-
The pension notification for post-2006 pensioners is out.
It is available here for viewing / download.
Looks good. Personnel retiring after 01-09-2008 seem to be the luckiest :-)
The pension notification for post-2006 pensioners is out.
It is available here for viewing / download.
Looks good. Personnel retiring after 01-09-2008 seem to be the luckiest :-)
But one important issue.
As most readers must be knowing, the 6th CPC had recommended the scrapping of the 33 year service requirement (with or without weightage) for earning full pension. Prior to 6th CPC, a service length of 33 years was required for earning full pension and for personnel with service below 33 years, pension was proportionately decreased. The 6th CPC has postulated full pension on completion of pensionable service, that is 20 years for commissioned officers and 15 years for defence PBOR. Similar recommendations were made for civil employees too. The same was also accepted by the Cabinet.
However the ibid pension orders reveal a grave anomaly which in fact is not due to any fault of the MoD but a resultant of the orders issued by the Deparment of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Govt of India. As per paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2, PBOR retiring after 1-1-2006 would be granted full pension on completion of pensionable service of 15 years but the same would be applicable to Commissioned officers only after 2-9-2008 and not 1-1-2006. Commissioned Officers retiring between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 would remain amenable to the 33 years service clause for full pension and proportionately decreased pension for service below 33 years. The same cut off date of 1-9-2008 has been initiated for civil pensioners too by the Deptt of Pensions. Hence we would have three categories of personnel within the defence services as per this letter :
A) PBOR retiring after 1-1-2006 who would receive full pension after fulfilling their minimum pension qualifying service of 15 years.
B) Commissioned Officers retiring between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 who would receive full pension only after completing 33 years of service with or without weightage.
C) Commissioned Officers retiring after 1-9-2008 who would receive full pension after completing 20 years of service.
Now the question arises that if the 6th CPC recommendation of full pension on 20 years wef 1-1-2006 was accepted by the Cabinet, could the Deptt of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare alter the mandate of the accepted recommendations by creating an artificial date of 1-9-2008 on its own or was the cut off date of 1-9-2008 decided by the Cabinet itself ?. The 6th CPC definitely stated in Para 6.5.3 that the benefit of full pension on completion of minimum qualifying service by waiving the 33 years' service limit would accrue prospectively (except for PBOR), but we always thought it to mean that the actual monetary benefit would be disbursed prospectively but full pension to pensioners with service less than 33 years would otherwise be fixed w.e.f 1-1-2006. As also pointed out in one of the comments to this post, it's all a question of liberal Vs literal interpretation I guess.
A pertinent question since it greatly affects those commissioned officers and civil employees who retired between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 since their pension would be proportionately reduced in accordance with their length of service on retirement. Thankfully the MoD has released this pension order much in favour of PBOR and thereby protecting atleast the PBOR from this anomaly keeping in view the recommendations of 6th CPC contained in Para 6.5.3.
The paragraphs in reference of the MoD pension letter dated 12-11-2008 are reproduced below :
6. RETIRING/SERVICE PENSION:
6.1. COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
(a) Linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying Service is dispensed with w.e.f. 2.9.2008. The Retiring pension of Commissioned Officers retiring/invalided out on or after 2.9.2008 will be calculated at 50% of emoluments last drawn or average of reckonable emoluments drawn during last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial.
(b) Grant of retiring pension to the Commissioned Officers retired/invalided out during 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 will continue to be governed by the Rules/Orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.
6.2. PERSONNEL BELOW OFFICER RANK
In case of PBOR, linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is dispensed with from 1.1.2006. Service pension of PBOR will be calculated at 50% of emoluments last drawn or average of reckonable emoluments drawn during last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial.
-
However the ibid pension orders reveal a grave anomaly which in fact is not due to any fault of the MoD but a resultant of the orders issued by the Deparment of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Govt of India. As per paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2, PBOR retiring after 1-1-2006 would be granted full pension on completion of pensionable service of 15 years but the same would be applicable to Commissioned officers only after 2-9-2008 and not 1-1-2006. Commissioned Officers retiring between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 would remain amenable to the 33 years service clause for full pension and proportionately decreased pension for service below 33 years. The same cut off date of 1-9-2008 has been initiated for civil pensioners too by the Deptt of Pensions. Hence we would have three categories of personnel within the defence services as per this letter :
A) PBOR retiring after 1-1-2006 who would receive full pension after fulfilling their minimum pension qualifying service of 15 years.
B) Commissioned Officers retiring between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 who would receive full pension only after completing 33 years of service with or without weightage.
C) Commissioned Officers retiring after 1-9-2008 who would receive full pension after completing 20 years of service.
Now the question arises that if the 6th CPC recommendation of full pension on 20 years wef 1-1-2006 was accepted by the Cabinet, could the Deptt of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare alter the mandate of the accepted recommendations by creating an artificial date of 1-9-2008 on its own or was the cut off date of 1-9-2008 decided by the Cabinet itself ?. The 6th CPC definitely stated in Para 6.5.3 that the benefit of full pension on completion of minimum qualifying service by waiving the 33 years' service limit would accrue prospectively (except for PBOR), but we always thought it to mean that the actual monetary benefit would be disbursed prospectively but full pension to pensioners with service less than 33 years would otherwise be fixed w.e.f 1-1-2006. As also pointed out in one of the comments to this post, it's all a question of liberal Vs literal interpretation I guess.
A pertinent question since it greatly affects those commissioned officers and civil employees who retired between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 since their pension would be proportionately reduced in accordance with their length of service on retirement. Thankfully the MoD has released this pension order much in favour of PBOR and thereby protecting atleast the PBOR from this anomaly keeping in view the recommendations of 6th CPC contained in Para 6.5.3.
The paragraphs in reference of the MoD pension letter dated 12-11-2008 are reproduced below :
6. RETIRING/SERVICE PENSION:
6.1. COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
(a) Linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying Service is dispensed with w.e.f. 2.9.2008. The Retiring pension of Commissioned Officers retiring/invalided out on or after 2.9.2008 will be calculated at 50% of emoluments last drawn or average of reckonable emoluments drawn during last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial.
(b) Grant of retiring pension to the Commissioned Officers retired/invalided out during 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 will continue to be governed by the Rules/Orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.
6.2. PERSONNEL BELOW OFFICER RANK
In case of PBOR, linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is dispensed with from 1.1.2006. Service pension of PBOR will be calculated at 50% of emoluments last drawn or average of reckonable emoluments drawn during last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial.
-
52 comments:
Hi Sirs,
Today MOD has published notification for post-2006 pensioners on their website. In para 3.2, it writes "In respect of Commissioned Officers & PBOR retired/discharged/invalided/died between 01-01-2006 and 31-08-2008, the term 'Reckonable Emoluments' as defined above para 3.1 will apply except that Military Service Pay will reckon notionally for reckonable emoluments in such cases" What does it mean? MSP will be counted or not? Please throw some light.
Sir,
Where is much hyped 70% pension for PBORs as published in various media. Mr. Shiv Aroor has written that Chiefs have dropped this demand since it is already accepted by GoM. Where that "accepted in principle" gone?
To all veterans:
THE FINAL INSPECTION
The soldier stood and faced God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.
'Step forward now, you soldier,
How shall I deal with you ?
Have you always turned the other cheek ?
To My Church have you been true?'
The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
'No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.
I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.
And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear..
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand.
There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
'Step forward now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell.'
Dear Navdeep,
Pension order for officers even in Civil/CPOs are same.Officers retired after 01 Sep are only entitled for full pension .
One idea which came on my blog www.indiancpmf.blogspot.com by some Anony is good.
Why not to remove Ltcol rank and promote officer to LtMaj rank which can be after 11 years of service,this will solve this existing problem.
@NAVADEEP,
CORRECT YOUR STATEMENT ,MOD HAS MODIFIED THE MEMORANDUM ONPOST 2006 RETIRED to the advantage of PBOR .
(fullpension) pension for 15 years service, AT LEAST IN effective date -from 1-1-2006.
AS per ministry of personal,public grievances&pensions, memorandum dated 02 sept 2008,linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is dispensed. EFFECTIVE DATE IS DATE OF ISSUE OF MEMO.i.e 02 sept 2008. HAS MOD MODIFIED TO THE ADVANTAGE OF PBOR OR NOT IAM LEAVING IT TO YOU. SAY THAT SAME BENEFIT IS NOT EXTENDED TO COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OR ANY CIVILIANS.
@Anony at
10.50 AM
Thank You.
I'm sure that by now you must have read the following in the post :
"However the ibid pension orders reveal a grave anomaly which in fact is not due to any fault of the MoD but a resultant of the orders issued by the Deparment of Pensions, GoI"
AND
"Thankfully the MoD has released this pension order much in favour of PBOR and thereby isolating atleast the PBOR from this anomaly."
Of course, the MoD has done a great favour to PBOR, I agree with you.
@BP Singh,
Mind your own buisness buddy.
Thanks but NO thanks(Pragmatics Engliiishhhh)
@ Dear BP Singh
Well...I don't exactly understand what do you gain by removing Lt Col rank and instead substituting it with another one and calling it Lt Maj albeit at 11 years of service? Presumably it will be a senior rank to existing Maj but then by the name of it, this one appears to be junior ( like Lt Col is junior to Col and ditto for Lt Gen and Gen). Better would be to remove Lt and Lt Col ranks and yes count the training period in service as it is done for all other services. Lt col rank should be there only for those officers(and they unfortunately constitute vast majority i.e more than 60% of cadre!) who miss their selection board for Full Col rank. And then they should be promoted by time scale to Col rank in about 18 years service! Selection grade Cols should reach Col's rank in 14 years. And Brig rank should be reached in 20 years by selection(i.e 25% of selection grade Cols)
and in about 25 years for those who dont make it because of fewer vacancies (75% of Selection Grade cols). Similarly Maj Gen rank in 24 years and Lt Gen in 28. For this suitable vacancies need to be identified and upgraded. This sort of cadre review should be carried out in a time bound manner (2 years is reasonable methinks!). This should help ease the problems of delayed promotions and fewer avenues for permanently commissioned officers. And yes, it goes without saying that there should be a liberal exit policy for those who have had enough!
IS SOMEONE OUT THERE LISTENING !!
@ BP Singh.
Sorry to say but your suggestion doesnt have any merit. I have to admit that u have achieved one aim, one more hit on your blog (sad, but i had to check out if any other foolish suggestions are floating around).
I promise, no more hits from me atleast
Regards
Major Navdeep Sir,
I am also having the same doubt expressed by @ hira. Kindly educate us on this matter.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Dear Maj.Navdeep,
The Dept. of Personnel Notification of 01/09/2008, for ,Pre 2006 Civil Pensioners does not say anything about proportionately reducing the minimum pension, that is 50% of (Minimum of PB+GP) if 33 years of qualifying service has not been rendered.
How does the MoD insert this additional rider?
@Anony at 5.40 PM
Of course the Deptt of Pension order says so.
Please see Paragraph 5.4
The MoD has not added the rider on its own. In fact it has deleted the said rider for PBOR.
Dear Maj.Navdeep,
Apropos your 6.03 PM of 18/11/2008.
Thanks for the prompt clarification.
In case of Post 2006 but Pre 01/09/2008, Civil Retirees, the notification says that old rules apply.
But I was asking about Pre 2006 Civil Retirees.The notification at4.2 says that the minimum would be 50% of (PB+GP).
There are no tables there, in any Annexure showing proportionate reduction of PB+GP to arrive at the
minimum for various years of part qualifying service.
May be I am missing something.
Regards.
Anonymous at Nov 18, 5:40 PM.
Dear Maj Navdeep,
There is an erroneous statement made in your post. If you refer to Para 6.5.3 of the 6th CPC report, it is clearly specified that the benefit of full pension to officers is available only Prospectively. For officers retiring between 01 Jan 2008 to 01 Sep 2008, pension will be calculated based on the number of years of service (as was the rule prior to 2006).
This issue has been further clarified in Ministry of Personnel memo number 37/38/08-P&PW(A).pt.II dt 03 Oct 2008 which is available on National Portal of India Website (URL http://india.gov.in/govt/paycommission.php#)
Sorry for disappointing other brother officers but I wanted to set the record straight
@anony at 5.40 / 7.11
They did not have to specifically state that 50% system would not apply since the tables are just replacement tables of pension being received as on date. (Old basic pension X 2.26). Hence whatever the basic pension is, it gets converted into the new amount. If the old pension is proportionately decreased amount then the new replacement also remains a decreased amount, if it was full pension, then automatically it gets converted into a replacement for the full amount.
Regarding, 50% of new min BP+GP, you are right they haven't mentioned but I'm sure they must have issued some clarification by now because if the proportionate decrease applies to retirees from 1-1-06 till 1-9-2008, naturally it shall definitely apply to pre 2006 retirees too. You may send me a mail on my email ID for more discussion on the issue.
Thanks for adding value to the discussion though.
@Spy
You are absolutely right about Para 6.5.3.
But we took it as a stipulation that the enhanced (physical) amount of full pension shall be admissible prospectively but otherwise the fixation shall be done notionally w.e.f 1-1-2006.
Don't you think it makes more sense in the above, or we see what we want to see ? :-)
I would recommend that let's go through 6.5.3 again and analyse which makes a more logical interpretation. INMO, it makes no sense to have two categories of pensioners within the same Pay Com.
I'll value your comments on this.
@Spy.
Since you made that point, I've also amplified and clarified it in the main post.
Dear Maj Navdeep,
I retired in May 2006 and am affected by the anomalous disparity made between pre 02 Sep 2008 and post 02 Sep 2008 pensioners. However, since the same rule has been made applicable even for all civilian government officers, I do not see any hope in getting justice (unless of course, suitable relief is obtained through court).
Thanks for the wonderful blog that you are maintaining. It has been very useful to so many defence personnel.
No dilution on demands concerning Armed Forces says officers
New Delhi, Nov 18: With a ministerial committee set up to resolve the four pay commission issues delaying a decision, the Armed Forces have strongly conveyed to the government that there should be "no dilution" on their demands concerning their officers and jawans.
