Thursday, 15 June 2023
Monday, 12 June 2023
Lack of transparency, bureaucratic apathy in 'One Rank One Pension' calculation angers veterans
New Indian Express :Published: 11th June 2023 08:06 AM |
NEW DELHI: Lack of transparency and bureaucratic apathy in the calculation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) has embittered the retired junior commissioned officers and personnel of other ranks. Subedar Major Sukhdev Singh (Retd) says: “Out of Rs 23,000-crore OROP fund, officers consume over 85 per cent and the remaining by the other ranks – Sepoy and Havildars. We, junior commissioned officers, get nothing.”
Sukhdev is one among the
soldiers from across the country protesting the anomalies in the pension
scheme. They blame the officers for consuming most of the funds. But the
Services – Army, Navy and Airforce – have no stake in deciding the pension
things, according to sources.
The Controller General of
Defence Accounts (CGDA), Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA
Pension) and the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) in the defence
ministry decide and calculate the pension amount for soldiers. On the issue of
pension fixation, there is a tug of war for data, which is several years old,
between departments in the defence ministry as well as the Defence
Services.
“The data have been sought from
the ministry since 2015-16, but still not provided to them. The Services
headquarters wanted to know the methodology adopted in the calculation of
OROP,” a source in the defence establishment said.
Arrears of approximately Rs
23,638 crore, effective from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2022, was calculated. It
is expected to benefit more than 25.13 lahks, including over 4.52 lakh new
beneficiaries, including family pensioners.
The government implemented OROP
in 2015 and tables for the fixation of pensions were issued in 2016 with a decision
to review it every five years. In December 2022, the government approved the
revision on the basis of the average minimum and maximum pension of defence
forces retirees of the calendar year 2018 in the same rank with the same length
of service.
Opacity in arriving at the
average OROP pension after the second revision is another issue that was
highlighted by a source. There is an anomaly at multiple levels, including
clubbing of retired personnel with services varying between 15 and 18 years and
giving the same pension. Data here is referred to the number of Havildars, Naib
Subedars, Sepoys and others who retired in the same rank and length of service
and what is the maximum and minimum amount taken in its calculation.
“While the pension authorities have
clubbed the pensions for people serving between 15 and 18 years, there exists
problems for the soldiers granted Honorary Ranks,” said another source. “The
OROP-2 can be seen as a perfect example of bureaucratic apathy and lethargy,”
said the second source as “ the Services having no role in deciding the pension
amount yet they are facing the brunt of the aggrieved pensioners”.
Since 2015, the Indian Army and
its sister organisation -- Indian Air Force and Indian Navy, have been
continuously flagging off the issues to the ministry of defence for clarity on
it. “No response has been provided yet.”
On being asked about its
resolution, the sources added that the Services Headquarters thinks that
transparency is the way ahead in removing the anomalies. “We also want to know
the basis of formulation of the table that decides the pension.” It is
pertinent to mention that rank and length of services are being considered for
deciding the pension amount.
SORE POINTS
Lion’s
share for officers
Of Rs 23,000-crore OROP fund, officers consume over 85% and remaining by the
other ranks – Sepoy and Havildars. Junior commissioned officers get nothing,
said a subedar
Elusive
Data
On the pension fixation front, there is a tug of war for data which is several
years old. The data have been sought from the ministry since 2015-16, but still
not provided. The Services headquarters wanted to know the methodology adopted
for the calculation of OROP.
Rs 23,638
crore
is the arrears calculated, with effective from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2022
was calculated. It is expected to benefit more than 25.13 lakh, including over
4.52 lakh new beneficiaries and armed forces pensioners/family pensioners.
Honorary
Ranks
Authorities have clubbed the pensions for people serving between 15 and 18
years, but there exists problems for soldiers granted Honorary Ranks
Obscurity
in calculation
Opacity in arriving at the average OROP after the second revision. There is
anomaly at multiple levels, including clubbing of retired personnel with a
service of between 15 and 18 years and giving the same pension.
Sunday, 11 June 2023
Thursday, 8 June 2023
ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR FILING WRIT PETITION IN HSC UNDER ARTICLE 32
Why directly filing Writ Petition in HSC under Article 32?
This
Petition is arising out of the misconception by MOD regarding the applicability
of X Group Pay of Rs.6200 to Pre-2016 Veterans, consequent to the
implementation of HSC laid down principles in Judgement delivered by HSC in
WP(C) 419/2016.
