Copyright © 2017ESSAA. All rights reserved.

Primary tabs

Rebuttal to "Irresponsible..." Post of Maj Navdeep Singh (Rtd)

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on Tue, 15/09/2015 - 17:46
Undefined

Dear Major. Navdeep Singh sir,

     Thanks a lot for your prompt reply and positive feelings expressed therein. I would consider myself as fortunate and blessed if I can be of any help to you to redress the grievances of POTOs and Widows, most of whom struggle to survive in these hard days, with the meager pension  that they receive from Defence.

With Regards

 

Sgt MPKaran (Retd)

President, AFVAI

kARNATAKA CHAPTER,

Bangalore. 

 

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Navdeep Singh <navdeepsingh.india@gmail.com> wrote:

You're most welcome to mail me anytime. We'll discuss each and every point in detail.

However the start point of your argument itself is incorrect since regular Lts and Capts with lower length of service have NOT been compared with Hony Officers with longer length of service. In any case there are hardly any officer level pensioners in the rank of Lt or Capt. Also the protection of the pension of Lts and Capts vis-a-vis Hony officers is not because of any sleight of hand of the Govt but because of a Court ruling.

You must advise members on your mailing list not to spread rumours or to create a rift by incorrectly stating that pensions of officers are based on notional maximum, while the truth is that pensions are based on minimum.
Also please do not unnecessarily pick up on typographical errors in my mails. I'm sure it's clear to you that I meant FR 22 which got wrongly written/typed as FR 23. As far as a Lieut's 5th CPC scale is concerned, it was indeed till 10050 but it goes up to a higher stage based on stagnation increments in the fitment table. You may have a look at the said table appended with SAI 2/S/08 and see for yourself.

The committee of which I'm a member is not dealing with pay and pension anomalies and is only concerned with reduction of appeals filed by MoD in the SC and strengthening the mechanism of redressal of grievances.

I shall however still gladly look into all your points and convey the discrepancies to the MoD and the Services HQ. I'll get in touch with you if I have any doubts about the points that you've raised. You're most welcome to mail me any additional inputs on the subject.

Thanks

N

On 14 Sep 2015 22:54, "PRABHAKARAN M" <mpkaran1955@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Maj. Navdeep Singh sir,

Greetings!

We the POTOs (Personnel Other Than Officers) have always kept you in high esteem and looked up to you as an officer and advocate who stood by  justice, equality and fairness. Your contribution to XSM community is commendable. Yet I am of the humble opinion that the injustice done to us  over a period of time is not appropriately appreciated.  Hence I thought of writing this mail on the latest issue of arrears to Pre- 2006 pensioners effective from 01.01.2006. There are many such issues sir about which I would keep writing to you on behalf of AFVAI ( ARMED FORCES VETERANS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA) from time to time.

Regular Lieutenants and Captains with less service cannot be seniors to Hon. Lieutenants and Captains with full service:

Your basic argument that Hon.Lieutenants, and Hon.Captains are junior to regularly commissioned Lieutenants and Captains appears not correct. It is akin to comparing a kid who joined yesterday with his grandpa who has served more than 33 years?

Can a Direct Recruited Section Officer in civil service who has served only 20 years claim to be senior and demand more or equal pension than the promoted Section Officer who retired after 33 years of service? It defies all logic sir.

Cardinal Principle for protection of Pay/ pension of seniors:

Even assuming it to be so, one of the cardinal  principles of stepping up of pay (pension) under provisio to 

Fundamental ​Rules 22 1(a)1, is that on the day of anomaly the senior must have  been drawing higher pay(pension) than the junior. The position is not so in the case of  Hon. Lieutenant and  Lieutenant. The basic pay of a Hon. Lieutenant is 10500(fixed) and the Lieutenant's pay could be anywhere in the scale of 8250-10050. Even the maximum (10050) of the pay of a  Lieutenant is less than the pay drawn by a Hon. Lieutenant which is 10500(fixed). Similar is the case with Captains and Hon, Captains.Then on what basis their pension was protected retrospectively from 01.01.2006, sir?

I have seen in one of your mails sent to a member of our group, ​mentioning​  that the maximum of the pay scale of a Lieutenant is 10950 and not 10050. But let me humbly submit to you sir that it is only 10050 and not 10950 as claimed by you. You can check this in table 11 of PCDA circular no 542, attache​d​

 

FR 23 irrelevant in this context:

You have also referred about Fundamental Rules 23 in the same mail. The FR 23 deals only with the change in the pay of a post and it doesn't deal with "senior drawing lower pension  than the lower rank". 

Sir, Let us not in our anxiety prove others wrong, quote the rules out of context and out of place.

In any case the Hon.Lieutenants and Hon.Captains are not lower in rank than Lieutenants and Captains, respectively. They are only equals and  whoever served longer will draw higher pension.

PCDA Circular No 500 dated 17.01.2013 issued on the basis of COS recommendations​:​

Further the benefit of minimum guaranteed pension of commissioned officers notified vide MOD letter dated 17.01.2013 (PCDA Circular No.500) was given effect from 24.09.2012, NOT on the basis of any court orders as is the case with civil pensioners.

It was ​done  on the basis of the recommendations of the committee of secretaries (COS) as in the case of POTOs( Personnel Other Than Officers). Kindly refer para 2 of the above letter in this regard.

​ How can then one category of beneficiaries( Officers) become entitled to arrears from 01.01.2006 to 23.09.2012 and the other category of beneficiaries (POTO) are not entitled to it, when both the categories were covered by the terms of reference and  recommendations of the same COS?

 

The MGP of Commissioned Officers is not calculated​(in PCDA Circular No 500​)​​on the minimum of the scale​:​

 

Your contention that Officers Minimum Guaranteed Pension (MGP) was calculated on the basis of minimum of the 5th CPC scale, while that of the POTOs were calculated on the notional maximum of the pre revised scale and so POTOs are not entiltled to arrears as per the pension sanctioned on 24.09.2012 is also erroneous.

As per Rule 27 of Pension Regulation of Army-2008 Part-1, the pension of POTOs is calculated on the basis of maximum of the scale.

The civilians and Commissioned Officers pensions are calculated on the basis of pay drawn

Similarly whenever the new CPC recommendations are implemented, the pension of already retired POTOs are fixed on the basis of notional maximum of the pre-revised scale, while that of officers and civil pensioners,are​ fixed on the basis of the minimum of the scale

       However while implementing the recommendations of the 6CPC, the pension of pre- 2006 retired POTOs were erroneously fixed on the basis of minimum of the 5 CPC scales.  This error was corrected by the COS effective from 01.07.2009 prospectively. POTOs pension was subsequently enhanced  from 24.09.2012, by the COS after adding two more years of weight age upto the rank of Havildar & equivalent. No additional weightage was added to JCOs.

 

​Weightage to Qualifying Service:

 

This was perhaps done by COS, as the weightage applicable to officers then, was higher than POTOs, as can be seen below:

Lieutenant 09, Captain 09, Major 08, Lieutenant. Colonel. 07, Colonel(Time Scale) 07, Colonel(Selection) 07, Brigadier 05

Sepoy 10, Naik 08, Havildar 06 and JCOs 05

It is an irony to note that the IAS officers and other Civil service pensioners with whom officers compare themselves had an uniform weightage of 5 years only.

 

​PCDA Cirulars 500 & 542 conflict each other:​

Sir, the MGP of Commissioned Officers notified vide MOD letter dated 17.01.2013 ( PCDA Circular No 500) is in complete variance with the minimum fitment pay notified vide Table 11 of PCDA circular no 542. 

The MGP of a Lt has been calculated on 10500, while the notional maximum of the scale itself is only 10050.

Similarly the MGP of a Brigadiar is also calculated on the maximum of his scale in 16700-18050.

For all other ranks it has been calculated closer to the notional maximum of the pre-revised scale. 

Most interestingly, it may also be seen that the MGP of the Cols, Brigadiers and Maj. Generals are the same upto 26 and 28 years of service respectively. How?

The correct interpretation of Circular No 547 & 548​:​

 

Therefore  the correct interpretation of PCDA Circular No. 547 and 548 is as follows:

POTOs are eligible for the arrears from 01.01.2006 to 23.09.2012 as per the pension

​enhanc​ed by COS on 24.09.2012 .

The Commissioned Officers are eligible for arrears from 01.01.2006 to 23.09.2012, @ 50% of the minimum fitment pay as per table 11 appended to PCDA Circular No 542. The excess payment made from 24.09.2012 till date on the basis of PCDA Circular no 500, may have to be adjusted.

 

Other important points:​

Now kindly enlighten us sir, as to who was spreading misleading and wrong information regarding arrears from 01.01.2006? Does not the above facts prove that there was a systematic attempt to short change the pension of POTOs?? This episode will also raise the legitimate demand to include a couple of​ POTO representative​s in the  committees constituted /to be constituted by the MOD for various purposes. Kindly understand sir that POTOs constitute 95% of the XSM community. Any committee constituted by the MOD relating to service matters without any POTO rep in it, is no committee at all. What justice can they do to us, sir? It is we who know where our boot pinches!

 

Sir, since you are a member of the committee constituted by the Hon'ble RM to reduce litigation cases in Defence services, we request  the entire committee  through you to consider suo moto the above facts and anomalies for issue of suitable orders by MOD, which will avoid any future litigation on the matter.

If I have not made myself clear on any of the points above, I am prepared to discuss it in detail with you sir. Kindly let me know.

I have also attached the Circular No 500, 542 and Pension Regulation 2008 Part-1 for your ready reference.

With Regards

Sgt MPKaran (Retd)
President, AFVAI
Karnataka Chapter
Bangalore.