On CAA : Some authorities have raised doubts in respect of disabled personnel in receipt of Constant Attendance Allowance (CAA). It has been stated by some that CAA at new rates (Rs 3000 per month) shall be admissible after 2nd September 2008 and not before that. The said stand is incorrect. CAA is very much admissible with effect from 1st January 2006 and the fact has already been clarified by Govt of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare vide an Office Memorandum dated 3rd October 2008. Also, even personnel who retired prior to 1st January 2006 would be amenable to CAA at new rates w.e.f 1st January 2006. No DA is admissible on CAA though.
On double pension : Some of our staff members really suffer from an interpretational malaise. After the 6th CPC, a minimum floor ceiling of Rs 3500/- has been applied to pensioners meaning thereby that no pensioner would be granted a pension below Rs 3500 per month. Pension is to be stepped up to Rs 3500 level in case it turns out to be less than the said amount. In certain cases, individuals are in receipt of two pensions – one from the military and one from the civil, or two pensionary elements such as ‘service element of disability pension’ from the military and normal service pension from the civil. Many a times a combination of both basic pensions (civil and military) turns out to be less than Rs 3500 and some of our great minds dealing with pension including those in banks were of the opinion that the total of both pensions would be stepped up to Rs 3500/- and a stepped up total basic pension of Rs 3500 would be admissible to such cases. This is blatantly incorrect. It is made clear that both pensions would have to be treated individually and both would have to be separately stepped up to Rs 3500 each leading to a total basic pension of Rs 7000 per month. Services rendered in two services in two capacities have to be treated independent of each other. The same has been adequately clarified by the MoD in the ‘pre-2006 pension’ letter dated 11th November 2008 too, and it takes half a brain to interpret the provision so clearly mentioned in Para 11 :
“11. In the case of pensioners in receipt of civil and military pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3,500/- will not apply to the two pensions taken together and the individual pension will be governed by respective Pension Rules. Accordingly, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3,500/- will apply individually to the civil and military pension. In case a pensioner is in receipt of pension as well as a family pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3500/- will apply individually to such pension and family pension.”
I fail to understand as to how on earth was it possible to interpret it differently that what it apparently means. I hope these troubles end at the teething stage and do not go beyond it !
In a lighter vein, the above is pretty simple to understand and not like the following military jargon for Combatant Cooks :
"Attention is drawn to the undesirability of the overlapping of functions in the preparation of liquid comestibles in catering establishments. It has been observed and established that in cases of reduplication among mess executives a 'deduction in nutritional value and palatability’ has resulted.”
An old proverb has it in six words: "Too many cooks spoil the broth." :-) (Thank You Miljokes)
On double pension : Some of our staff members really suffer from an interpretational malaise. After the 6th CPC, a minimum floor ceiling of Rs 3500/- has been applied to pensioners meaning thereby that no pensioner would be granted a pension below Rs 3500 per month. Pension is to be stepped up to Rs 3500 level in case it turns out to be less than the said amount. In certain cases, individuals are in receipt of two pensions – one from the military and one from the civil, or two pensionary elements such as ‘service element of disability pension’ from the military and normal service pension from the civil. Many a times a combination of both basic pensions (civil and military) turns out to be less than Rs 3500 and some of our great minds dealing with pension including those in banks were of the opinion that the total of both pensions would be stepped up to Rs 3500/- and a stepped up total basic pension of Rs 3500 would be admissible to such cases. This is blatantly incorrect. It is made clear that both pensions would have to be treated individually and both would have to be separately stepped up to Rs 3500 each leading to a total basic pension of Rs 7000 per month. Services rendered in two services in two capacities have to be treated independent of each other. The same has been adequately clarified by the MoD in the ‘pre-2006 pension’ letter dated 11th November 2008 too, and it takes half a brain to interpret the provision so clearly mentioned in Para 11 :
“11. In the case of pensioners in receipt of civil and military pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3,500/- will not apply to the two pensions taken together and the individual pension will be governed by respective Pension Rules. Accordingly, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3,500/- will apply individually to the civil and military pension. In case a pensioner is in receipt of pension as well as a family pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3500/- will apply individually to such pension and family pension.”
I fail to understand as to how on earth was it possible to interpret it differently that what it apparently means. I hope these troubles end at the teething stage and do not go beyond it !
In a lighter vein, the above is pretty simple to understand and not like the following military jargon for Combatant Cooks :
"Attention is drawn to the undesirability of the overlapping of functions in the preparation of liquid comestibles in catering establishments. It has been observed and established that in cases of reduplication among mess executives a 'deduction in nutritional value and palatability’ has resulted.”
An old proverb has it in six words: "Too many cooks spoil the broth." :-) (Thank You Miljokes)
16 comments:
Dear Navdeep,
Is CAA auth to 100% disabled PBOR too....may I request u to kindly quote the auth and from where I can find it from web site. I Know one of the PBOR who was invalidated due to injury while on duty in feild was bedridden in comd Hosp for more then year after that at home since last 2 years. he can not even turn on bed.His brother in law sacrificed his study and carreer to look after him as he can not even do his daily natures job.wife is less then 25 yrs and has a doughter of 2 yrs,
@Kamal
At Report My Signal there is a link , warwounded.org. I hope it is of some help to you. Best of luck
The media has an important role to play here. Let us consider some things:
1. A strong, well armed and well motivated military is essential for the survival of this nation. We are not Germany or Portugal who have no enemies and can afford an emasculated military.
2. The military's morale is at an all-time low. And falling lower by the day.
What can we do? Build a consensus. To fix this. And to make sure That this will never happen again.
How?
1. Constitutional protection for the seniority of armed forces officers. An amendment to the consitution which enumerates a seniority based on years of service, with a 3 year ante date seniority for the armed forces, over the apex civil service, considering the fact that the military training is not considered for seniority purposes presently.
2. Constitutional protection for the posts of service chiefs.
3. Constitutional provison for a CDS, and placement of same above the cabinet secretary on the warrant of precedence, and assignment of de facto and de jure National Security Advisor status to the post.
4. Reorganisation of the ministry of defence. Transferral of the secretariat function to defence officers. Defence secretary to be a 4 star post, rotating between services.
@ Anony 7:26 PM
Excellent proposals, if only we can pursue these ...
@ Annonymus
WoW!! What great castles!!
So what after 'considering'? What Next??
We better watch out! The way things are.. soon Army Officers may end up as Grade B services. And trust me the nation has far too many jobless people and will still have sufficient applicants.
We are our own enemies! Try raising a finger and your entire arm will be cut short... This is ARMY!
for this to happen, we'd need a political party which will win two thirds of the seats and do the needful. or a repeat of indo-china 62 war. take your pick
alas, a fantasy. but a good proposal nevertheless
And who does one send the Annexure II to MoD letter of 27th November 2008 (form of option for enhanced commutation of pension from 43% to 50%) to?
Please. The wimps who run the army are the real drawback. See how the Navy chief has taken a strong stand. The IPS/others tried to screw the navy/coastguard in the aftermath of the Mumbai Attacks. But he held firm.
Result?
A new Maritime Security Agency is about to be enacted into law, headed by a Vice Admiral, with wide reaching legal powers, and a large secretariat.
He has the balls to fight for his men.
Somebody please write the army chief a letter, telling him he should resign forthwith. Wimps cannot be allowed to run the army.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/30column-government-cons-the-military-again.htm
[quote]The government cons the military, again
M P Anil Kumar
December 30, 2008
First it was the unflattering and detrimental report of the sixth pay commission. Then followed the malicious manoeuvring to downgrade the military further, on the sly, through the committee of secretaries tasked to reconcile the contentious proposals advanced by the same pay commission. Now it is the turn of an unfeeling government to drive the military and its veterans into despondency.
