Correct ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ pensions were not taken into account in preparation of OROP tables

Correct ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ pensions were not taken into account in preparation of OROP tables

“1:2200000 RATIO” – The correct ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ pensions were not taken into account in preparation of OROP tables notified on 03/02/2016

I remember a movie in which one person draws a line in the black board and asks the second person to make the line shorter without touching it. An interesting puzzle,indeed! The second person thinks for a while, walks to the black board, takes the chalk piece and draws a longer line next to the line drawn by the first person and answers by asking him a question : is it not small now? The answer is apt and brilliant. The answer is equally applicable to make the line taller by drawing a smaller line by its side. So it is up to a person who has the chalk piece in his hand to make the already drawn line smaller or longer as he wants. Similar is the case with the officials who have been entrusted with the task of issuing orders and interpreting them that they can interpret it either way as they want.

Now let us look at the way the OROP tables notified on 03.02.2016 have been prepared. They were supposed to have taken the mean average of ‘the maximum’ and ‘the minimum’ pension of those holding the same rank with same length of service and who have retired in the calendar year 2013. This is as per the provisions of OROP notification issued by MOD on 07.11.2015.

The maximum and minimum are to be taken across all the three wings of the service – Army, Navy and Air Force. The maximum of a group X Hav/PO/Sgt has been confirmed thro an RTI application as 9475/-, although my calculation given below pitches it at 9490/-.But there are issues concerning the minimum.

All of us are aware that prior to 2006, unlike the officers, the pay scales of JCOs & NCOs were different in the three wings of the defence services. For example the pay scale of the X group Sepoy in the Army was 3600-70-4650; for the LAC in Air Force was 4025-60-4925 and the Apprentice in the Navy was 3200-60-3260.

Since there will be different minimums due to different pay scales as above, the question is: which one would be taken as ‘the minimum’ ? It is just & fair only if the highest among minimums is taken as ‘the minimum’ for computing the average/OROP. Above all, it should be ‘the minimum’ obtained in the cut off year 2013.

The following model calculations made in respect of a sepoy/ LAC recruited in 1998 promoted as NK/CPL in 2008 and as HAV/SGT in 2013, will reveal the difference in the minimum of these forces. As far as Navy is concerned their promotion chances were better than the other two wings. They had time bound promotions in the first 2 ranks. Therefore the data of NAVY can only be taken for the ‘maximum’.

ARMY : 15.01.98.
Sepoy (3600-70-4650)-3600=01.01.06. 3600+(70×8) =4160
(8 increments 01/99- 01/2016)
01.01.06/6th CPC-13140 =01.07.06 -13540
01.07.07 -13950 01.01.08 – Promoted as NK
Pay fixed@ -14770
01.07.08 -15220
01.07.09 -15680
01.07.10. -16150
01.07.11 -16640
01.07.12 -17140
1.01.13 / Promoted as HAV &pay fixed@ -18060
31.01.13 – DISCHARGE =PENSION -18060/2= 9030/-

AIR FORCE : 15.01.98=LAC (4025-60-4925)-4025
01.01.06. 4025+(60×8)=4505
(8 increments 01/99- 01/2005)
01.01.06 / 6th CPC -13780
1.07.06 – 14200
01.07.07 – 14630
1.1.08-Promoted as CPL(4150-70-5200)& Pay fixed @ -15470
01.07.08 – 15940
01.07.09 – 16420
01.07.10 – 16920
01.07.11. – 17430
01.07.12 – 17960
01.01.13 – promoted as Sgt -Pay fixed@- 18900
31.01.13-DISCHARGE =PENSION-18900/2=9450/-

NAVY : 15.01.98. Apprentice (3200-60-3260)-3200
01.01.99. 3260+(60×1) =3260=(1 increments 01/99)
15.01.99 / Promoted as Artificer V (4150-70-4360) & Pay fixed at – 4150
01.01.02-4150+(70×3)=4360(3 increments 01/2000-01/02)
15.01.2002- Promoted as Artificer IV (4550-100-6350)
Pay fixed-4550 =01.01.06. 4550+(100×4)= 4950
(4 increments 01/03 – 01/06)
01.01.06 / 6 CPC. -15410
01.07.06. – 15880
01.07.07 – 16360
01.07.08 – 16850
01.07.09 – 17360
01.07.10 – 17880
01.07.11. – 18420
01.07.12. – 18980
31.01.13 -DISCHARGE =PENSION -18980 / 2 = 9490/-

This is a one man work and based on the data available in public domain and therefore there might be some arithmetical mistakes and minor variations.

From the above it is clear that the highest among minimums across the three services is 9450/- and the maximum as per the above calculation of Navy is 9490/- Therefore the average/ OROP is (9450+9490) = 18940/2= 9470/-. But the OROP of X group Havs/POs/Sgts with 15 years of service as per table 7 notified on 03.02.2016 is only 8585/-.This has been calculated by taking the maximum as 9475/- and the minimum as 7695/-. As a result there is a reduction of Rs.885/- in the OROP. Even when the maximum pension is taken as 9475/- as communicated under RTI, then also the OROP would be 9475+9450= 18925/2= 9463 which is 878/- more than the OROP announced. This is a serious anomaly.

In view of the above, it is quite clear that ‘the minimum’ taken for calculation does not pertain to the crucial cut off year – 2013, atleast in the case illustrated above. It might be so in all other cases as well. Incidentally the figure 7695/- nearly matches with the minimum pension of non diploma, X group Sgt as on 01.01.2006 which can be verified with the pro-rata figures notified by PCDA vide it’s controversial Circular no. 547.

THEREFORE OROP TABLES ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF OROP NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY GOI ON 07.11.2015.

We need to represent inter alia, the above anomaly before the OMJC constituted to look into all issues relating to OROP, for necessary correction and rectification.

Sgt M.P. KARAN
President, Karnataka AFVAI

Source: http://ex-servicemenwelfare.blogspot.in

Correct ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ pensions were not taken into account in preparation of OROP tables

Defence Pension Calculation Examples – Family Pension and Disability Pension

OROP – Defence Pensioners Arrears Calculation

Correct ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ pensions were not taken into account in preparation of OROP tables

Similar Posts:

2 thoughts on “Correct ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ pensions were not taken into account in preparation of OROP tables”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply