Monday, October 4, 2010
Letter By Maj Gen RN Radhakrishnan
193, Vira Ma Munivar St,
Bastin Ngr, Madurai-625016.
Dept of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
Ministry of Defence, GOI,
198 B, South Block, New Delhi-110011
Sub: Anomaly in Revision of Pension wrt to Officers Retired on or before 31Dec2005
Ref: Your office letter # 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pens/Policy) dated 11 Nov 2008 duly amended on 11 Dec 2008 and my letter on this aspect dated 24 Dec 2008 and 02 Jan 2009.
Thank you very much for your prompt action to set right the anomaly in fixing the pension of Major General and Lieutenant General, through the corrigendum dated 20 Jan 2009. Encouraged by your response, I take the liberty to point out that in my letter dated 02 Jan 2009, I had highlighted not only the anomaly in the pension of the General Officers that rose due to not accounting the MSP, but also the anomaly in all ranks of the Commissioned Officers due to misinterpretation of the phrase ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ in paragraph 5 of your policy letter dated 11 Nov 2008.
This aspect is perhaps under study by your officials. I have not received any communication from your office acknowledging the receipt of my letters. I shall feel more confident if an acknowledgement is posted to me.
I am enclosing as Appendix ‘A’ giving a detailed analysis that covers the anomaly in pension of the officers of the rank from Captain to Lieutenant General and their equivalent in the Air Force and Navy on account of the misinterpretation of the phrase mentioned above.
I am confident you would do the needful and at an early date, and restore the confidence of all Ex-servicemen in the fairness of the Government.
Sd RN Radhakrishnan
Anomaly of the Revised Pension of Officers of the Rank of Captain to Lieutenant General Drawing Pension As On 31 Dec 2008
RN Radhakrishnan (Retd Major General)
Ref MOD letter # 17(4)/2008(1)/D (Pen/Policy) dated 11Nov08, 11Dec08 and Annexure II (Revised) to the letter dated 20Jan09
The revised pension for commissioned officers of the rank of Captain to Lieutenant General (please note the points analyzed are equally applicable to the Air Force and Naval equivalent officers as well) has been worked out much lower than what is due to them. The reason for such incorrect revision is the misinterpretation of the policy by the concerned officials. The table at annexure ii has been drawn taking the minimum figure
· 15600 of the Pay Band 3 for all officers from Lieutenant to Lieutenant Colonel
· 37400 of the Pay Band 4 for all officers from Colonel to Lieutenant General
Simplification of the many existing pay scales into just two for Class A officers necessarily leads to a figure for the minimum of each band. But that minimum figure can in no way be equated to the minimum pay which is applicable to each of the higher ranks.
Here the words ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ has to be interpreted correctly. Minimum pay of these senior ranks has to, perforce, be much higher than the minimum of the pay band. The event of the officers of higher ranks getting pay at the minimum of pay band is unlikely. Promotion is in accordance with a policy and a minimum service is stipulated for promotion to each of the higher rank. Therefore, the minimum pay applicable to higher ranks will invariably be higher than that of the lower rank.
6CPC acknowledges this fact. Now let us see the comments made by the 6CPC regarding the minimum pay. Under the comments for paragraph 5.1.47 in page 251 it says ‘The condition that revised pension may not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay band is based on minimum of the lowest scale in that band. And is not equal to the presumed minimum had a separate revised scale been recommended for each case’. SAI 2/S/2008 dated 14 Oct 2008 has done just that. Each rank has a specific pay scale. Can one justify using the minimum of the pay band, not minimum stipulated pay of the rank as given in SAI 2/S/2008 dated 14 Oct 2008 for fixing the pension for the existing pensioners?
And if that minimum pay, the one arrived at through correct interpretation, is used, this anomaly in fixing the pension shall vanish. Please see the table below.
Rank Min figure in PBMin Pay in SAI2/S/2008Correct PensionWrong Pension
Lt 15600 15600 13500 13500
Capt 15600 18600 15350 13850
Maj 15600 23810 18205 14100
Lt Col15600 28090 20845* 14600
Col 37400 40890 27795 26050
Brig 37400 43390 29145 26150
Maj Gen37400 44700 30350 26700
Lt Gen 37400 51850 34925 27700
* for Lt Col the pension shall go up to 25500 as and when they are placed at Pay Band 4
Thus it leads to the reasonable conclusion that the revised annexure referred above is based on wrong interpretation of the principles of revision of pension and must be treated as null and void. Hence, the department must take immediate action to withdraw this annexure with necessary announcement in the leading newspapers to that effect for the information of all the pensioners across the country.
It is worth giving a thought on the effect, the present policy has on some of the officers who retired on 31Dec08 and due for retirement subsequently. A matter of few minutes of time difference in the birth makes a difference in pension to the extent of near about ten thousand. The following questions are pertinent:
· Is such a policy is drawn in accordance with the law of natural justice?
· Is arbitrariness of the date 01Jan06 not the cause for creating such an injustice?
· Can there not be a better and a fairer way of distribution of the resources, conceding the constraint of the National Economy?
· Is that not the area where the financial wizards show their innovative skill?
From: RP Mishra [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 27 September 2010 10:21
To: Radha Krishnan RN; Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri; Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: Re: 20100926(1) – AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
I fully agree with you with what you have written in the mail referred to..I do hope that MoD issues a letter refixing pensions based on the judgement of AFT. Earlier, IESL had sent a mail that MoD is likely to issue such a letter as per their information.
As far as role of IESL and IESM are concerned, both are required. Their mission is same. While one is applying pressure by going to media, organising peaceful protests etc, the other is trying to achieve same thing diplomatically. It is said that even mother gives milk when child cries. Child has started crying. I feel IESL and IESM are complementary to each other, if ego does not come in the way, they can really look after the welfare of ESM.
I am pasting text of a mail I had forwarded to Air Force friends of mine.
"Hello Friends, I am attaching the judgement delivered by AFT in Majors case. Operative part is on page 29-30 which reads,"For all pre retirees of Lt Cdr and other ranks, their minimum of pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006i.e.Rs. 23810. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of pay in the pay band, i.e. Rs. 23810 with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months."
For Majors and equivalent, total pay works out to 23810+6600 (grade pay) +6000 (MSP)=36410. Pension would be 18205 and family pension 10923. Present take home pension would be 26398 and 15839 (including DA @ 45%) respectively.
With the input from IESL (which is quite authentic) that pensions of all ranks will be re-fixed on this basis, GoI may not go for appeal against AFT judgement.
I am giving below, in the bracket, existing pension, amount if the pension is re-fixed, total take home pension after re-fixation with 45% DA and arrears expected for the duration Jan 06 to Dec 2010 for ranks of Major to Major General.
Major (14464, 18205,26398,263340), Lt Col (25700,26265,38085,39810), Col (26050,27795,40303,122916), Brigadier (26150,29145,42260,210964) and AVM (26700,30350,44008,257118)"'
AVM RP Mishra (Vice President IESL)
In tabular form – Chander Kamboj à
Plus 45% DAArrears
to Dec 2010
Lt Col25700262653808539810 Error