In a written reply, Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Rajya Sabha on December 11 that the government has not found acceptable the demand for 'one rank one pension' (OROP) by the ex-servicemen.
Our politicians may have no qualms about showering promises and reneging on them at will, but the military veterans today feel cheated, no less. The whole military structure rests on the bedrock of ranks. Unfortunately, the stuffed shirts inhabiting the corridors of power are uninterested in understanding military ethos. Make no mistake, OROP is an emotive issue for the men in uniform, and there is deep hurt and resentment at being taken for another ride.
Worse, the denial of OROP comes at a time when the three services are acutely enfeebled by shortage of young officers, at a time when the services are labouring to curb the exodus of middle-level officers, at a time when eligible lads are giving a career in the forces a miss. Could there be a worse illustration of governmental apathy?
A brief history of 'one rank one pension'
The concept of 'one rank one pension' is fairly straightforward. Fairness demands that a soldier's pension be determined by just two factors: his rank and the length of his service. That is, two military pensioners who retired in the same rank after rendering equal service should get equal pension irrespective of their dates of retirement. Nobody has so far cogently rebutted this rationale to be unreasonable.
The government, and the blinkered bureaucracy that steers it, however do not think straight, and they excel in entangling simple strands into an intricate skein of complexities. As a result, over the years, the pension system evolved without extending fresh gains to the past pensioners and propagating new classifications on the way. So much so that at one time there were 14 categories of pensioners!
Mission OROP commenced in the early eighties to stem this proliferation and to rationalise military pension. The Supreme Court gave its nod to the concept of OROP on December 17, 1982. Consequently, a committee headed by K P Singh Deo was tasked two years later to settle the issues raised by the ex-servicemen. It made 62 recommendations and stamped its imprimatur on OROP. While most of these were accepted, OROP lingered on like an ugly birthmark.
In a placatory gesture, the government granted a 'one time increase' in 1992. Later the fifth pay commission merged all the pre-1996 pensioners into one category, and created a new breed of post-1996 pensioners.
The politicians pledged bipartisan backing to OROP both inside and outside Parliament. OROP has featured in the election manifesto of all major political formations. On April 10, 1999, George Fernandes [Images], then defence minister, proclaimed at Anandpur Sahib that OROP would become a reality in 'a few days.'
Sonia Gandhi [Images] endorsed OROP in a Congress party rally at Chandigarh on November 23, 2002. OROP was part of the President's address to the Parliament in 2004, thus elevating it as a sworn government policy.
The parliamentary standing committee on defence chaired by Madan Lal Khurana spiritedly favoured OROP in its twentieth report and he urged the inter-ministerial committee to examine the issue and operationalise it expeditiously.
The mystery of OROP negation -- it beats me
Being a stated government objective, the sixth pay commission, a creature of the government, should have brought it in force but it simply winked at OROP, thus paving the way for the-powers-that-be to discard OROP now. Why the government jettisoned OROP -- a cool catch-phrase hitherto -- from its charter of pledges is incomprehensible.
In the Rajya Sabha, the defence minister did not assign compelling reasons for dumping OROP but if it was the fear that other central services too might clamour for a similar demand, then it is indefensible, for:
One, the concept of rank is unique to the military. Those in non-military services may carry designations/posts like 'director general' but these have no formal sanctity the world over. However, those in/from the military are always referred to by his rank, even after death.
Two, while those serving in the military retire by rank, the other government employees retire by age. To keep the forces young, a vast majority of servicemen are retired in their mid-30s, but their civilian counterparts serve up to the age of 60 years. Since the date of retirement also determines the quantum of pension, with each pay commission (with periodicity of 10 years), the military veterans who retired early receive lesser pension compared to those who retired later with the same rank and same service. As military pensioners are subjected to two or three more pay commissions in their lifetime, they have to suffer the disparities bred by it every 10 years. (Hence the relevance of OROP)
Three, civilian pensioners have not sought the equivalent of OROP to date. Further, when the 'one time increase' was granted to the armed forces, civilian pensioners never made it a bone of contention.
