One Rank One Pension (OROP) for the topmost defence & civilian officers. But middle and lower ranks left out. Why this discrimination?


One rank one pension has been implemented by the Govt. for the following posts:-

1.  Service Chiefs & the Cabinet Secretary: Rs 45000/- basic pension

irrespective of the date of retirement

2.  Vice Chiefs, Secretary to GOI, Chief Secretary, One DGP in each state:

Rs 40000/- basic pension

irrespective of the date of retirement

However a Wing Commander (Lt Col, Commander) pensioner who retired before 2006 gets a basic minimum pension of Rs 25700/- (Rs 26265 wef  24 Sep 2012) whereas a freshly retiring officer gets pension of Rs 32ooo/- or so (assuming Basic Pay+Grade Pay+MSP to be Rs 64000/-).

A Major General pensioner who retired before 2006 gets a basic minimum pension of Rs 26700/- (Rs 30350 wef  24 Sep 2012) whereas a freshly retiring officer gets pension of Rs 35ooo/- or so (assuming Basic Pay+Grade Pay+MSP to be Rs 70000/-).

The same logic applies to the other ranks both military and civil.

The implications of the Govt. Policy are the following:-

(a) All Service Chiefs/Cabinet Secretaries are equals (irrespective of the date of retirement).

(b) All Vice Chiefs/Secretaries are equals (irrespective of the date of retirement).

(c) Other ranks are not equal.

What a logic? A smart  salute to the brains of the Pay Commission!

Why this discrimination?

The message is clear. The top level officers of both the military as well as the civil side are enjoying maximum pension. The same has been denied to the other ranks.

This is a clear-cut violation of the constitution of India.

Can RDOA (Retired Defence Officers Association) or other ex-servicemen/civilian organisations build a case on this logic?

All pensioners should get the same pension for equivalent service, irrespective of the date of retirement.

The latest pension tables are at the following links:-

Pre-2006 pensioners; Commissioned officers: http://pcdapension.nic.in/6cpc/Circular-500.pdf

Pre-2006 pensioners; JCOs & other ranks: http://pcdapension.nic.in/6cpc/Circular-502.pdf

About these ads

54 thoughts on “One Rank One Pension (OROP) for the topmost defence & civilian officers. But middle and lower ranks left out. Why this discrimination?

  1. Is this information true about orop forthe ranks mentioned above.do u have copy of letter from ministry of finance or defense.

    • http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120907/edit.htm#6

      ‘One rank, one pension’ for civil servants too
      Pay and pension anomalies have arisen from the Sixth Central Pay Commission. To address these for defence personnel, a panel has been set up. A similar one is required for the civil services
      R.K. Sehgal

      Frustrated over the lack of response from the government, thousands of senior retired civil and defence services officers have filed 40-50 court cases in various Central Administrative Tribunals, Armed Forces Tribunals and High Courts regarding anomalies in pay and pension, which have arisen from the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC), effective from January 1, 2006.

      Senior officers are getting much less pension than officers three or four ranks junior. The pension of a pre-2006 retired major-General is about Rs15,000 less per month than that of a brigadier, colonel or lieut-colonel retiring now. Similarly, the pre-2006 retired chief engineers in Punjab and Haryana are getting about Rs15,000 less per month pension than the superintending engineers, executive engineers and even the SDOs retiring in 2012.

      The Prime Minister has constituted a committee under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary to look into the pay and pension issues of the armed forces. The logic behind appointing a committee only for defence personnel is not clear, as the problems faced by both defence and civil services officers are similar and have arisen from pay revisions done from time to time. Moreover, the Sixth Central Pay Commission was common for both the services. The pay scales as well as DA rates are identical and the Pension Rules are almost the same too. Hence, a common approach is called for.

