IESM Political touch

Dear All,

As you know, I am not a member of the IESM, but since I am concerned with veteran issues, I am appending my take on the post-election controversy, which has ruled the e-mail circuit since the election results were announced.
Now that tempers seem to have cooled down amongst the veterans, the need is for some introspection by all the organizations, big and small, which are looking after the interests of the veterans. This includes the Core Group of the IESM.

One has seen in the past that everyone wants to take credit for anything achieved and this was quite discernable in the various e-mails that were on the web from time to time. These also contributed to discord at times.The fact of the matter is that it is the contribution of every organization and some individuals too which resulted in the veterans getting some issues resolved. When one organization wants to take credit, it creates bad blood unnecessarily and hence should be avoided.

When something adverse happens, all organizations initially react in a manner which can best be described as ‘digging ones heels’, rationalization and trying to justify one’s actions. This phase is in reality counter-productive. Instead, what the members want is reassurances that the decision makers do realize that they got carried away by promises made and the presence of more or less committed persons who pushed the agenda of their favourite party and that they would be more pragmatic and less impulsive in future. Humility and not brashness is needed at this stage, if veteran organizations want to win back and retain their flocks and even get fresh aspirants. This is applicable to all veteran organizations and not just the IESM. After all, they all supported one or the other political parties, for their own reasons.

This is also the time to think rationally, with the head and not the heart, of how to make the best of a bad bargain and re-think on the future course of action. The following points come to my mind, but I am sure more knowledgeable persons would be able to refine and redefine them:

Ø Should the agitational approach continue or should there be a pause, if not an abandonment of this approach altogether?
Ø Is the organization ready to make ‘peace’ (I am not sure whether that is the correct word) with other veteran organizations and chalk out a coordinated, if not joint programme which can help the veterans collectively? It automatically means all concerned to give way partly (of both their egos and programmes) for the common good.
Ø It is quite obvious that one of the earlier actions to be taken is to co-opt more than just the Core Group in the deliberations, as the Group can never be as objective as desirable. If a General Body Meeting can be organized, it may be a good option, but unless a few generally acceptable options are first decided and circulated, such a meeting may well be counter-productive, with a large number just articulating emotions! There may also be a logistics problem. There are two options to overcome the problem, as under:
- Firstly, a brain-storming session should be held by say about 50 selected members, who should debate all issues dispassionately and come up with a working plan for further implementation.
- Secondly, if Option I is not feasible, then another possible solution is to nominate a small cell which can tour major locations in each state to discuss and find out views of a large cross-section of members and even others if feasible.
- Irrespective of the option adopted, the outcome should then be disseminated and members be asked to vote on the issues recommended, thus obviating members from outstations being called for a General Body Meeting.
Ø My view is that time is NOT at a premium. The newly established cabinet and government will need time to settle down to their jobs and deal with more weighty issues. For them, the issue of OROP or other issues agitating the veterans are, I feel, of lesser importance. In the interim, issues considered important by the veterans should be listed out and sent to them so that they are flagged till the concerned veteran organization is ready to commence a more comprehensive dialogue.

The above suggestions are not only for the IESM, but all veteran organizations. Simultaneously, efforts should be re-initiated, separately, to reach understandings amongst all veteran organizations, as all are undoubtedly working for the benefit of the veteran community, in their own way. It may be utopian, at least at this stage, to think that the different organizations will merge and become one entity. However, coordination and cooperation are eminently feasible. What is needed is appreciation of others viewpoints and an accommodative approach.

I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the following issues, as they are highly sensitive and can be read wrongly, when one is trying to mend matters and reach a consensus:
Ø The agitational or the lobbying approach.
Ø Rationalization of the bigger question whether veterans and active service personnel should go their separate ways or adopt the theory of the umbilical chord, stressed by many, including me.
Ø The major question of being politically aligned or being apolitical; many views have already been expressed. In addition, what constitutes being ‘political’ and the parameters of being ‘apolitical’.
.Warm regards.
Vijay Oberoi
Former Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS)Former Director Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)RESIDENCELt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM 'DAULAT'#673, Sector - 6Panchkula - 134109Telephone - 0172 - 2587642, 2587648e - mail : http://in.mc948.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=oberoivijay@hotmail.comOFFICELt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM PresidentWar Wounded Foundation313, MIG (Ground floor), Pkt-I,Sector-23, Dwarka,New Delhi- 110075 Telephone - 011-45604116E-mail - http://in.mc948.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=warwounded@rediffmail.com ; http://in.mc948.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=enquiry@warwounded.org.Web site http://www.warwounded.org/

