As discussed earlier, the Ministry of Defence, in its letter dated 15-11-2010, had incorrectly mentioned the ordinary family pension in respect of Lt Cols as Rs 8760/- per month whereas it should have actually been Rs 15420/- per month.
The PCDA(P) had also floated a circular to all Pension Disbursing Agencies (PDAs) with the same incorrect amount.
However now, the PCDA(P) vide a circular issued on 22-02-2011, has clarified the following to all PDAs :
“There shall be no change in the entitlement of the rates of minimum guaranteed family pension for the rank of Lt Col (TS) / Lt Col (S) which had already been notified as 15420/- pm under VI CPC vide MOD letter dated 21.05.2009 and circulated vide this office circular No. 412 dated 26.05.2009”
Affected families can now breathe easy !
The PCDA(P) had also floated a circular to all Pension Disbursing Agencies (PDAs) with the same incorrect amount.
However now, the PCDA(P) vide a circular issued on 22-02-2011, has clarified the following to all PDAs :
“There shall be no change in the entitlement of the rates of minimum guaranteed family pension for the rank of Lt Col (TS) / Lt Col (S) which had already been notified as 15420/- pm under VI CPC vide MOD letter dated 21.05.2009 and circulated vide this office circular No. 412 dated 26.05.2009”
Affected families can now breathe easy !
28 comments:
No one seems realise the atrocity of VI CPC towards Lt Col(S). I don't think anyone has any doubt that Lt Col(TS)was a rank junior to Lt Col (S). VI CPC with one stroke demoted all Lt Col (S) to Lt Col (TS). When the rank of Lt Col (S) is abolished one cannot downgrade the then existing officers and pensioners to LtCol (TS). They are to be put in the corresponding rank of Col. If the government does not wish to give the financial bemefits, it is OK. They would have given the rank of Col notionally and should not have humiliated by downgrading. Among the existing past Lt col (S)pensioners there are officers who were promoted from the rank of Lt Col(TS)also. May I request Maj Navdeep to give some consideration to the above aspect.
Maj Navdeep,
It is good., Hope the PDAs wll implement the same without amy delay.
Col Rajaraman
Refer anonymous 28 Feb 11; 7:21 am
One should NOT think that Lt Col (S)
have been downgraded to Lt Col (TS).
We should rather appreciate that Lt Col (TS) have been brought at par with Lt Col (S).
In fact all officers who retired after rendering minimum qualifying service that is now needed to become a Col (TS) should be notionally granted the rank of Col and granted pension as Col...it is none of our fault if orders did not exist prior to Dec 2004 for Col (TS).
Hope we will learn to be people with large heart.
I find no diffrence between Wg Cdr ( TS or Sel ) or Gp Capt ( TS or Sel ) All seem to be getting almost same pension or perhaps lower rank getting higher . Why then make selective ranks suffer more with extra burden and responsibilities and still give same pension . Is not it criminal to equate all of them almost at same level ? What use of working hard and still be equated with with a Wg Cdr .All ranks are diffrent . Either give them their due or stop calling them by these ranks and consider them as Wg Cdr only.Why have a rank system when everyone considers themselves equal.
GURDEEP SINGH
GROUP CAPTAIN (Retd )
Ref Anonymous 28 Feb 11 7:21 am
I agree with you and that we all should have a large heart.
Eliminate the "RANK PERFORMERS" and we will remain with "GOOD" hearts rather than "SUCCESSFUL" heads.
@Navdeep
Uncorrelated, but I had a doubt. One of my uncles (a Govt servant in reciept of pension) expired a few years ago. His wife started getting the family pension thereafter. Once she too expired, their unmarried daughter (with no income) started getting the family pension.
I presume that she would stop getting the family pension once she gets married. The question is, what happens if she gets divorced and returns back to the previous status. Can she resume the family pension? I could not find a clear answer to that despite trying.
It would be great if you can shed some light on this vague subject in one of your posts anytime.
One can understand the past humiliations of Lt Col (TS) when they were placed under command of Lt Col (S) officers even 10 years junior to them. But that does not mean that those Lt Col(s) to be humiliated and put them back to their original seniority and placed under Lt Col (TS). It is not easy to have a large heart enough to sustain this humility. That is why the demand is only for a notional rank of Col and not for any financial benefits. Hope someone consider this atorcity.
@Anonymous Feb28:"..They are to be put in the corresponding rank of Col.." :-)
Then won't the likeminded Cols (Retd.), and equivalents, have to resort to a hunger strike too?
Its true, our promotion and appraisal systems are not exactly 'cutting-edge'. But they get the job done.
At the same time, some, perhaps a large number, do not pick up ranks because they did not master the fine art of buttering up their 'reporting officers'.