Four, the pension structure of the defence personnel is distinct and no other central service has sought a similar structure or parity with the ex-servicemen.
Five, the parliamentary standing committee in its 2004 report had estimated the annual cost of implementing OROP to be Rs 614 crores. Even after catering for inflation, the resultant amount is small change to governments that unabashedly hand out princely sums to patronise cronies, to cultivate vote banks and to feather their nest.
Hence the governmental reluctance to sanction OROP is truly boggling.
Cold-shoulder, procrastinate, turn down -- the time-tested trick
As for the sixth pay commission, sidestepping OROP was not a one-off. Payscales have direct bearing on pension, and it used this handle to deliver another blow below the belt of the veterans. It is no secret that on matters military, the babus are the ones who poison the minds of our political leadership. And herein one can spot the fingerprints of the hands of bureaucracy that snatched away a legitimate and well-received demand. The babus have always delighted in slighting the services but I hope it dawns on our people the kind of insidious damage they are wreaking on the very bastion of our freedom.
The government response to circumvent awkward predicaments is always predictable: announce an anomalies committee or empower a group of ministers. Cold storage in other words! In fact, these anomalies committees have become a joke; the unmissable irony is that the very babus who masterminded the anomalies are then mustered to untwist the skein!
A decade back, the fifth pay commission begat 48 'anomalies' and an anomalies committee was set up to iron out the kinks. Only eight out of 48 found favour. Logically, the rest 40 should have been in the remit of the sixth pay commission for resolution, but were swept under the carpet. That is how our bureaucracy plays the stepmother, spoiler and the game of attrition.
A gibe going the rounds truly hints at the pernicious role of the bureaucracy: 'Why is Chandrayaan [Images] a resounding success? Because, there were no babus involved in the project!'
The Indian bureaucracy is evidently inspired by a skill of the weasel, an animal that sucks out the contents of eggs and leaves behind intact shells. An egg that a weasel has sucked out would look unscathed to untrained eyes. Similarly, our babus are wizards at sucking dry any grand idea and leaving just its void shell. This empty eggshell is then showcased to hoodwink us suckers (the public) -- oblivious to the smashing idea snuffed out already by the babu long ago -- into believing that it might hatch any time!
'Theirs not to reason why/Theirs but to do and die.' This is an oft-quoted line from the moving epitaph Alfred Lord Tennyson penned of the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava in 1854. The Union government has apparently taken the Tennyson verse for granted, expects the military to abide by the code of omerta and to swallow the bureaucratic meanness without murmuring why.
Instead of walking in lockstep with the guarantors of national security, the babus seem hell-bent on demoralising the forces that have time and again kept the flag flying despite severe stress. One hopes the country will grasp the perils of having a demoralised military. Even the most formidable army needs to be cared for and nurtured by the mother country.
What now? Limited options, time to rally round
For the spate of raw deals, the veterans and their kith and kin can join forces to vote against the UPA parties in the upcoming general election. Our politicians understand only the language of votes, and this step might make them sit up and take notice.
Move the Supreme Court, but after the court order, one can expect a welter of sundry committees, protracted debates, trite counterpoints, circumnavigating files and other time-honoured methods of temporisation to be used by the babus to obstruct OROP, leaving the survivors distraught and desolate, and benumbed with deja vu.
The best shot is to implore those parliamentarians sincerely well-disposed towards the armed forces to call the government to honour its promise.
The larger issues
Everyone and his pet know that the only sensible solution is in having a separate pay commission for the armed forces. Several countries have Armed Forces Pay Boards and these bodies are adequately represented by serving and retired officers. Why can't we?
Since our polity perfunctorily panegyrises the men-at-arms in public, and spitefully stabs them in private, and a stringent code of conduct gags the soldiers, it is time to deliberate an idea floated by several veterans: Why not set up a Blue Ribbon Commission to delve into all aspects of our armed forces and their place in the Republic?