Since a
disputed Subject contained Judgement of HSC cannot be challenged in HC under
Article 226, we are approaching this Apex court to deliver a Speedy judgement
in the disputes raised by MOD in an already settled & long debated casein
in this Apex court.
2) The
Petitioners being very old & many of them are in their last leg of life due
to the long-time taken for the final judgement in original case WP (C)
419/2016.
3) The
Petitioners are satisfied and in full agreement with the modalities &
Methodology adopted in the Original OROP Notification dated 07/11/2015.
4) The
Petitioners are also satisfied and in full agreement with the modalities &
methodology adopted in OROP revision Notification dated 04/01/2023
5) The
Petitioners are also highly pleased by the principles laid down by the HSC in
Judgement of WP (C) 419/2016.
6) However,
the Petitioners are aggrieved by the Arbitary and discriminatory treatment meted out to them
during the implementation of the above two notifications & HSC laid down
principles in WP (C) 419/2016.
The
modalities & Methodology contained in the above two Notifications do not
have any provision for cut-off dates as Pre & Post 2016 for any benefits.
However, it
is a fact that Para 48 i) &ii) have allowed cut-off dates only for MACP
which is misused as a tool to introduce a cut-off date in X Group Pay which
recommended to be bifurcated based on qualification only by the 7 TH CPC and
approved by the union cabinet in Para 4 a) of the cabinet resolution dated
05/09/2016.
7) The
Direction set by the HSC in 48 i) is Regarding MACP with Example & 48 ii)
is a natural continuation of 48 i) and both should be read together to get a
meaning that MACP cannot have retrospective effect. Para 48 ii) cannot be
segregated from Para 48 i) to get a universal application of Para 48 ii) for
other components which are approved to be based on qualification,
Para ii) has
been misinterpreted by MOD with a universal application as a new benefit to
deny X Group Pay of 6200 to X group Veterans.
8) The MACP
as mentioned in para 48 i) and ii) of Judgement in WP (C ) 419/2016 is based on
Number of years of qualifying service ( viz 8,16,24) in leu of not being
promoted to next cadre, where as X group pay is purely based on qualification.
9)The X
Group Pay of Rs.6200 was duly Recommended by the 7th CPC & approved by
Cabinet resolution 4 a) dated 05/09/2016 based on qualification only & no
mention of it was either made by Petitioners or the respondents in their
petitions during the arguments in WP (C) 419/2016. The HSC Observations &
any part of HSC Judgement also do not mention the X group pay and its
bifurcation between Post & Pre 2016.
10)This
Petition Pray for the intervention of this highest court of justice in this
discrimination meted out to the former soldiers of the country and to restrain
Gross violation of Cabinet Resolution by MOD & Misinterpretation of Para 48
i) ii) of HSC judgement in WP© 419/2016, hence the need for approaching this
Highest court of Justice of the land with a writ P0etition under Article 32 of
the constitution.
Friday, 26 May 2023
Tuesday, 23 May 2023
PARAWISE REBUTTAL TO DESW DESPARATE LETTER DATED 18/05/2023 REGARDING TABLE NO 8 OF CIRCULAR 666
1) This Department has been receiving several representations of pre-01.01.2016 retirees for making them eligible for revised Group X Pay of Rs. 6200/- which was granted to post-01.01.2016 retired PBORs in implementation 7th CPC recommendation.
Counter
This is a statement
contrary to fact, which can be established with documentary evidence. It is
repeatedly alleged by DESW Abintio that the CPC has granted X Group Pay of Rs.
6200 to Post 01/01/2016, the actual fact being negative. Even if this statement
is taken into consideration for academic interest, the 7th CPC
itself is not authorised to grant any benefits to Central or Defence employees
or veterans. Its recommendation, like the recommendation of any other
commission, is recommendatory in nature, which may or may not be accepted by
the cabinet since it is not legally binding on the executive. It remains a fact
that the entire 7th CPC recommendation was not accepted by the cabinet. Hence,
the cabinet-approved recommendations of the 7th CPC in the cabinet
resolution dated September 5, 2016, are only applicable to the defence forces,
which are specifically sanctioned for them by the cabinet. Given the fact that
the benefits granted under the cabinet-approved recommendations of the 7th
CPC are equally applicable to post- and pre-2016, the relevance of the date
01/01/2016 is only for the purpose of the effective date for both pre- and
post-2016.