Those who picked up the higher ranks need not always view their promotion orders as having been written in stone by the fiery finger of God.
Maybe officers with better minds and qualifications, and breeding, got left behind.
So it is only fair that these pensionary awards compensate for the travesties the promotion boards have inflicted in the past on some from the cadre.
It is peculiar that though PCDA have clarified the status of family pensions applicable to Lt Col and equivalent ranks at para 3 of their current Circular, the MOD letter dated 15 November 2010, forwarded as an annexure with this new Circular, still carries the unrevised annexure showing the incorrect family pensions for the Lt Col rank.
That's ideal breeding ground for confusion at the disbursement stage and still has the potential of causing undue harassment to families drawing family pension.
And, instead of focussing on those aspects of the issue, we have the sordid display of veterans bemoaning the loss of 'stature' on account of the fact that those who had been left behind, by a not always fair and proper promotion system, also get equivalent pensionary benefits.
Those viewpoints should gladden the heart of the kind of mindsets in the country who wish to pit one section of the armed forces against another.
Refer anonymous 01 March 11; 1:01am
Unmarried /widowed/divorcee daughters are entitled for family pension under the authority of same letter.
However ,unfortunately the names of children are NOT mentioned in the PPOs.
The procedure for claim is not well known to so many ESM.
Maj Navdeep may help us by publishing detailed procedure
@Gurdeep Singh; Group Captain (Retired):"..Is not it criminal to equate all of them almost at same level?.."
:-) Are you serious? No, really, I mean that sincerely!
Who is to tell? Maybe it was downright criminal some got promoted to Col, Gp Capt or Capt(IN) ranks.
And it's a matter of pure conjecture as to what exactly is meant by "extra burden and responsibilities".
@ 1 MAR 11 7.24 PM
Too late to crib. We joined because of our own will .If some one did not make it to higher rank,dont blame those who got it and dont try to equate with them also. The diffrence in rank will remain till death .Grapes are sour it seems. Be bold enough to reveal your identity . If you cant realise extra burden and responsibilities I am sorry to say you wasted time in services. Thanks.Even if you reply I wont respond to it any further.
GURDEEP SINGH
GROUP CAPTAIN (Retd )
Mr.Anonymous March 1, 2011 7:17 PM
Yes widowed/divorced/unmarried daughters are indeed entitled to family pension even beyond 25 yrs of age,which to be honest is quite an absurd decision on the part of the govt. Why should daughters beyond 25 yrs of age be given family pension when they can get a job on their own? Why should the tax payers money wasted this way?
there are many widows(wives of deceased) who only get 3500 plus DA .Neither the earlier pbor rev(cir 350) nor the current one(cir 430) is applicable to them.Why not raise their FP and put a stop to this practice of supporting daughters beyond 25(not just military but also other pensioners).
It is sickening, the way TS and S is being bandies about. This primarily is the reason we are where we are today, fighting for alms and nobody gives a damn even if we sign in blood. This mindset that if I got S, the TS must not get the fruits of service, has to change. If anyone has given 25+years of life to a system where freedom is only a notion, he/she deserves everything that is permissible rather than the ignominy of TS and S.
@ Kaps, 02 Mar 2011,
Well said Kaps, even after retirement few officers think they are superior to others but not realizing that they were in that position at the right time. Anyway now we should think of UNITY & make sure that how others can be benifitted. So just forget about S & TS and be UNITED.
Sir,
The circular No 453 again shown as family pension for LTCol&Lt Col (TS)as 8760 and to br treated as Annexure II of on 11.11.2008 MOD letter and not mentioned anything about the circularNo 412.Please clarify.
EX SGT M Arumugam
Any one having any knowledge on notification for DA increase wef 1-1-11.
Normally it used to be announced sometimes by mid of February.
@Anonymous March 03:"notification for DA.."
I do think that is an "off Topic" comment on this particular blog post. Of course, one would like to be of help on the chatroll chat-box on such matters.
@EX Sgt M Murugam"..again shown as family pension for LTCol&Lt Col (TS)as 8760...": Absolutely right. Para 3 of the circular at does clarify that the family pension would be what this blog post states. But the letter with the circular is the same old one with the incorrect family pension.
@Ex Sgt M Arumugam: I'm sorry I mis-spelt your name in my previous comment.
Dear Maj Navdeep,
Wish you many many happy returns of the day and may God bless you.
As regards T S and selection grade Lt Col you have made it amply clear in the blog to accept it with a good heart.
Then came the Col TS which is a new thought process of MoD.
Resposibility varies. A TS cANNOT HOLD COMMAND and CONTRACT operating or operationl command .
Then what about the cases of Selection grade Cols who were approved for Brigs gone home without picking up ranks due to lack of vacancies. Why cant the MoD giVe the notional rank of Brig to all such cases. Even in Navy I believe that a Capt in the Navy before retirement is given the Rank of Commodore equivalent to Brig. Why this doUble standard? Can any on throw some light on this please?