      Each pay revision during the past 26 years has affected adversely the pay and pension of senior officers of both civil services and the armed forces. The system of bunching of two or three stages of the pre-revised pay scale at one stage in the revised scale in the 1986, 1996 and 2006 pay revisions, and one anti-stagnation increment for every two years’ service had resulted in washing away of about half to two-thirds service of the senior officers, resulting in lower pay and consequently lower pension for the rest of their life. This has given rise to the various anomalies.

      The following steps, based on the Preamble and Article 39(d) of the Constitution, “next-below junior principle”, recommendation of the Sixth CPC, and relevant Supreme Court judgments, will help resolve the pay and pension issues of serving employees as well as pensioners of both the services.

      Serving employees

      The principles of “equal pay for equal work”, as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution, and “next-below junior” should be followed in revising the pay of the serving employees. The pay of the serving employees should be fixed in the revised pay scales by allowing one increment for each year of service and one increment for each promotion to remove the cumulative distortion caused by “bunching” and “anti-stagnation” in the 1986, 1996 and 2006 pay revisions. Moreover, the Sixth CPC has recommended running pay bands to avoid stagnation during 33 years of service.

      The pay of the employees should have been revised at least 3.1 times the pre-revised pay in the same ratio as the pay of the Apex scale/Chief Secretary has been revised. But the pay has been revised only 2.26 times the pre-revised pay (after merging DA, DP and 40 per cent fitment benefit). This is not justified in our socialist country as it violates the Constitution. The pay of the top level officers and judges has been revised to 3.0-3.4 times, giving a huge benefit of up to Rs 34,200 + DA as shown below:

      S-34 (Cabinet Secretary): From Rs 30,000 to Rs 90,000 (3.0 times, benefit Rs 34,200)

      S-33 (Chief Secretary): From Rs 26,000 to Rs 80,000 (3.1 times, benefit Rs 31,640)

      S-32: From Rs 24,050 to Rs75,500 (3.1 times, benefit Rs.30767)

      S-31: From Rs 22,400 to Rs 75,500 (3.4 times, benefit Rs.33836)

      The pay of the officers in the civil services and defence services should be fixed in the pay band PB-4 (Rs 37,400-67,000-plus grade pay) by allowing one increment for each year of service (beyond the eligibility of PB-4) and one increment for each promotion. For example, if an officer has served for 18 years and the eligibility for PB-4 is 12 years, then his pay should be fixed after allowing six increments in PB-4. Similarly, if an officer has put in 24 years service and has earned two promotions, his pay should be fixed by giving 14 increments in PB-4. This will remove all anomalies.

      The Sixth CPC has recommended at Para 1.2.9 to provide a common pay band for all functional posts in the pay scale of Rs18,400-22,400 and above. The CPC had accordingly recommended a common pay band PB-4 for four pre-revised pay scales, S-29 to S-32, but the government arbitrarily created a new pay scale, HAG+ (Rs75,500-80,000), for senior IAS officers of S-31 and S-32 scales only. Later, under pressure from the armed forces, another scale, HAG (Rs 67,000-79,000) was created for Lieut-Generals and equivalent (S-30), but the pre-revised S-29 scale of Major-General/Chief Engineer and equivalent (Rs18,400-22,400) was left in pay band PB-4, thus disturbing the Sixth CPC recommendation. The upgrade of five pre-revised scales (S-24 to S-28) to PB-4 has caused further distortions.

      To remove the humiliation faced by the senior officers, the government should implement in right spirit the recommendation of the 6th CPC at Para 1.2.9. Accordingly, the pay scale of the functional posts of S-29 and S-30 should also be revised to the pay scale HAG+ (Rs.75500-80000) as already done for S-31 and S-32 scales.

      Pensioners’ case

      “One rank, one pension” (OROP) follows the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, as provided at Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Pension is considered as deferred pay and is given to a pensioner in lieu of long satisfactory service rendered by him. The OROP for 33 years’ regular service for each rank in an organised cadre (with pro rata reduction) should be given irrespective of the date of retirement. It is strange that the top level officers such as Cabinet Secretary, Apex Scale Secretaries and the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are already enjoying the benefit of OROP. For example, all Chief Secretaries are getting a pension of Rs 40,000, irrespective of the date of retirement. In a socialist country, the higher rank officers cannot be given some benefits while denying the same to the lower ranks. This violates the Preamble and Article 39(d) of the Constitution.