"We have re-conveyed to the government that there should be no dilution as far as the four core issues are concerned relating to the Sixth Pay Commission notification issued in August this year," Armed Forces officers told reporters today.
The assertion comes in the wake of reports that the government was trying to find a "middle path" to break the deadlock over the armed forces' demands that included placing Army Lieutenant Colonels and their equivalents in the Navy and Air Force in Pay Band-4.
The government had a fortnight ago sent a top-ranking officers to the Armed Forces headquarters for talks to assess if the three Services would accept a "compromise formula" to resolve the four issues when this strong sentiment was conveyed to the government.
The other three demands from the Armed Forces included parity of Grade Pay to officers from Captains to Brigadiers with that of their civilian counterparts, placing Lieutenant Generals and their equivalents in Higher Administrative Grade Plus pay band and restoring the 70 percent pensionary weightage for jawans.
It is learned that the government was considering a "middle path" under which it would accept the Armed Forces' demand relating to Lieutenant Colonels.
But, instead of placing them in Pay Band-4 scales after 13 years of service when they actually picked up the Lieutenant Colonel rank, these officers would be placed in the Pay Band two years after getting the rank (after 15 years of service).
That would translate into Lieutenant Colonels remaining in Pay Band-3, as recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission, for two years after picking up the rank and achieving parity with their civilian counterparts later in their service (after 15 years) when they would be placed in Pay Band-4.
"This is not acceptable to the armed forces. The Ajai Vikram Singh Committee Phase-I on cadre restructuring implemented in 2004 has already fixed that Majors pick up their Lt Col rank after 13 years of service. Now, by introducing this clause in the Pay Commission, the bureaucrats were actually trying to dilute what AVS Committee had already granted," officers said.
They also lamented that in the month-and-a-half since the government set up the ministerial committee under External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to consider their grievances, the delay was leading to counter demands from the paramilitary forces.
Also, the delay led to some sections of the bureaucracy introducing seven new anomalies in the pay commission through the services instructions issued by the Defence Ministry on the pay commission notification, they said.
They pointed out that the Defence Ministry bureaucrats had arbitrarily introduced amendments in Draft Government Letter on the pay commission and issued the special instructions governing the armed forces' pay on October 20 under which the 'military service pay' and 'rank pay' were re-defined, subverting the purpose for which it was recommended in the first place.
"The changes in the definition and meaning of key pay commission recommendations have been done on the sly to deal a blow to the armed forces' morale and to deny them their due," the Services headquarters informed the government.
Officers said the subversion of the definition of rank pay would mean the armed forces officers would take home less pay than what was intended to by the hikes provided in the pay commission notification.
The Services have pointed out that since the 4th pay commission, the rank pay was calculated as part of the basic pay of the armed forces personnel.
"This government policy provided the personnel a higher house rent, travel and dearness allowances. However, by re-defining the rank pay and de-linking it from the basic pay, the bureaucrats have ensured that the armed forces personnel take home less amount as allowances," sources claimed.
The military service pay (MSP), introduced by the 6th pay commission for the first time, was meant to be a "compensation for difficulties specific to military life".
However, the Defence Ministry instructions, referred to it as a "hardship allowance" to security forces in forward areas.
The Services have questioned the rationale behind this re-defining of the MSP, wondering if it was meant to be provided to other security forces too working in counter-insurgency areas.
One other issue brought out was fixing basic pay for Colonels and Brigadiers at scales lower than what was awarded by the 6th pay commission.
The basic pay fixation for Colonels and Brigadiers was to be done under S-25 pay scales. Under the new Defence Ministry instructions, the two sets of officers would be provided only S-24 pay scales.
Bureau Report
No dilution on demands concerning Armed Forces says officers
New Delhi, Nov 18: With a ministerial committee set up to resolve the four pay commission issues delaying a decision, the Armed Forces have strongly conveyed to the government that there should be "no dilution" on their demands concerning their officers and jawans.
"We have re-conveyed to the government that there should be no dilution as far as the four core issues are concerned relating to the Sixth Pay Commission notification issued in August this year," Armed Forces officers told reporters today.
The assertion comes in the wake of reports that the government was trying to find a "middle path" to break the deadlock over the armed forces' demands that included placing Army Lieutenant Colonels and their equivalents in the Navy and Air Force in Pay Band-4.
The government had a fortnight ago sent a top-ranking officers to the Armed Forces headquarters for talks to assess if the three Services would accept a "compromise formula" to resolve the four issues when this strong sentiment was conveyed to the government.
The other three demands from the Armed Forces included parity of Grade Pay to officers from Captains to Brigadiers with that of their civilian counterparts, placing Lieutenant Generals and their equivalents in Higher Administrative Grade Plus pay band and restoring the 70 percent pensionary weightage for jawans.