Thanks
With regards
Col K V Velayudhan
@Col Velayudhan:Sorry for this interjection, but what I have to share may be relevant to this issue, which, of course does not really relate to the main blog post.
However, as I understand it, the 'promotion' to Commodore in IN has a slightly different connotation. I understand they use a term like 'empanelment' rather than outright promotion from Capt(IN) to Cdre. Maybe an Officer from the Navy would clarify.
@Col VK Velayudhan:You could consider viewing this web page which illustrates the difference in the way Officers are promoted in the Army and Air Force on the one hand against the elevation to the next higher 'rank' in the Indian Navy.
Lt Col (S) & (TS) is one issue that cannot be resolved on majority opinion as the Lt Col (S) left behind mostly due to age and various other factors are too small a group who does not wish to enter into street-fight. Whenever any aspect connected with this is raised in any forum including this, there is bombardment from the majority blaming the selection process and to the extend of blaming the officer who raised any doubt on the issue as an unworthy creature. Instead of misleading the main issue why can't we accept the hard unpleasant reality that Lt Col (S) was definitely a rank Superior to Lt Col (TS) with different pay, higher status, different judicial and administrative powers and responsibilities. Very senior Lt Col (TS) were placed directly under Command of very junior Lt Col (S)as a routine. For the sake of argument even if we accept that the Lt Col (S) were poor calibre useless officers who achieved the S rank through back-doors, it does not change their legally admitted status of superiority over Lt Col (TS). So let us accept that fait accomplii. Once it is accepted that Lt Col (S) is a rank superior to Lt Col (TS), the government or anyone else have no authority to bring down their status and pay to that of officers junior to them viz., Lt Col (TS). The judiciary is bound to support their stand whenapproached.
Any comment Maj Navdeep ?
@Anonymous: But the AV Singh Phase I was intended to end stagnation in the Officer cadre. The distinction between S and TS for the Lt Col rank was done away with. Promotions were speeded up. Is it your contention that AV Singh Phase I should be done away with, perhaps with retrospective effect? And why is that comment being made on this Blog post which is about the correction of a mistake made in a MOD letter about pensions?
Dear Mr.corona8, Kindly do not mislead the issue. The topic gathered so much comment cannot be ignored simply because it is made on this blog. A clear reference of S and TS made in this blog brought in the issue for discussion. Such an open healthy discussion should be welcomed so long as it maintain the decorum of this forum and the participants does not speak trash to give vent to emotions. The question is whether you accept Lt Col (S) a rank Superior to Lt Col (TS) or not. I have proved affirmatively unless someone disprove me. How can government demote Lt Col (S) to Lt Col (TS) ? It is unlawful. I had already made a suggestion that what is needed is a recognition and a notional permission to consider the residual Lt Col (S)as Col with no increase in emoluments; Anything wrong ?
*"...Do not mislead the issue..."
*"...so long as it maintain the decorum..."
"...the participants does not speak trash..."
No Officer, leave alone a Lt Col, or Officers of equivalent ranks in the Air Force or Navy, could possibly use such pre-middle school grammar. One wonders who our good friend Anonymous really is.
Since Maj Navdeep is the owner of this blog, clearly the discretion of permitting off-topic comments on the blog posts rests with him. At the same time, the issue of the need to be careful of trolls on the net is hardly a new one. Readers of the blog could consider using the thumb rule of "Not feeding the troll". :-)
Sir,
This pertains to the notional increment to arr at last pay drawn for fixation of pension; that was in vogue before 6th CPC. Guiding rule was that indl has put in more than six months of service before reting after having earned the last increment.
Now, a pers - born between 01 Jan & 30 Jun- will neither get the increment(notional) for the fixation of last pay drawn for pension nor he will get any increment during first yr of re-emp; even if he joins re-emp the very next day after retirement.He looses out on two increments.
Where as the pers born on or after 01 Jul to 31 Dec gains both ways,i.e, gets an increment before retirement as well as during the first yr of his re-emp.
This anomoly needs to be addressed by Granting Notional increment for arriving at the last pay drawn.
Thanking you
Ripu Daman
Col(Retd)
DOB: 10 Feb 56- retired on 28 feb 2010-Joined re-emp 0n 01 Mar 20101- No notional incr for fixation of pension- No increment on 01 Jul 2010.
I had asked this related question on the chatroll today, but by the time I came back to check if some kind soul had provided any guidance, my query had been swept away in a torrent of links and other chat :-)
Briefly, could anyone be kind enough to guide what would be the enhanced family pension if the retiree dies before attaining 65 years of age?
Thanks.
Post a Comment