      Pay revision on notional basis of pre-1996 and pre-2006 pensioners should be done in the same way as was done for pre-1986 pensioners. The Central government in an order dated February 10, 1998, had laid down the procedure of revising the pay on notional basis for pre-1986 pensioners in the revised scale of pay for the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement – in the same manner as for serving employees – as many times as the pay was revised since the Fifties. The pension/family pension was then recalculated. This procedure was, however, not followed in 1996 and 2006 pay revisions, resulting in anomalies.

      The pension of pre-2006 pensioners should be revised to at least 3.1 times the pre-revised pension in the same ratio as the pay of the Apex scale/Chief Secretary has been revised. But the pension of pre-2006 pensioners has been revised to 2.26 times the pre-revised pension (after merging DA, DP and 40 per cent fitment benefit).

      The pre-2006 retired officers have been given pension at the minimum of the pay band PB-4 for 33 years’ service, whereas they were drawing pay at the maximum of the pay scale at the time of retirement. After 33 years’ service, an employee is at the peak of his career and draws pay at the maximum of the pay scale. Hence, his pension should be at the maximum of the pay band.

      The pre-2006 pensioners are a diminishing lot. They are feeling humiliated in the evening of their life. The above steps will not impose much financial burden, as the post-2006 pensioners are already entitled to the enhanced pension.

      The writer is a retired Chief Engineer of the Haryana Power Generation Corporation.

      Supreme Court judgments

      Two rulings of the apex court, if implemented in right spirit, will help resolve most of the anomalies in pension:

      Pay revision on notional basis

      The Supreme Court directed on September 9, 2008, in the Maj-General SPS Vains case (CA 5566-2008) to revise the pay of pre-1996 retired majors-general on notional basis on a par with similar serving officers of the same rank from 1996, and then calculate the revised pension. This is what the government had done for all pre-1986 pensioners vide its order dated February 10, 1998. A similar order should have been issued for pre-1996 and pre-2006 pensioners too.

      Common rules for pre and post-2006 retirees

      The Constitution Bench on December 17, 1982, held in the DS Nakara case that the pensioners form a homogenous class and cannot be divided on the basis of the date of retirement.

      Accordingly, the Liberalised Pension Rules issued in 1979 were made applicable to all pensioners, irrespective of the date of retirement. On the same basis, common Pension Rules should have been made for pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners.

      • http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=745612

        Parliament Asks Govt to Implement ‘One Rank, One Pension’
        New Delhi | Dec 26, 2011
        PRINT
        More Sharing Services Share on facebook Share on pinterest_share Share on twitter Share on google_plusone
        COMMENTS
        A Parliamentary Committee has asked the government to implement the long-pending demand of ‘One Rank, One Pension’ (OROP) by the retired armed forces personnel.

        “The Petitions Committee of Rajya Sabha submitted a report to Parliament recommending the government to implement OROP in defence forces and constitute a separate commission to determine the pay, allowance and pension of the defence personnel,” said a release from Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar.

        Under the OROP, retired defence personnel are demanding that all ex-servicemen should get similar pension for putting in equal years of service and retiring at the same rank irrespective of their date of retirement.

        At present, the pension depends on the pay commission under which they have retired.

        The Petitions Committee was constituted following a petition co-filed by Chandrasekhar for grant of OROP to retired armed defence personnel and tabled its report in the Rajya Sabha on December 19.

        In its report, the Rajya Sabha Petitions Committee said the financial liability of Rs 1,300 crores is not very big amount to deny the parity in pension, the release said.