Paragraph 4(a) of
the above cabinet resolution does not divide the veterans between pre- and
post-2016. It only divides veterans, whether serving or not, on the basis of
their qualification by AICTE or an equivalent qualification by AICTE for the
purpose of X Group Pay of Rs. 6200.
There is a
deliberate attempt by DESW to distort the recommendations of the 7th
CPC and Cabinet Resolution by denying the enhanced rate of X group pay of Rs.
6200 to pre-2016 veterans. Many AICTE Diploma candidates were directly
recruited by the Indian Air Force to technical trades from 1972 onwards, and
in-house trained recruits in Air Force institutes were given AICTE equivalent
diplomas to all those who passed out of in-house institutes.
2.As per recommendations of the 6t* CPC, groups X and Y were given a common
pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006, i.e. they ard at the samé notches
in Pay Bands 1 and 2 and receive the same grade pay, with one distinguishing feature
viz, ‘X-pay’ to those in Group
X.
Counter
The concept of X group Pay in Armed forces was conceived for the
first time by 6th CPC, abolishing Pay scale differences among the X GP trades
and other groups (Y & Z). All the Groups were brought under one pay scale,
and X Group pay of Rs1400 was recommended as compensation for technical Trades
of Armed Forces, at Par with Civil diploma holder. The formula adopted was the
difference in Grade Pay of 2800 in PB1 & Grade of 4200 in PB2 of 6 CPC Pay
structure, that is 4200-2800=1400, (6 CPC recommendation (Para 2.3.27) and was accepted by the GOI. The Ministry of
defence through its implementing agency, PCDA Allahabad has implemented the
same without any cut of date for pre & post 2006.
3.The 7th CPC vide para 6.2.88 of their Report
have recommended:
(i)
X Pay for JCOs/ORs
in Group X at Rs. 6200/- PM for all
X trades which
involve obtaining a qualification which is equivalent of a diploma
recognized by AICTE.
This amount is the difference in the minimum
of the Pay level 6 (corresponding to Grade
Pay of Rs.
4200/- in VI CPC) and
Pay level 5 (corresponding to Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-
in VI CPC).
(ii) X Pay for JCOs/ORs in Group X at Rs. 3600/- PM (standard fitment
of 2.57 on the
existing X pay of Rs. 1400), for
those currently in X pay,
but not having
a technical qualification
recognized by AICTE.
Counter
The above
paragraphs are the actual facts with respect to the X Group Pay recommendation
by the CPC. This portion of the recommendation has been approved by cabinet
resolution as it is without any change under cabinet resolution in Paragraphs
4(a) and 4(b). There is no condition as to pre-2016 and post-2016 for X group
pay of Rs. 6200 visibly seen neither in the above-mentioned 7th CPC
recommendations nor in the cabinet resolution.
Over & above
Air HQ, which is the final authority for imparting training and issuing
diplomas with respect to the technical trades of the Air Force X Group, Air
HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated May 8, 2017, has segregated only one of their X group
trades, namely "GARUD," eligible for a lower X group pay of Rs. 3600
out of their 30 X group trades. Hence, this is a self-goal and contrary to what
is mentioned in Para. 1 of the letter dated May 18, 2023.
4.The above
recommendation of the 7th CPC has been accepted by the Govt. and
the X Pay of the X-Group personnel was revised accordingly, w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
The recommendations of the 7thCPC are applicable to those personnel who were in service
on or after 01.01.2016
and drawing pay in the revised pay scales applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The recommendations of the 7t* CPC are not applicable to those who have
already retired from service before 01.01.2016.
Counter
This Para 4 is contrary to what
is mentioned in Para 3. The reason shown in this paragraph is that "the
recommendations of the 7th CPC are applicable to those personnel who were in
service on or after January 1, 2016, and drawing pay in the revised pay scales
applicable w.e.f. January 1, 2016. This statement is an intentional misrepresentation of facts & procedures The recommendations of the 7th CPC are not
applicable to those who have already retired from service before January 1,
2016." is not found in any authentic document of either the 7th CPC or in the Cabinet-approved document
of the 7th CPC. It is
intentionally inserted by the respondent to deny the benefit of X Group Pay of
Rs. 6200 to pre-2016 veterans. If the recommendation of 7th CPC are not applicable to those who are retired prior to 01/01/2016, what was necessity of revising their Pension on Notional pay method by issuing new Pension Payment order and allowing them the benefit of X Group Pay of Rs 6200 & payment of arrears to them wherever Notional calculation method was more than 2.57 Method.