M P Anil Kumar is a former fighter pilot.
[/quote]
I am a former defence services officer. I retired after 40 years of service.
Some years hence I will be confronted with the situation that officers of the rank that I retired in will earn more pension than I will. I might reconsider my stand on the One Rank One Pension argument.
Please think - the one rank one pension for the defence services - will set off an epidemic. Every retired person entitled to pension - Secretary, Addl Secy, Joint Secy, Deputy Secretary and all others in between and below of the IAS and every retired DGP, ADGP, IG, DIG and SSP and below will also demand the One Rank One Pension.So will every retired PCCF, CCF, CGDA, JCGDA, CDA, JCDA, and any one else who is covered by the pension scheme.
Would the Govt of India have the finances to pay them and us? The Govt will have to pay
This may be the root cause of every politician making promises and then having to face reality!
Any one for a rebuttal? Or enlighten me?
dear navdeep sir can you through some light on fixation of pay for those promoted between 1.1.06 and 14.08.08. what happens if i opt from date of promotion(getting more basic pay) on Dec 07 will i have to loose arrears till nov07 this is what i have been given to understand.i have seen fixation for one of my civilian friend (8000-13500 promoted to 10000-15200in jan 07)initially fixed on 1.1.06as per existing pay and reached 24880 APP in jan and than stepped up to 25200(10000x1.86+6600)being minimum of the fixation of the prerevised pay scale thus getting benefit of fixation and arrears both.
he implementation of 6th central Pay commission in Army vide their SAI 02/S/2008 dt 11 Oct 2008 has created a Anomaly which has yet not been projected .This is in reference to all officers who got promoted in between 01 Jan 2006 and the date of implementation of 6th Central Pay commission. The anomaly can be best explained by the following illustrations. This will also be effecting all officers who are going to be promoted in future too.
Illustration 1
Fixation of initial pay of a Major A of AMC(Became Major on 31 Dec 2005) in the revised pay structure (as per para 7(a) (i) 0f SAI 2/S/2008)
(a)Existing Scale of pay Rs 11600-325-14850
(b)Existing Basic Pay as on 1.1.2006 Rs 11925
(c)Rank Pay Rs 1200
(d)Pay band applicable PB-3(Rs 15600-39100)
(e)Pay using fitment table Rs 25700
(f)Grade Pay Rs 6600
(g)Revised basic pay Rs 32300
(h)Military Service Pay Rs 6000
(i)NPA Rs 8075
(j)Total emoluments Rs 46375
(k)Increment as on 01 Jul Rs 970 (Rs 969 rounded off to next multiple of 10)
(l)Pay in the Pay band(01 jul) Rs 26670
(m)Revised basic pay(01 Jul) Rs 33270
Illustration 2
Fixation of initial pay of a Major B of AMC(Became Major on 01 Feb 2006) in the revised pay structure (as per para 7(a) (i) 0f SAI 2/S/2008)
(a)Existing Scale of pay Rs 9600-300-11400 (Rs 11160-325-14850
from 01Feb 2006 )
(b)Existing Basic Pay as on 1.1.2006 Rs 10200 (Rs 11925 from 01 Feb 2006)
(c)Rank Pay Rs 400 (Rs 1200 from 01 Feb 2006)
(d)Pay band applicable PB-3(Rs 15600-39100)
(e)Pay using fitment table Rs 20750
(f)Grade Pay Rs 6100
(g)Revised basic pay Rs 26850
(h)Military Service Pay Rs 6000
(i)NPA Rs 6713
On Becoming Major in 01 Feb 2006 i.e. just one month after his pay has been fixed ,he has got 2 options as per Para 12 of SAI 2/S/2008.(a) Get his pay fixed from date of promotion and (b) Get his pay fixed from date of Increment (01 Jul). considering both options one by one we find that :-
Option (a)
(i)New Grade pay Rs 6600
(ii)Extra Increment Rs 830 (Rs 820.50 rounded off to next multiple of 10)
(iii)Pay in the Pay band(01 Feb) Rs 21560
(iv)Revised Basic Pay(01 Feb) Rs 28160
( As he has been promoted on 01 Feb. he would not get the benefit of increment on coming 01 Jul and his Basic will remain same as that on 01 Feb 2006)
Option (b)
(i)New Grade pay Rs 6600
(ii)Increment 1(annual) Rs 810 (Rs 805.50 rounded off to next multiple of 10)
(iii)Increment 2(promotional) Rs 850 (Rs 845.40 rounded off to next multiple of 10)
(iv)Pay in the Pay band(01Jul) Rs 22430
(v)Revised Basic Pay(01 Jul) Rs 29030
(The benefit of additional increment has been granted)
From the above mentioned example it is very clear as to the kind of anomaly that has been introduced by implementation of this Running pay band from Lt to Lt Col.