        The Committee rejected Finance Ministry’s apprehension of that acceptance of the demand for equal pension to personnel of equal rank and equal length of service will trigger similar request from other government employees.

        The Committee pointed out that “terms and conditions of defence personnel and civil servants are vastly different and said the demand of armed forces personnel demand for OROP was unresolved due to bureaucratic apathy”.

        The Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions is headed by Bhagat Singh Koshyari (BJP).
        FILED ON: Dec 26, 2011 23:42 IST

      • http://www.deccanherald.com/content/12243/relief-ex-servicemen.html

        Relief for ex-servicemen
        Kalyan Ray, New Delhi:
        After years of struggle, some relief has finally come for 12 lakh ex-servicemen on Monday when Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee announced rationalising the pension benefits of retired jawans and Junior Commissioned Officers (JCO) in accordance with their “One Rank One Pension” (OROP) demand.
        Despite demands from ex-servicemen, successive governments in the past had claimed that OROP was untenable and meeting it would cost a bomb. The anomaly was created by the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions. The Congress had promised OROP in its poll manifesto in 2004. However, the UPA government rejected the OROP demand in December 2008, after which ex-servicemen returned their gallantry medals to the President and made open overtures towards the BJP. Following protracted protests, a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrasekhar to review the OROP issues. Interestingly, it was announced ahead of the Parliamentary polls in Punjab, Haryana, Uttaranchal and Rajasthan, which contribute thousands of soldiers to the three services.

        On the basis of the panel’s suggestion, the Centre has now agreed to substantially hike the pension of Personnel Below the Officer Rank (PBOR) and JCOs.

        The pension of PBOR and JCOs who retired before October 10, 1997, (implementation date for the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations) will be brought at par with the pension of those retired after that date.

        The pension of those retired before January 1, 2006 –– including the 1997 group –– will be substantially hiked to come close to those who retired after the cut-off date of January 1, 2006 (implementation date for the Sixth Pay Commission).

        Once realised, the new pension scheme will lead to creation of two groups of pensioners in the armed forces with January 1, 2006, serving as the cut off date.

        “This is not OROP. Those who retired after January 1, 2006, will get higher pension. The government has just bridged a gap for the JCOs and PBORs,” Maj Gen Satbir Singh, vice chairman of the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement told Deccan Herald. Both decisions would be implemented from July 1, 2009, resulting in enhanced pension for more than 12 lakh jawans and JCOs.

        DH News Service

  2. http://sol-dozdoz.blogspot.in/search/label/one%20rank%20one%20pension

    SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 2012
    Pension Anomaly Resulting From AVS-I
    Now that we’re awaiting the recommendations of the panel on anomalies affecting pay and pensions of armed forces, there are expectations some of the less prominent existing anomalies would be rectified and similar aberrations would be prevented in future when the complex processes of introduction of NFFU and modified parity are approached by the powers that be. In this context, an existing anomaly, affecting a portion of the armed forces veterans fraternity, requires to be highlighted as it’s closely linked to the issue of parity of pensions. It may be addeed at the outset, any views, comments or corrections in respect of what follows would be very welcome.

    While fixing pensions for Armed Forces Officers who had retired prior to 01 Jan 2006, No. VI CPC had, initially, not placed retirees in the ranks of Lt Col and Lt Col(TS) in pay band IV. This was done subsequently. Even then, no consideration was applied to the issue of parity of pensions of retirees, who had retired prior to implementation of Phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee, with pensions of retirees with equal service who retired after the implementation of AVS-I. This led to Officers, holding the same type of commission and with the same qualifying service, being fixed in different pension-tables post VI CPC depending on which side of the AVS-I implementation date they retired on.