It is learned that the government was considering a "middle path" under which it would accept the Armed Forces' demand relating to Lieutenant Colonels.
But, instead of placing them in Pay Band-4 scales after 13 years of service when they actually picked up the Lieutenant Colonel rank, these officers would be placed in the Pay Band two years after getting the rank (after 15 years of service).
That would translate into Lieutenant Colonels remaining in Pay Band-3, as recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission, for two years after picking up the rank and achieving parity with their civilian counterparts later in their service (after 15 years) when they would be placed in Pay Band-4.
"This is not acceptable to the armed forces. The Ajai Vikram Singh Committee Phase-I on cadre restructuring implemented in 2004 has already fixed that Majors pick up their Lt Col rank after 13 years of service. Now, by introducing this clause in the Pay Commission, the bureaucrats were actually trying to dilute what AVS Committee had already granted," officers said.
They also lamented that in the month-and-a-half since the government set up the ministerial committee under External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to consider their grievances, the delay was leading to counter demands from the paramilitary forces.
Also, the delay led to some sections of the bureaucracy introducing seven new anomalies in the pay commission through the services instructions issued by the Defence Ministry on the pay commission notification, they said.
They pointed out that the Defence Ministry bureaucrats had arbitrarily introduced amendments in Draft Government Letter on the pay commission and issued the special instructions governing the armed forces' pay on October 20 under which the 'military service pay' and 'rank pay' were re-defined, subverting the purpose for which it was recommended in the first place.
"The changes in the definition and meaning of key pay commission recommendations have been done on the sly to deal a blow to the armed forces' morale and to deny them their due," the Services headquarters informed the government.
Officers said the subversion of the definition of rank pay would mean the armed forces officers would take home less pay than what was intended to by the hikes provided in the pay commission notification.
The Services have pointed out that since the 4th pay commission, the rank pay was calculated as part of the basic pay of the armed forces personnel.
"This government policy provided the personnel a higher house rent, travel and dearness allowances. However, by re-defining the rank pay and de-linking it from the basic pay, the bureaucrats have ensured that the armed forces personnel take home less amount as allowances," sources claimed.
The military service pay (MSP), introduced by the 6th pay commission for the first time, was meant to be a "compensation for difficulties specific to military life".
However, the Defence Ministry instructions, referred to it as a "hardship allowance" to security forces in forward areas.
The Services have questioned the rationale behind this re-defining of the MSP, wondering if it was meant to be provided to other security forces too working in counter-insurgency areas.
One other issue brought out was fixing basic pay for Colonels and Brigadiers at scales lower than what was awarded by the 6th pay commission.
The basic pay fixation for Colonels and Brigadiers was to be done under S-25 pay scales. Under the new Defence Ministry instructions, the two sets of officers would be provided only S-24 pay scales.
Bureau Report
Photo Gallery
Click here for more pictures
Dear Major Navdeep,
A few of us have this doubt
will retirees between 1-1-2006 and 1-1-2008 be paid arrears/difference between 43% and 50% commutation only if they exercise their option for increased commutation?
What about arrears/difference of leave encashment and gratuity due to enhancement?
AF Veterans - 2006
A Jt Secy who retired in jun 2004 has been sanctioned pension of 1/2 of (Rs 56000+Grade Pay),as Min of pay fixed for a JS in PB4(37400-67000) is Rs 56000.If this be correct then Min of pay for each Armed Forces/PMF/IPS Rank in PB4 (in fact in all PBs) needs to be fixed & promulgated.
dear sir navdeep i have ret. 1996.
i am a ex hav ,nothing has been increase for pbor(pre-2006).i saw the resolution of pre-2006.to before 2006 pbor there has not been full pension after 15 years of service .sir this resolution is true or not thanks
well all this is eye wash. govt is following British theory ... delay till it dies it's own death.
Army should also say no time frame for work. don't break ur back and b on all 4s for complete the task which police does not want to do.
Dear Major Navdeep,
I am also having the same doubt expressed by @ hira November 17,2008 8:45 PM. Para 3.2 of the MOD notification for post-2006 pensioners on their website read.” In respect of Commissioned Officers & PBOR retired/discharged/invalided/died between 01-01-2006 and 31-08-2008, the term 'Reckonable Emoluments' as defined above para 3.1 will apply except that Military Service Pay will reckon notionally for reckonable emoluments in such cases". What I understand by this is that MSP will not be applicable for fixation of pension for those incl PBOR who retired/discharged/invalided/died between 01-01-2006 and 31-08-2008. However Chapter 5.1.61 clearly indicates ie." Military Service Pay would be counted for pension. Whole of classification pay may also be included for purposes of computing pension. This recommendation will take effect retrospectively from 1/1/2006 because the running pay bands shall take effect from this date. Therefore, the maximum of a pay scale will cease to have any relevance from this date. Consequently, the recommendation will need to be made effective for PBORs from 1/1/2006". Chapter 2.3.12 also reads "MSP being a new element, no arrears shall be paid on this account. It will, however, be considered for purposes of fixation of pay and pension”. I think, for the purpose of fixation of pay and pension of Commissioned Officers & PBOR retired/discharged/invalided/died between 01-01-2006 and 31-08-2008 , MSP should be included with effect from 01 Jan 2006,since the sixth CPC has clearly recommended that Military Service Pay would be counted for pension and that too the recommendation will take effect retrospectively from 1/1/2006 because the running pay bands shall take effect from this date. It may be right as per the CPC recommendation if no arrears of pension applicable to the extent of MSP is to be paid till 01 Sep 2008 and pension should be paid thereafter based on fixation done wef 01 Jan 2006 incl the portion of pension applicable to the extent of MSP . Could you please analyze and give the right interpretation.
