The
following questions arises from the recommendations of the 7th pay
commission in relation to pensions of pre 01 January 2016 retirees of
the defence services.
One Rank One Pension – Nipping 7th CPC Anomalies In The Bud – It may be fitting for services HQs and veterans associations to take up these specific issues for rationalization.
one rank one pension The following questions arises from the recommendations of the 7th pay commission in relation to pensions of pre 01 January 2016 retirees of the defence services.
@ Para 10.2.87 (i) of the recommendations mentions “Pay Band and Grade Pay” as a means of first “fixing” at minimum level in the 7 CPC matrix for calculating notional pay of pre 01 Jan 2016 defence retirees. But retirees of pre 01 Jan 2006 era only had a pay-scale and no grade pay to identify with the “levels” of the 7 CPC matrix. How will pre 01 Jan 2006 retirees fix their notional pay in the matrix as Grade Pay and Pay-Bands were introduced only after 01 Jan 2006 by VI CPC?
@ Then, the same para goes on to recommend that a retiree should add the number of increments “earned” in that level for arriving at the notional pay. Does that mean the increments actually granted or the number of increments from the last pay drawn counting back to the lowest stage of the pay-scale in which a pre 01 Jan 2006 retiree retired?
@ Para 10.2.86 (ii) of the 7 CPC recommendations provides an alternate calculation, viz., of multiplying by 2.57 the pension fixed at time of implementation of VI CPC. But pensioners are already drawing OROP pension with DR at 125%. Thus 2.25 X OROP pension presently being drawn is likely to be higher than the 2.57 X VI CPC pension recommended by 7 CPC. Does that mean 7 CPC will provide a negligible increase, if any, in pensions of defence retirees?
@ To take an example, if five increments plus two stagnation increments actually earned by a Lt Col (or equivalent) who retired with, say, 28 to 30 years of service in August 2004 are put in the matrix at “index” of 7, his notional pay will correspond to a Lt Col of post 01 Jan 2006/01 Jan 2016 era with 13+7=20 years of service i.e. 10 years less than the 2004 Lt Col. Even if the Aug 2004 Lt Col retiree is eligible to count total increments on the pay-scale of 13500-400-17100 down from his last pay (with stagnation increments) of 17900/-, the number of increments comes to 12. If that is put in the matrix, in level 12-A, the Lt Col’s notional pay would be fixed at index 12 which corresponds to a current Lt Col with 13+12=25 years of service, which will be about 4 to 5 years less than the actual service put in by the 2004 retiree. Does the 7 CPC intend to do away with the “equal service” clause of OROP in this fashion?
It may be fitting for services HQs and veterans associations to take up these specific issues for rationalization.
One Rank One Pension – Nipping 7th CPC Anomalies In The Bud – It may be fitting for services HQs and veterans associations to take up these specific issues for rationalization.
one rank one pension The following questions arises from the recommendations of the 7th pay commission in relation to pensions of pre 01 January 2016 retirees of the defence services.
@ Para 10.2.87 (i) of the recommendations mentions “Pay Band and Grade Pay” as a means of first “fixing” at minimum level in the 7 CPC matrix for calculating notional pay of pre 01 Jan 2016 defence retirees. But retirees of pre 01 Jan 2006 era only had a pay-scale and no grade pay to identify with the “levels” of the 7 CPC matrix. How will pre 01 Jan 2006 retirees fix their notional pay in the matrix as Grade Pay and Pay-Bands were introduced only after 01 Jan 2006 by VI CPC?
@ Then, the same para goes on to recommend that a retiree should add the number of increments “earned” in that level for arriving at the notional pay. Does that mean the increments actually granted or the number of increments from the last pay drawn counting back to the lowest stage of the pay-scale in which a pre 01 Jan 2006 retiree retired?
@ Para 10.2.86 (ii) of the 7 CPC recommendations provides an alternate calculation, viz., of multiplying by 2.57 the pension fixed at time of implementation of VI CPC. But pensioners are already drawing OROP pension with DR at 125%. Thus 2.25 X OROP pension presently being drawn is likely to be higher than the 2.57 X VI CPC pension recommended by 7 CPC. Does that mean 7 CPC will provide a negligible increase, if any, in pensions of defence retirees?
@ To take an example, if five increments plus two stagnation increments actually earned by a Lt Col (or equivalent) who retired with, say, 28 to 30 years of service in August 2004 are put in the matrix at “index” of 7, his notional pay will correspond to a Lt Col of post 01 Jan 2006/01 Jan 2016 era with 13+7=20 years of service i.e. 10 years less than the 2004 Lt Col. Even if the Aug 2004 Lt Col retiree is eligible to count total increments on the pay-scale of 13500-400-17100 down from his last pay (with stagnation increments) of 17900/-, the number of increments comes to 12. If that is put in the matrix, in level 12-A, the Lt Col’s notional pay would be fixed at index 12 which corresponds to a current Lt Col with 13+12=25 years of service, which will be about 4 to 5 years less than the actual service put in by the 2004 retiree. Does the 7 CPC intend to do away with the “equal service” clause of OROP in this fashion?
It may be fitting for services HQs and veterans associations to take up these specific issues for rationalization.
0 comments:
Post a Comment