    Upto a service tenure of 26 years, the pension of a pre AVS-I Lt Col and Lt Col(TS) would not be an issue. But for a qualifying service of 26 years or more, a retiree with a PC would have automatically been fitted in the pension table for Col/Col(TS) at a pension of Rs.26050/- if he had retired after implementation of AVS-I. A pre AVS-I Officer retiree in the rank of Lt Col, also with the same qualifying service of 26 years was fitted in the column for Lt Cols at a monthly pension of 25700/-, and a pre AVS-I Lt Col(TS) at a monthly pension of Rs.24143/-.
    At a time when a weighty subject like One Rank One Pension is hanging fire over the entire veteran community, surely this anomaly ought to strike some people as being an issue. It requires to be understood that this pre/post AVS-I issue would also impinge on pensions of Major, Capt and Lt, though different conditions might apply.
    This also does not exactly amount to yet another outburst as to why the AVS-I recommendations were not implemented retrospectively. Here the issue is an award of VI CPC, not AVS-I, which treats two identical tenures of service differently while fixing pension merely on account of the intervention of the implementation of AVS-I. All service people would know there is no select rank involved here. If an Officer retiring post AVS-I after 26 years of service automatically gets Rs. 26050/- as pension without getting the next select rank, it stands to reason the pay-commission should have fixed the pension at the same level in the case of all other Officers, with the same type of commission and with the same qualifying service, who retired without picking up the next equivalent select rank prior to AVS-I.
    This line of reasoning could be important when the recommendations of the current anomalies-panel are made public and implemented. The subject of the blog post relates merely to the parity of one set of armed forces pensioners. When fitment into bands takes place after introduction of NFFU, these concerns could assume even greater importance and complexity.

    • http://sol-dozdoz.blogspot.in/search/label/parity

      Litmus-test questions, based on two primary considerations of truncated careers and intra-veteran-parity, can be posed for establishing the validity of such a readjustment of pensions, as follows:
      *Would the truncation of careers of armed forces personnel vis-a-vis those of equivalent civilian employees be compensated for in terms of pensionary benefits? A very basic, rule of the thumb yardstick would be whether the pension, 10 years from now, of a person in the armed forces retiring today at age 50 equal the pension of an equivalent civilian employee who’d retire then at age 60 years?
      *Would the pensionary benefits of a person retiring in the armed forces today at age 50 years have appropriate compensation for the shortfall in the pension he’d draw over the next 10 years as compared to the pay and allowances the equivalent civilian employee would be drawing over the same period? This compensation would, of course, not be required if the person from the armed forces was absorbed in a Government civilian post for the said period.
      *Though one rank one pension may not have been agreed to, for some manner of parity, or modified parity, within the set of retired personnel of the armed forces, would the re-fixation of the pension of pre VI CPC retirees take place in:
      **Pay-band of the rank in which the veteran retired?
      **Pay-band of the rank the retiree would have automatically attained under present rules merely on the basis of the length of his service? Example: A pre VI CPC retiree in rank of Major (PC) with more than 20 years of service would have been automatically in the Pay-band of Lt Col now.
      **Pay-band of the rank the retiree would have been placed in based on the length of his service AND after application of NFFU? Example: A pre VI CPC AND pre AVS-I retiree in the rank of Lt Col (TS) with 30 years of service would have been in the pay-band of Col (TS) without NFFU and Brig with NFFU.
      Another yardstick for checking the rational basis of the rejigged pensions would be the enhancement factor for the pension of an Honorary Officer or, say, a Branch Commissioned Officer of IAF, who suffer negligible truncation of career, as compared to the enhancement factor applied to the pension of an Officer with a Permanent Commission who might have retired at age 52 in the rank of Lt Col or a non-commissioned Officer retiring at an even younger age. This is not to say a Hony Officer or an IAF BC Officer should not have an enhancement in pensions, but the factor for truncation needs to be proportionally higher for those retiring at earlier ages.