5.Hence, there
are two rates
of X Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 for X-Group Personnel and they are eligible for pension as per reckonable emoluments drawn by them at the time of retirement from service.
Reckonable emoluments towards pensionary benefits includes Pay in Pay matrix,
Military Service Pay and X-Group Pay &
Classification Allowance, if any, drawn by the
JCOs/ORs. Accordingly, the JCOs/ORs who have drawn the X Pay of Rs. 6200/- during
their service are eligible for benefits of the higher
rate of X-Pay in pension also. Others are eligible for lower rate of X-Pay.
Counter
The above
conditions given in Paragraph 5, that reckonable emoluments drawn by veterans
during their service only are eligible for counting the same in pensionary
benefits, are purely a sadistic conception and contrary to service pension
rules and regulations. All veterans who retired earlier and are not drawing
Military Service Pay or X Group Pay are granted Military Service Pay on the 6th CPC implementation. This unauthorized and
unwritten concept is illegal and cannot be applied to an institution that is an
instrumentality of the state.
6.In the OROP revision w.e.f. 01.07.2019, the pension of all the Defence
Forces pensioners/family pensioners has been re-fixed
on the basis of the average of minimum
and maximum pension of Defence
Forces personnel retired
in calendar year
2018 in the same rank with the same
length of service. The scheme of two different rate of X Pay
has been made
operational from 01.01.2016 and the same
can be applied
prospectively. Hence, separates tables
have been prepared for pre-01.01.2016 retirees and post- 01.01.2016 retirees.
Pension Table No. 7 applicable for the personnel
who retired before 01.01.2016 and table No. 8 has been prepared
for those who have drawn the higher rate of X Pay i,e. Rs. 6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
COUNTER
The
statements contained in this paragraph are based on the illegal and unwritten
concept of vested interests without application of sound mind and in utter
disregard for defence pension rules and regulations, treating veterans as
soldiers of alien countries.
7.It may also be pointed out that Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 16.03.2022 in WP(C) No. 419/2016 has observed that “It is not a legal mandate that the pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pension. The varying benefits that may be applicable to certain personnel which would also impact the pension payable need not be equalised with rest of the personnel.” Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that the benefit of new element in a pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied.
COUNTER
The above-mentioned portion of the judgement in WP (C) 419/2016 is quoted out of context here to justify an illegal atrocity committed against veterans. The above observation given in the judgement in the contest of MACP granted to certain veterans in lieu of promotion cannot be claimed by others.
The
Direction issued by the HSC in 48 i) is Regarding MACP with Example & 48
ii) is a natural continuation of 48 i) and both should be read together to get
a meaning that MACP cannot have retrospective effect. Para 48 ii) cannot be
segregated from Para 48 i) to get a universal application of Para 48 ii) for
other components which are approved to be based on qualification,
Para 48 ii) has
been misinterpreted by MOD with a universal application as a new benefit to
deny X Group Pay of 6200 to X group Veterans. The MACP as mentioned in para 48
i) and ii) of Judgement in WP (C ) 419/2016 is based on Number of years of
qualifying service ( viz 8,16,24) in leu of not being promoted to next cadre,
whereas X group pay is purely based on qualification.
The X Group
Pay of Rs.6200 was duly Recommended by the 7th CPC & approved by Cabinet
resolution 4 a) dated 05/09/2016 based on qualification only & no mention
of it was either made by Petitioners or the respondents in their petitions during
the arguments in WP (C) 419/2016. The HSC Observations & any part of HSC
Judgement also do not mention the X group pay and its bifurcation between Post
& Pre 2016.
It is not applicable to a homogeneous
group of similarly placed X-group veterans of the Indian Air Force. Hence, it
is outside the ambit of the above observation made in the HSC judgement. Here,
there is no involvement of a new element of benefit since it is an enhancement
of an existing benefit, as followed from the 6th CPC to the 7th CPC.
COUNTER
A careful scrutiny
of the HSC order without prejudice in dismissing the intervention Petition MA
499/2023, dated March 17, 2023, reveals that the court has not permitted a
third party who tried to intervene in an already decided case to be dismissed
as misconceived on technical grounds and that the court did not enter into the
merits of the case.
CONCLUSION
The above letter dated 18/05/2 023 issued by DESW gives rise to an impression that we are living in a totalitarian state where rule of law & court of law have no role to play.
Monday, 22 May 2023
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)