Disability Pension and PB4

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Benefit of rounding off / bunching of disability percentage for calculation of disability element would be applicable to superannuating personnel too
The 5th Central Pay Commission had recommended the benefit of rounding-off / bunching of disability percentages for grant of disability element of disability pension. It was recommended that persons with disability till 50% should be paid a disability element calculated by taking the disability at 50%, those with a disability between 50-75% should be granted a disability element by taking the disability as 75% and those with a disability above 75% should be granted a disability element @ 100%.The said modalities were notified by the Govt in 2001 with effect from 1996. However, the govt sanction letter provided that the said benefit would only be made available to those who were invalided out and not to those who were discharged on completion of terms or on superannuation with a disability, and that the latter would be granted a disability element in accordance with the actual percentage of disability and hence would not be provided the benefit of rounding off / bunching.The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court however did not take this kindly. The Hon’ble High Court in 2008, in the case Paramjit Singh Vs Union of India, ruled that even those who are discharged on completion of terms or on superannuation would be entitled to the rounding off and bunching of disability percentage thereby leading to an enhanced pension. The same was done by relying on Regulation 179 (Regulation 53 for officers) of the Pension Regulations for the Army. The said Regulations provide that persons retiring or superannuating with a disability would also be ‘deemed to have been invalided out’ or service.The govt however filed a review petition in the said Writ Petition but the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Court and it has been re-iterated that the benefit should be granted to all disabled personnel including those discharged / retiring with a disability and not only to those who have been invalided. The Court has also held that AGIF is liable to pay disability cover even to discharged / superannuating personnel and that AGIF is very much a body under the control of the govt, the actions of which can be challenged in the High Court. It was contended by the Govt that AGIF was not a body of the ‘State’ and hence writ jurisdiction could not be invoked against it.The Times of India has also reported this and the same can be viewed by clicking here.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 8:20 AM 1 comments
Labels: Disability Pension, law, Pension
Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Increase of pension of retired Lt Cols on grant of PB-4
There are indications that the increase of basic pension of Lt Cols to Rs 25,700 may be the first agenda point when the new incumbent takes his or her seat in the South Block. The said corrigendum may see the light by the end of this month, but as I always say, let’s keep our fingers crossed till it actually comes out in black and white.The figure of Rs 25,700 has seemed mysterious to many. It simply comes about from the basic pension formula, that is, 50 % of Start of Scale (37400) + Applicable Grade Pay (8000) + MSP (6000).There are voices amongst veterans which seem to indicate that there should be a difference of pensions between erstwhile Selection Grade and Time Scale Lt Cols. Please put such ideas to rest since pensions are always determined with current ranks / grades as the backdrop and today there is only one kind of Lt Col. As it is, this idea of differentiation is regressive and not a pretty thought at all and would lead to deprivation of a particular section of veterans who were not promoted to Selection Grade due to the steep pyramid of the forces. When people all around in other organisations are reaching PB-4 with GP 10000 with ease which later translates into higher pensions, some of our own veterans want to minimise the benefits and create a rank within the rank of Lt Col. Sad.I also again request readers not to transmit individual mails on this issue or for calculation of emoluments / pay etc. My profession is too demanding to allow me the time to send separate replies. Such queries can be posted as comments to blog-posts and can be addressed by a cross-section of visitors.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:16 AM 20 comments
Labels: Misc, Pay Commission, Pension
__._,_.___

.