Sir,
I am Ex.Junior Warrant Officer retired from Air Force on 31.12.2007. My Basic Pension is Rs.4771/-. (DP included). From this November 2008 onwards it is refelected as Rs.6926/-. Can any one tell how it was fixed?
Hi Ex-JWO R Murlidharan,
I think it is a blunder on the part of PDO (Bank). Your pension cannot be modified so easily. First of all, AFRO will have to prepare LPC/Data-sheet & the same will be forwarded to Dy CDA, Sub Park, ND (located in the same bldg, as you know). After that only, Dy CDA will issue Corrigendum PPO & will forward it to PDO (a copy to you also), in which your pension will be revised, difference of commutation as well as difference of Gratuity will be reflected in that PPO. To speed-up the process, AFRO has constituted a Spl NE Cell to deal particularly with those veterans, who are affected with SPC. I am also an Ex-Sgt (Clk/GD, discharged in Apr 2007) that's why I know all this & I am also in contact with AFRO. I think, Bank erroneously treated you as if you are a pre-2006 pensioner.
Dear Ex.Sgt Sir, Thank You very much for that update.My E-Mail ID is murali372006@hotmail.com. Keep contacting me through my ID. Thank you once again.
WHAT SIN HAVE THE PRE 1-1-2006 PBORS COMMETTED FOR NOT ABLE TO EARN FULL PENSION? WHY IS THIS DISPARITY?
I m Sub/Clk & Hony Capt Baldev Singh retired from Army on 31 Jan 07. The revision of pension for post 1.1.206 (6CPC) has been declared by the GOI , MOD on 12 Nov 08 but till date, additional amount of pension ,commutation,service gratuity and pay etc have not been paid to the pensioners till date. May I ask u to intimate ur openion as to why all ROs/PAOs(OR) are not processing the cases speedly.
Sir,
Clarification is sought regarding the eligibility of MSP factor in the pension for calculation of commutation and gratiuty for those retired/discharged/invalided/died between 1-1-2006 to 31-8-2008
Wg Cdr V Abraham(Retd)
Hi
Last month I received arrears of pay from 01-01-2006 to 24-4-2006 (that's when I retired) based on the 6th CPC where they had placed Lt Col/Equivalents in pay band three. When I inquired with the CDA(O) Pune they said affected officers have been given arrears based on pay band-3 and adjustment will be done later wrt pay band-4
How long will CDA(pension)take to fully implement the recommendation of 6th CPC?
It seems to be so going in the armed forecs that only the problems faced by officers are addressed appropriately. When it comes to PBOR's it doesn't find a solution. only time will kill the issue once for all. Till then the issue will be lying at MOD or at some other ministry till such time that people pursued the case forget it. There was a black diwali last year wherein the payment of armed forces are withheld for bad treatment to defence forces by VI CPC. Subsequent to that Three points were fowarded to the Govt 1 Lt Cols to be placed in PB-4 2 Lt Gens to higher grade and PBOR to be given 70% of last drawn aS pension. time has passed the demands concerning officers are duly met and for PBOR god knows. National dailies have have published that the govt has accorded approval to 70% demand for PBORs. where is all promise. Service communication sent out the message that it is a matter of pride than a case for more money. But for PBOR, the people who had to leave their earning at the prime of their career, unlike the officer who retires on superannuation, find the post VI CPC situation stoo harsh on them find the case as just desire to retain the existing benefit.The benefit of calculating pension from upperlimit of applicable scale taken away resulting to the revised pension actually stood in cash at where it was. Without a hike in pension as in many case after VI CPC the post paycommission effect on PBOR retirees is just too bad. Everybody buy the view that the MSP must be same for all. But when it comes to giving money equivallant, the govt just ignores the PBOR. In fact there was a transfer of benefit from PBOR to officers actually happened viz upperlimit concession of PBOR removed and MSP introduced for pension calculation. it is transfer of concession from pBOR ac to Officer. The people who have full length of service available available with them and well of in terms of service are given extra leverage. In the light of this the promise that there would be a separate pay commission for defence forces should be recosidered. coz PBORs cannot expect justice from their officers. Army just treat their soldiers not more than bat man. Army just see their fighting soldiers a chunk orderlies. pl comment
whether military service pay would be counted for arriving at pension and other benifits for defence officers retired between 01-01-2006 and 31-8-2008 is not clarified so far in any blogs. can somebody throw light.what exatly notionally mean . will military service pay will also be counted for arriving at arrears .where can we get a clear worked example for arriving at pension and other benefits for those officers retired between 1-1-2006 and 31-8-2008.can somebody help.