As evident from the above two illustration, there are two Officers of AMC who are just one month junior and senior to each other and their pay as taken by them (as per 5th Pay commission) was same from Feb 2006 onwards and the senior officer enjoyed the edge in pay and allowances for one month only but implementation of 6th Pay commission without rationalizing the position of various ranks in the running Pay band, has created a Yawning gap of Pay and allowances between them ,to the extent of thousands of Rupees in the Basic pay itself. This in turn will have its effect on the various allowances that are granted on Basic pay and this Gap will widen further. Additionally with every passing year the annual increment that is granted will be 3% of the Basic pay, hence Officer A will be moving up faster in the Pay band compared to Officer B. It seems that Major B is paying the price of being junior to Major A ,just by one month, in a big way. I hope that the Top Army brass do see this Anomaly and rectify the same as this is going to effect a sizable no of officers especially officers who are promoted from captain to major which form a very sizeable number. The hike in salary on being promoted to Major was quite impressive from Rs 10200 / 10500 to 11600/11925 and also there was an associated hike of rank pay by Rs 800(from 400 to 1200).The same has been brutally blunted in the New pay band.
Suggested Remedy
Each Pay scale that has been merged to form the Pay Band should be represented at a different level in the Running pay band. Let the Pay band be same but there should be a minimum pay fixed in the pay band for each rank corresponding to the pay scale of 5th Pay commission.
Suggested Pay Structure
S.No.
Rank
Existing
Pay Band
Corresponding
Pay Scale
Rank Pay
Pay Band
Minimum Pay (Except AMC etc)
Minimum Pay (AMC,ADC,RVC)
Grade Pay
MSP
1.
Lt
8250-10050
Nil
PB - 3
15600-39100
15600
17020
5400
6000
2.
Capt
9600-11400
400
PB - 3
15600-39100
18600
19290
6100
6000
3.
Maj
11600-14850
1200
PB - 3
15600-39100
23810
25700
6600
6000
4.
Lt Col
13500-17100
1600
PB - 3
15600-39100
28090
30350
7600
6000
Sir,
We heard that there is a discussion of pay structurure about Nursing officers in the Military. what is the present status of their pay and allowances? Are they been treated as military serving personnel or just like the civilian treatment?
Navdeep i would like to know if any news is there about maternity leave being extended to six months as per recommendations of 6th CPC.
Dear Navdeep Sir,
The 6th CPC had recommended an additional pension of 20%,30% of the revised basic pension and so on according to age above 80. Now a pensioner drawing more than one pension, at the age of, say 84 can he claim the Additional Pension in both the pensions ? Please clarify.
Thank u Sir,
As I am drawing military and civil pension, after my death, my spouse will draw both family pension because both are different accounts head. please clarify and advice me because in civil deptt. a person work continue 35 years of service, the family pension is more than our both family pension. Please clarify.
From Ex-servicemen
Post a Comment