Pension History and status

1. From the rank based pensions of 1947 when the pension of a Colonel was the same as the Secretary to the Government of India, with higher ranks drawing greater pensions, the downhill continues without a break. This was because a ceiling in the case of civilians was not applicable to the Armed Forces, to what exists today. This paper seeks to put into one place how and why this came about.
2. Regrettably the Indian Armed Forces have lagged behind in their efforts towards enhancing the adequacy of pensions in relation to the truncated career and consequent steep drop in life time earnings. In fact the pension of our personnel has actually declined as percentage of last pay drawn since Independence and today stands lower than the civilian counterparts for the bulk of our personnel. To my mind the reasons for this state of affairs was perhaps due to lack of experience and understanding of the crucial role played by a just and equitable emolument structure in the early post independence years. Thereafter, as we gained experience and knowledge, we concentrated on the pay and allowances of the emoluments at the cost of post retirement benefits. It is only in the past 15- 20 years that we have been alive to this aspect but are unable to make headway on account of difficulties retrieving lost ground.
3. The 3rd Pay Commission started the damage by defining Armed Forces pension as nothing more than something to meet adversity for it stated that with the truncated career it was inconceivable that personnel would spend their remaining working life doing nothing. They did away with rank based pension for officers, changed the weightage to the detriment of everyone.
4. In the early eighties the COSC appointed Major General MEA Krishnan to review our pensions and suggest how to retrieve lost ground. This Report was one of the masterpieces on the subject. A copy was held in the PCC(N) of the 4th and 5th CPC but is no longer around. I think USI should hunt around for a copy to be kept in the library. The COSC sent the report to the MOD after accepting the same. It formed the basis of our memorandum to the 4th CPC.
5. The Government appointed the now famous KP Singh Deo committee. The committee made a large number of recommendations on Ex Servicemen. The Govt. proudly announced in Parliament that it had accepted the majority (90%) of the recommendations. What it failed to accept was return to ONE RANK ONE PENSION done away by the 3rd CPC and that all pensioners irrespective of vintage should draw the same pension for the rank they retired. A committee headed by the Defense Minister with MPs as members however examined it for acceptance and implementation but rejected the OROP. We are however continuing our fight for its implementation..
6. The 5th CPC in Chapter 127 of their Report referred to the Nakra judgment in the Supreme Court. It recorded that it respects the judgment. Pension is not in the nature of alms being doled out to beggars. Retired personnel need to be treated with dignity and courtesy befitting their age. Pension is their constitutional, statutory, inalienable, legally enforceable right earned by the sweat of the brow.
7. The most controversial subject in the field of pension as recorded by the 5th CPC was the glaring disparity of pensions of people of the same rank who retired at different periods. Govt. had tried to solve this problem partially for the Armed Forces by adopting the One Time Increment. This did not meet their demand of One Rank One Pension. The 5th CPC however recommended parity in pensions between pre 1996 and post 1996 pensioners.
8. In our Joint Memorandum to the 5th CPC the Armed Forces had proposed enhancing retiring pension to 75% of last pay drawn. It was felt that due to the truncated career and early retirement Armed Forces personnel suffered considerably on the quantum of entitled pension. Further with the restricted career progression the life time earning differential vis-à-vis the civil services was disproportionately large.
9. Nearly all associations sought similar enhancement ranging from 60 to 100%. The 5th CPC accordingly hired Tata Economic Consultancy Services (TECS) to
(a) Assess the post retirement income requirement taking into account the existing pension structure in private, public and international sectors.
(b) Identify ways and means for payment of pension at higher rates than at present to both civilian and armed forces personnel.
10. TECS study revealed that 65% of last pay drawn would be a reasonable requirement of income by pensioners. Accepting the TECS findings, the CPC felt that since 50% of LPD was already being paid and not to place further burden on the Government, the balance 15% should come from a supplementary Contributory Pension Fund. The two schemes for Pension Funds reccunnenfed by TECS and accepted by the 5th CPC separately for civilian Govt. officials and Armed Forces personnel were (a) Indexed pension scheme for civilians and (b) Unindexed or Nominal pension scheme for Armed Forces personnel. A comparison of the two schemes showed a greater contribution by Defense pensioners attributable to early retirement and longer retired life span.