Sir, I am retired from BSF on 31.12.2007.During the month my basic pay is Rs.10550/= Iam a non commisioning officer ( Head Constable) my pension fixed by department is Rs.4077/- as per govt rule below commisioning officer is entitled to draw 50% last pay as pension w.e.f 1.1.06. Why not give me 50% pay as pension.Request clarify the factual possition
SHEESH RAM EX CPOWTR
Respected sir, thanks for one rank one pension orders after a long period which ex servicemen has taken a lot of pen for handing over of their memorable medals. sir now post 2006 pensioners are getting less pension than pre-2006 far behind due to weightage and 33 years of service conditions has been taken out please look into the matter.
Sir as per the one rank one pension orders issued for pre 2006 pbor is getting more pension than post 2006 if there is no further improvement in pension of pbor retired from 1.1.2006 onward will get less pension than OROP please intimate whethere pbor 70% pension is still for approval or any other pending for further improvement of pension of post 2006. Due to delay of such welfare pbors morale is going down and ratio is increasing to leave the service in early age.
2. I JC-429433-N Nb Clk Nirmal Singh had served in Indian Army for 26 years and discharge from service wef 01 Apr 2006 with pensionary benefits vide PPO No S/051412/2005 (Army). As per the provisions of 6th Pay Commission my service pension has been revised to Rs 8590/- vide PPO No S/CORR/193260 (Army). As per table No 32 of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No PC10(1)/2009-D (Pen/Pol) dated 08 Mar 2010 and PCDA (P) Allahabad circular No 430 dated 10 Mar 2010, pension of a Nb Sub( Gp ‘Y’) having served for 26 years service prior to 01 Jan 2006 has been fixed Rs 10029/- pm wef 01 Jul 2009.
3. In view of the above, it is apparent that a Nb Sub (Gp ‘Y’) retired prior to 01 Jan 2006 is getting more pension than the Nb Sub retired after 01 Jan 2006. The same thing has happened with Subedars retired after 01 Jan 2006. This point is concerned with welfare of post 01 Jan 2006 pensioners and needs due consideration.
Dear Maj Navdeep Sir,
I am JC750123P Sub Jasbir Singh retired on 31 Aug 2006 (A/N). as per my new corr PPO, My basic pension is Rs. 10675/-. After commutation I am getting Rs. 9606/- per month including DA. As per col 12 of table 37 published in circular No 430 of the revision of pension of pre 2006 retirees, Pension of a Group 'Y' Subedar has been fixed as Rs 11970/ wef 01 Jul 2009 (ie Rs. 1295/- more than that of post 2006 retirees) whereas pension of post 2006 retirees should be more than the pre 2006 retirees. Could you please clarify about this. Please also confirm whether is there any order pending with the Govt. for further revision of pension of post 2006 retirees. Please throw some light in this regard
Dear Navdeep,
This is a message for you kindly read it with deeply. You have mentioned that MOD has favored PBORs in the case of grant of pension to post 2006 retirees. Whereas in my opinion there is not a single point of favour from the MOD for PBORs. The Govt has forgotten 70% pension of the last emoluments drawn by the PBOR. The Govt of favoured Officers only by putting the Lt Col PB3 to PB4. You should be ashamed of yourself and do't put such comments in future. You are an retired officer and giving the reply of officers comments only. I have not seen a single reply given by you of the PBORs comment.
@Anony at 5.43 / June 12th
Stop dreaming and stop having these delusions of persecution.
Dear Major Navdeep,
The defence pbor with 28 years service used to get 50% of the highest scale of their rank as pension before 01.1.06. Now, they are getting 50% of the reckonable emoluments on retirement as pension. This change in the policy was done with an intention to give pbor lateral entry to para military forces after retirement. After almost FOUR years, the pbor have not been given any opportunity for this lateral entry. The recession in business also worsened the situation as there is not many job to absorb all retiring pbor. The pbor retire at much early age. THIS CHANGE IN THE PENSION POLICY IS AN INJUSTICE
DONE BY THE 6TH PAY COMMISSION.