  3. Respected Sir, Please forward and do the possible needful
    I wish to submit that presently Gp II sgt. Is
    getting less pension than Gp I LAC , The Comparative Table is
    as under :-
    Date Gp II sgt. Gp I LAC

    01-09 1992 531 523
    01-09-1996 1634 1611
    01-04-2004 2451 2417
    01-01-06 2671 2799
    01-01-06 Revised CPC 4027 4218
    01-07-09 4840 5519

    This above table shows the anomly from 01-01-06 onwards .
    lower rank is getting more pension . WILL SOME ONE DO SOMETHING for
    this unreasonable DIFFERENCE and INJUSTICE BEING DONE TO GP – II
    SGT AND Equivalent RANKS .How lower rank can be paid more in the
    ARMED FORCES . This is really embarassing and against Natural Justice,
    THANKS Gobind Singh 91- 9417050553.

  4. I am adirect entry commissioned on 09-06-1978. I took PR on completion of 20 years service with sqn ldr rank 0n 30-06-1998.
    Can someone help me with my revised/latest pension should be.
    sqn ldr Selvaraj

  5. Please intimate regarding the new pension table & the pension of Honorary Naib Subedar who have served in Army as Infantry Soldier in Group ‘Y’ and retired on completion of 24 years service on or after 01 January 2006 as per instruction of Government of India, Ministry of Defence on accepting the demand of one rank one pension on 24 September 2012. With Best regards, Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar

  6. Please intimate regarding the New Pension Table & the pension of Honorary Naib Subedar who have served in Army as Infantry Soldier in Group ‘Y’ and retired on completion of 24 years service on or after 01 January 2006 as per instruction issued from Government of India, Ministry of Defence on accepting the demand of one rank one pension on 24 September 2012. With Best regards, Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar

  7. From : Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar
    Dudi Bhawan Jawaharnagar, Rly Stn ke samne,
    Village & Post Office – Mandi Adampur
    District- Hisar (Haryana)-125052
    E-mail : vijaidudi1962@gmail.com
    Mobile No – 09871081782

    Respected Sir,

    1. I, No 2879637W Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar have served in the Indian Army (in The Rajputana Rifles) for 24 years & 02 days in Group ‘Y’ with an Exemplary Character (with effect from 30/10/1982 to 31/10/2006) and retired on 31 October 2006 (A/N).

    2. The following service & pension particulars are submitted herewith for your perusal and necessary favourable action please :-

    a. My last basic pay was Rs 4700/-, DP Rs 2400/-, Classification Pay was Rs 100/-.
    b. Total leave encashment period was – 120 days.
    c. Basic pension fixed on 01/11/2006 was Rs 3529/-.
    d. New pension has fixed Rs 7750/-.
    e. Total Gratuity has received Rs 170208/- till date.
    f. Total capitalise value has received Rs 530158/- till date (@ 50 % commuted portion of pension).
    g. Total leave encashment was received Rs 36780/- till date.
    h. Records – RAJ RIF, DELHI CANTT – 110010.
    j. Original PPO No – S/029763/2006(ARMY) issued on 30/06/2006.
    k. Corrigendum PPOs issued to me till date is as under :-
    aa. S/COR/032767/2006(ARMY) dated 21/11/2006.
    ab. S/CORR/023552/2007(ARMY) dated 25/05/2007.
    ac. S/CORR/161493/2009(ARMY) dated 31/07/2009.
    ad. S/CORR/225039/2010(ARMY) dated 02/04/2010.
    ae. S/CORR/039335/2010(ARMY) dated 19/10/2010.
    af. Bank details – Punjab National Bank, Mandi Adampur, District – Hisar (Haryana) – 125052. A/C No – 2994001301104170 code No – 2994.

    3. Please provide the following details which has effected for me and clarify regarding entitlement for Honorary Naib Subedar as per 6th Central Pay Commission Award and intimate me I will be eligible for MACP/ACP scheme if yes, also intimate what type of benefit or entitlement is due under MACP or ACP as per directions/orders issued form Government of India, Ministry of Defence :-

    a. Last basic pay should be as per 6th CPC Award.
    b. Arrears should be of pay & allowances w.e.f. 01/01/2006 to 31/10/2006 as per 6th CPC Award.
    c. Arrears should be of leave encashment for 120 days as per 6th CPC Award.
    d. Basic pension should be fixed on 01/11/2006 as per 6th CPC Award.
    e. Arrears should be of pension w.e.f. 01/11/06 to till date as per 6th CPC Award.
    f. Gratuity should be as per 6th CPC Award.
    g. Commutation value as per 6th CPC Award (@ 50 % commuted of portion of pension).