11. The 5th CPC also quoted a number of foreign armed forces in similar situations adopting the same route. The ADF introduced Pension Fund Schemes in the early 90s. The Malaysians have gone a step further. The Trust created not only provided for additional pension over and above the Govt. contribution but also commercial loans for self employment. A similar scheme for the US Armed Forces by adding on Health care is in vogue. Two pension funds operate successfully in India, namely belonging to ONGC and Air India.
12. The pension funds could be operated Service wise like their GIS in view of difference in size and actuarial parameters. The Services however rejected the concept of pension fund, saying it was for the Govt. to find ways of granting the higher rate of pension.
13. The commonly held belief that the Central Govt. pension bill has the potential to reach unsustainable level does not appear to be based on any realistic assessment of such liabilities in future years. This was the finding of the Director and the Advisor of the Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission, Govt. of India in their Paper 1/2004-PC of July 2004 titled PENSION LIABILITIES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT: PROJECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. After examining the major accounting departments including Defense, they concluded that the present pension system should prevail and that the future pension liability should be sustainable. The study revealed that whilst the number of PBOR was 345832 in 1960 it was 1172623 in 2000, the rate of growth over 20 years fell from 2.1 to 1.1%, rate of retirement was between 3.3% in 1960 and 3.6 % in 2000, whilst the annual retirees ranged between 11445 in 1960 and 42152 in 2000. Similar figures were computed for officers. It computed the projected employment between 2001 and 2010 under the heads of total numbers, no. superannuating, seeking voluntary retirement, and total retirees. It computed projected pension payments increasing by 7.6 % which was the lowest among civil( 7.6%). Railways (8..1%), Telecom (15.3%) and Post (9.3%). With rises in GDP up to near 9%, it is possible for increases in rates of pension.
14. All this not with standing, the Dept. of Economic Affairs, MOF floated an RFP on 15 Oct 2005 for operationalising the New Pension Strategy. A separate pension fund was proposed to be created for civilians joining after 01 Jan 2004. By excluding Armed Forces it was evident that the Govt. was implementing 5 CPC recommendations for civilians. I responded to the RFP by forming a team of retired officers of all three Services, who were knowledgeable of pensions and had worked with me during Pay Commissions. I felt that NPS was eminently suited to our SSC officers and PBOR. The RFP had been allocated a sum of $ 200000. In my long years in logistics, I had not seen a GOI RFP in a foreign currency. Anyway my RFP response was returned saying that since there was a change in TOR could a fresh response be submitted, which I did. Nothing further was heard and the structure for accounting the recoveries has not been put in place. Where the recovery from the individuals is going for two years is not known.
15. Reverting to the 6th CPC only for pensions, it does not talk of the 5th CPC recommendation for enhancing the rate of pension to 65%. It negates OROP by recording that pension parity has been given by 5th CPC would be suffice. It does not talk of how this pension parity will be maintained, since MSP counts for pension for post 1.1.2006 retirees but is not admissible to pre 1.1.2006 retirees.
16. It has abolished weightage since reference to 33 years service also abolished. It has simplified pension to just 50% of LPD. The edge in commutation has been retained.
17. So where do we go from here?
18. My wish list from the 6th CPC would be as follows for pensions alone
· Rate of retiring pension be raised to 65% as recommended by the 5th CPC and accepted by the Armed Forces. The formation of a service pension fund as recommended by TECS and approved by 5th CPC is not approved as the Government has the capacity to pay ( see paragraph 13 above). In any case whenever increases in rates of pension viz 33% to slab system to the present 50%, no pension fund was talked of or required. Why now.
· Pension parity as recommended by 5th CPC and ratified for continuation by 6th CPC is only hence forth applicable to civilians. With MSP being applicable to only those in service as on 1/1/06 and counting for pension, the post 1/06 retirees will not have parity with pre 01/06 pensioners. This can be resolved by granting an equivalent to MSP as an add on to all pensioners irrespective of vintage.
· In so far as OROP is concerned, there are two dimensions. All pensioners irrespective of vintage but of the same rank must get same pension. This has been largely met till 6th CPC by pension parity. The second aspect is that pension must be rank based as existed till 3rdCPC. This means that all Colonels should have same pension. All MWOs should have same pension.
· SSC officers should receive pension now that 6th CPC has done away with 33 years and weightage.
· Medical insurance should be applicable to pensioners for both OPD treatment and medicines and hospitalization. Medical insurance schemes could managed by respective Service GIS. ESCHS like its counter part CGHS has not proved successful .
· A body like Ex Servicemen’s League with its Governing Council must represent Service pensioners in all matters affecting their interest.
Vice Admiral Barin Ghose
B 449 Sushant Lok I
Gurgaon 122002 Haryana
Phone 124-4044069, Mobile 9871381479
E Mail bag1944@yahoo.co.in