see whether Min of Def implemented their own letter:
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Deptt. of Ex-servicemen Welfare,
No PC 10(1)/2009-D (Pen/Pol)
New Delhi Dated 8th March 2010
To
The Chief of the Army Staff,
The Chief of the Naval Staff,
The Chief of the Air Staff,
Subject: Implementation of the Government decision on the recommendations ofthe Cabinet Secretary’s Committee – Revision of pension in respect of Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) discharged prior to 01.01.2006.
Sir,
The undersigned is directed to state that in order to consider various issues on pension of Armed Forces pensioners, the Government had set-up a Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary. The Committee in its Report have recommended the following for pre-2006 PBOR pensioners –
1.1 Pre-10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners may be brought on par with post-10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners; and
1.2 To reduce the gap between the pensions of pre & post-1.1.2006 PBOR pensioners, following principle may be followed –
1.2.1 Pension of all pre-1.1.2006 PBOR pensioners may be reckoned with reference to a notional maximum in the post-1.1.2006 revised pay structure corresponding to the maximum of pre-Sixth pay commission pay scales as per fitment table of each rank.
1.2.2 To continue with the enhanced weightages awarded by the Group of Ministers (GOM) of 2006.
2. The above recommendations of the Committee have been accepted by the Government and the President is pleased to decide that with effect from 1st July 2009, service pension/special pension/invalid pension/service element of disability pension and service element of war injury/liberalized disability pension (in release cases only) of all pre-1.1.2006 PBOR pensioners of Army, Navy and Air Force (including DSC and TA) shall be reckoned at 50% of the notional pay in the post-1.1.2006 revised pay structure corresponding to the maximum of pay scales applicable from 10.10.1997 of the rank and group continuously held for last 10 months preceding invalidment/discharge. The amount so determined shall be the pension for 33 years of reckonable qualifying service including rank weightage (except for TA personnel) as provided under this Ministry’s letter No. 1(6)/98/D(Pension/Services) dated 3.2.1998 and enhanced vide this Ministry’s letter No. 14(3)/2008/D (Pen/Sers)/Vol-III dated 1.2.2006. For lesser period of qualifying service, this amount shall be proportionately reduced. The amount of pension finally arrived at shall be subject to a minimum of Rs. 3,500/- per month.
Let us concentrate on the most important part of the letter i.e. para 1.2.1 and try to understand what actually it conveys:-
1.2.1 Pension of all pre-1.1.2006 PBOR pensioners may be reckoned with reference to a notional maximum in the post-1.1.2006 revised pay structure corresponding to the maximum of pre-Sixth pay commission pay scales as per fitment table of each rank
It talks of notional maximum in the post – 01 Jan 2006 revised pay structure. So let us see what is this Revised pay structure for Sepoy of Y Group (in 6th CPC scales).
What is the notional maximum for Sepoy of 23 years’ service of Group Y corresponding to maximum in 5th CPC scales of pay? It is Rs 6000.
Then by applying 33 year rule pension for Sepoy Gp Y comes to : 6000 x (23 years’ service + 10 years rank weightage)/33 which is Rs 6000
But if you see the pension of Sepoy of Y Group with 23 years’ service in Circular 430 you will find pension fixed is Rs 5523. Is this not wrong figure?
Should it not be Rs 6000 which is top of scale? Here also Sepoys have been deprived of their hard earned pension.
Let me make table for all of you to prove to you how DAD guys make a Charlie out of faujis.
A*= SER NO
B*= Rank
C*= Maximum pay for 33 years’ service including Rank Weightage as given in Fitment Table of SAI 1/S/2008
D*= Entitled Pension @50% of Pay
E*= Pension as per Circular 430
F*= Loss suffered by JCOs and OR without DR per month
A* | B* | C* | D* | E* | F* |
1 | Sepoy X Gp for 23 years service | 14050 | 7025 | 6441 | 584 |
2 | Sepoy Y | 12000 | 6000 | 5523 | 477 |
3 | Nk Gp X with 25 years service | 15060 | 7530 | 6900 | 630 |
4 | Nk Gp Y | 13150 | 6575 | 6046 | 529 |
5 | Hav Gp X with 27 years service | 16710 | 8355 | 8160 | |
6 | Hav Gp Y | 14290 | 7145 | 7002 | 143 |
7 | Nb Sub Gp X with 28 years’ service | 23020 | 11510 | 11510 | Nil |
8 | Nb Sub Gp Y | 21350 | 10675 | 10675 | Nil |
9 | Sub Gp X with 28 years service | 26210 | 13105 | 13105 | Nil |
10 | Sub Y Gp | 23940 | 11970 | 11970 | Nil |
Source: http://ex-servicemenwelfare.blogspot.in/
BIDYUT DEBNATH says
w.e.f 1.1.2006 due to worng fixsation the errers due that is not clear from the chart.I retaired 31 may 2000 on complition of 21 years of service
as on 1.6.2009 my basic was Rs 6223.doubt my please be clear.Thanks
ajay ruhela says
I retired as JWO from air force in 2002with basic pension Rs3141. After 6th pay commission my basic pension has been fixed to Rs7100.And on 1st july2009 it os revised to Rs 8720 and as per latest circolar no 547 my basic pension is shown 6947. It is not understood from where this figure arises.Please clear my mind in this regard.
KRJ REDDY says
With reference to wrong fixation of Pre -2006 PBOR wef 01.01.2006, I do not understand why CGDA/Dept of Ex-servicemen are blind to their our circular C-102 whereby fitment tables are given by them and it only and clearly refers to previous scales in which the pensioner had retired and corresponding Pay Band+Grade Pay+ MSP+Technical Pay wherever applicable.as per 6 CPC.. There is no mention of Rank and Length of service attached to fitment tables provided by Min of Finance. The simple logic of 50% of minimum of Pay Band+Grade Pay+ MSP+Technical Pay wherever applicable. ( as per Fitment Tables provided ) is the Minimum Pension should not be less than 50% of Pay Band+Grade Pay+ MSP+Technical Pay as per 6 CPC corresponding to 5 CPC scales. It simply means whatever is the rank/Status and length of service, the minimum pension should be 50% of Pay Band+Grade Pay+ MSP+Technical Pay corresponding to 5 CPC Scales. For example a PBOR who retired in the scale of Pay 5620-140-8040, his minimum pension should be 50% of 9300+4200+2000= 7750 wef 01.01.2006 irrespective of his rank and length of service as per OM of Dept of Pensions ans Pension Welfare. And the CGDA circular c-102 also states so. Then why different tables for Army, Air Force and Navy. These tables are distorting and against the underlying principle of natural justice as per OM issued by DOPT which was issued after a long battle in SC. KIndly get the legal meaning from experts and amend the tables accordingly.