    4. In view of the above, please do the needful and provide all the above require details at the earliest. I shall be highly obliged. Your anticipation is highly appreciated. Thanking you sir.

    Yours faithfully,

    Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar Dudi

  8. selvaraj sqn ldr (retd) November 21, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    I am adirect entry commissioned on 09-06-1978. I took PR on completion of 20 years service with sqn ldr rank 0n 30-06-1998.
    Can someone help me with my revised/latest pension should be.
    sqn ldr Selvaraj
    Reply

  9. Sorry, I came to this blog a bit late in life.
    The interpretation that COAS & equivalent or VCAS & equivalent get the same pension irrespective of date of retirement requires reconsideration. Chiefs and Vice Chiefs retire with about 42 and 40 years of service. The table at Circular 453 takes that into consideration. For all others, the years of service on date of retirement would determine the pension. Wouldn’t it?

    • Let them retire after any service. Is the figure of 40 or 42 better than any other figure like 15, 20 or 24? It is gross injustice being done to juniors. Why did no Chief ever refuse to take his pension protesting against the raw deal to the juniors. The fact is that in defence services the seniors take away all the perks and entitlements.

  10. I am LT CDR Kulwant Singh and took pre-mature retirement from the Indian Navy w.e.f. 01-06-2003 after putting in 29 yrs 7 months and 23 days reckon able service for getting permanent absorption in defence psu namely GRSE Ltd Kolkata. After 6th pay commission my basic pension has been fixed at Rs 14000/-, whereas the basic pension of a Hon SLT and Hon LT post 1-1-2006 retirees is Rs 15350 and Rs 16150 respectively. I feel that a grave injustice has been done to me by not fixing my pension correctly. Keeping in view the length of my service I should have got the pension of Cdr (TS). Can some one advise me on this and the future course of action for seeking redressal from the higher authorities.

    • Did you ever write to the Naval HQ/concerned cell? What do they say? Do you have any portion of service as other than being a commissioned officer? In that case, what does the pension formula say?

  11. Whats the formulae applied for pension fixation of JCOs in the recently revised pension scales(24.9.2012). Why JCOs are totally left out??? Were we already at par with post 2006 scales and does not need bridging the gap in pensions of pre and post 2006 defence pensionrs??

  12. I am sub hony LT Hamsa ret after 28-2-2006 from army get basic pension of 13500/-
    can i know any revised basic pension for me currently.

  13. How much time is required to get a print of Corrigendum PPO 08/14/B/70497/12 for which payment is held up for more than a year after its notification– do you have any idea ??

  14. Sir, I Hony Lt at the time of retirement and got hony Capy after retiremnt .What should be the my pension
    Date of retiremnet 01 Jul 1998 Total service 28 years,N Narsing Rao,JC-2204221N

  15. I have retired in 1 -12-1990 as a Hon Flt Lt , my basic pension at present Rs 13850. Kindly inform revise pension with effect from 24-9-2012. Is it Rs 16145 or any .

  16. Lt Cdr Pavithran
    I am a pre-1-1-96 retiree Lt.Cdr with more than 22 yrs commissioned service. I feel I should be elegible for pension based on pay band 4 in terms of PCDA(P) circular No.14 of 2-1-13 under the “one-time arrangement” stated therein. But my claim has not even been replied. I am given to understand that the establishment is inimical and not to expect anything positive.
    I am sure there are many in the three services who are similarly affected. How can we get help? Being already in the twilight of life there are severe limitations. Would some one help?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s