Would you please raise voice with the concerned authority to look into the matter and grant the pbor 70% of last reckonable emoluments as pension.
respected sir with due respect i want to state that I retired from army in 1983 as a hav.i was enrolled on 31 may 1966 during national emergency.i was re-employed as ss master in education department(Haryana) on 20/12/1986.i was given emergency service bebefit of one year seven months and 11 days. my presumptive date of appointment was given as 19/5/1985.after 5th pay commission my pay on 01/01/1986 was presumed 14009in the pay scale of 1400-2600.After annual increment on 19/5/1986 it become 1440.on my actual date of appointnent(20/12/86) it was 1440.I retired from re-employed post on 31/9/2006.now dpdo hissar has asked me to refund rupees 59941 as I was not eligible to get DA on army pension wef 18/7/1997 as my pay was fixed at more than the minimumof pay scale(at 1440 instead of 1400).they have wrongly interprated the term"Fixation of pay on re-employment"though i have sent them a representation to them.kindly adwise the course of action
Sir, I JC-412394K Ex Sub(Clk) Shiv Kumar retired from army in Mar 2006. my PPO No is S/017865/2006(Army) and corrg PPO No is S/COR/060182/2006. my basic pension is Rs 9755/-.and Residual pension is Rs 5366/- after commutation i.e 45%. I am getting total pension as on date only Rs 9756 /- but the subedar retired prior Jan 2006 are getting about Rs 14000/-pm that is almost Rs 5000/- more than me. Please clarify why this so much variation of same rank pension, pl explain.
Thanks
(Ex-Sub(Clk) S K Yadav)
Dear Sub(Clk) S K Yadav, this is where the Govt is eating Jaggary (Gur) by implementing OROP for pre-010106 pensioners and ignoring the post-010106 pensioners. It is the ineffiency of the present Govt to give more pension to OLD PENSIONERS than the recent retirees. You will have to wait till someone with GOOD BRAINS analyses the ANOMALY and comes to the rescue of post-01-01-2006 retirees.
joshsuhanasafar
you may please clarify the reason to deny the IIIrd ACPs monetary benefits for the persons who were retired in between 01 Jan 2006 and 31 Aug 2008. Where as all the 6th CPC recommendations have been effected since 01 Jan 2006. Like MSP (Military Service Pay) which has been considered and granted for the pensioners retired in-between 01 Jan 06 to 31 Aug 2008 for the pensionery benefits but not for the pay arrears, you may please also consider the same rule for the benefits of MACP for the pensioners who were retired in-between 01 Jn 06 to 31 Aug 08. As per the existing rules the pensioners who were retired in-between 01 Jan 06 and 31 Aug 08 are getting only two ACPs (two assured promotions after every 10 years of service). When MACP(3 assured promotions after every 8 years of service) came into existence after the 6th CPC , why should not its benefit not granted to pensioners (retired in-between 01 Jan 06 and 31 Aug 08) who were also effect all other benefit of the 6th CPC.
5. Therefore, I am requesting your kind honour to take appropriate necessary action to bring all the pensioners who were retired on and after 01 Jan 2006 at par for the purpose of IIIrd ACP. I shall ever been grateful to you for this act of kindness.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully,
(Faujdar Ojha)
I have been retired prematurely on completion of 15 year 4 months & 18 days of service in group 'Y' on 31.7.1999. What would be my pension in accordance with OROP calculation.
Sir,
I JC-371158L Sub (Clk SD) Mahavir Singh was retired from army wef 31 Oct 2012 (AN). I was given pension Rs 11,970/- as per latest rules applicable to Gp Y Sub. Whereas, I should be given pension one step ahead of above given because at the time of retirement my last payment was Rs 23,970/- (BP+Gr Pay+MSP)therefore as per my assumption my pension should be fixed not less than of Rs 11,985/- which is 50% of last pay drawn. I request you to clarify the same.
Thanks
Yours Ex Sub Mahavir Singh
Sir,
I have retired in the year of July 2008,will i get benefit of orop.
Regard's
hello sir, can i get the list of department in which penstion is alloted still after 2006?
please replyl sir...
Anomalies in respect of post 2006 honorary officers. Consequent to decision of supreme court, pension in regards to pre 2006 honorary officers has been revised wef 01 Jan 2006 vide circular number 552 and issued the arrears for them for the period from 01 Jan 2006 to 23 Sep 2012. The honorary officers who were retired between 01 Jan 2006 to 23 Sep 2012 were very much applicable and their pension also was to revised from the date of their retirement. On inquiry, CDA Pension Allahabad replied that the decision of court was for only pre 2006. Now, the question is that, every soldier of Indian army is required to approach the court to take his right. This is clearly injustice to post 2006 honorary officers. I request ministry of defence pension, kindly look into the matter and do the justice with post 2006 honorary officers, who retired between 01 Jan 2006 to 23 Sep 2012.
Post a Comment