One Rank One Pension Simplified : Understand Before Forming An Opinion

One Rank One Pension Simplified : Understand Before Forming An Opinion

Niraj Kumar 

1. For Government servants who retired prior to 1.1.2006, fixation of Pension at the time of implementation of sixth CPC with effect from 1.1.2006 was done at 50% of the minimum of the revised scale corresponding to the scale in which the Government servant had retired. This was without any consideration to the fact that at the time of retirement the Government servant may not necessarily have been at the minimum of the pre-revised scale. S/he may well have been at the maximum of the pre-revised scale or anywhere in between. Let us take an imaginary grade Rs 5,000 – 8,000/- and its revised grade as Rs 16,000 – 20,000/-. A person may have retired at Rs 8,000/- and at that time her/ his pension would have been fixed at Rs 4,000/-. Now on 1.1.2006 her/his pension will be fixed at 50% of minimum of the new scale i.e. 50% of Rs 16000/- i.e. Rs 8000/-. However a person who retires after 1.1.2006 at, say, Rs17, 000 (nowhere even near the maximum of the revised scale) will have pension fixed at Rs 8,500, which is higher than the pension of his senior who retired before 1.1.2006. This is despite the fact that the earlier retiree (senior person) had reached the maximum of the pre-revised scale, in which s/he retired, whereas the post 1.1.2006 retiree (junior person) had not. Reached anywhere near the maximum of the corresponding revised scale. If this system of fixation of pension continues, the number of persons who are so discriminated would go on increasing. For example today this situation is only for pre 1.1.2006 retirees but after 1.1.2016 this may be the situation with not only pre 1.1.2006 retirees but also with those who retired/ retire between 1.1.2006 and 31.12.2015, unless the seventh CPC decides to remedy this situation. This increase in number of such pensioners will also be due to increasing longevity i.e. with longer post-retirement life. For armed forces the duration of post-retirement life is even higher due to their early retirement.

    

2. Two issues arise here. The first is:

   Should a senior, who retired prior to the implementation of a CPC recommendation, in a pre-revised scale, must have pension greater than or equal to a junior, who retired, in the corresponding revised scale, after implementation of the CPC recommendation? And should this equality have anything to do with the stage in the scale at which the two individuals retired?

    

1. Those who answer the first question in negative may argue that pension has to be related to the pay at the time of retirement, so there is nothing wrong in an earlier retiree (who retired at lower pay) having a lower pension than a later retiree (who retired at a higher pay). Some may even argue that there is no concept of seniority after retirement. In my opinion the flaw in this argument is that had it been the contention of the CPCs and the Government that pension is linked only to pay at retirement, they would not have revised the pension with each CPC but only allowed a higher and higher DA to the retirees to compensate them for inflation etc.

    

2. Moreover the relationship between pay at the time of retirement and pension is not a rigid relationship. An illustration to show this follows:

   One person retires today at a basic pay of Rs 80,000/-in the scale Rs 75,500-80,000/- and her/his pension is fixed at 50% of Rs 80,000/- i.e. at Rs 40,000/-. Another person retires at the same basic pay (Rs 80,000/-) but from ‘80,000/- Fixed’ grade. At the time of retirement both will have same pension i.e. 40,000/- but after next CPC their pension may become different. This is only to show that 50% of pay at retirement is not he only consideration in fixing pension at the time of implementation of recommendations of a subsequent CPC.

    

3. Some people also argue that any comparison between persons who retire at different points of time (one having retired from the pre-revised scale and the other from the corresponding revised scale) as a comparison between apples and oranges. This argument is void of merit because if date of retirement being before or after the date of implementation of a CPC recommendations can be an acceptable classification to have a reasonable distinction between two such persons then the date of appointment being before or after the date of implementation of a CPC recommendation should also be an acceptable classification, which obviously is not and we immediately step up the pay of a senior to that of a junior should, as a result of implementation of a CPC recommendation, the junior gets fixed at a higher pay than a senior.

    

4.  Views of the Judiciary in this matter are clearly known. SC has ruled, in UoI vs SPS Vains that the pension of senior drawing lower pension than a junior should be stepped up to that of the junior. Left with no further forum for appeal, in all probability the Government would have implemented the judgment of the apex court in favour of SPS Vains. However Government’s disagreement with the principle laid down by the apex court is apparent from the fact that they took no action to apply this principle to other similarly placed pensioners by framing appropriate rules and have also not implemented the order and judgment of Patna High Court in MMP Sinha vs UoI, despite lapse of the three-month time granted by the Hon’ble High Court to implement their order; and are reportedly preparing to file an SLP before the apex court challenging the orders of Patna High Court. When such a SLP is filed there is every chance that the apex court would stand by the principle it laid down in the SPS Vains case and the Government may implement the apex court’s expected order, when it comes, in favour of Mr. MMP Sinha only.

    

5. In SPS Vains judgment the situation of a Brigadier getting higher pension than a Major General has been adjudicated. It is not very clear as to what are the views of the apex court in case of a later retired Brigadier drawing higher pension than an earlier retired Brigadier. However one expects that the same principle of seniority may get applied. However in such situations where both senior and junior Government servants retire from the same scale (one in pre-revised and the other in revised) a logical differentiator could be the stage at which the two individuals retired in the pre-revised and revised scales respectively. A simple way of understanding this concept would be to say that the senior person who retired in pre-revised scale should first be assigned a notional pay in the revised scale on the date of implementation of CPC recommendations, depending on the stage that s/he had reached at the time of retirement and then pension fixed at 50% of this notional pay.

1. However, where does all this leave the pre-1.1.2206 pensioners? Nowhere, unless there is a class action seeking directions to Government for implementation of the principle laid down by the apex court in SPS Vains to all pensioners by amending relevant rules.

    

1. Now the second issue. Are armed forces justified in demanding OROP? Why are only Armed forces agitating the matter and not others like Para-Military forces and civilians – at least not to the extent the Armed forces are agitating?

    

1. As stated earlier, longer the post retirement life of any group of retirees, larger will be the numbers who will have the burden of this unreasonable classification of pre-CPC-implementation-date retirees and post-CPC-implementation-date retirees. Since a large numbers of armed forces personnel retire at a relatively younger age, their post-retirement life is much longer. Consequently the number of persons affected by this classification is larger the affect is experienced for a longer time. Hence it is natural that the demand originated in a big way from the armed forces retirees and others seem to be joining in now.

    

2. The problem of retirement at an early age must be dealt with through alternative employments. Even if more and more retirees of armed forces get higher pension through implementation of OROP, the need for providing them with gainful post-retirement employment does not reduce as idling of well trained and disciplined manpower is neither good for individuals nor for the country, which otherwise can benefit by useful contribution of this still-young workforce. Greater efforts by the Government as also more proactive approach by ex-servicemen is called for to ensure gainful employment of capable armed forces retirees. Arousing emotions in favor of armed forces retirees with a view to get OROP must be avoided as it can create a rather complicated situation in the country. However if certain benefits are accorded to them, based of principles of OROP now being propagated, non-implementation of the same to para-military forces and civilians cannot sustain for long.

1. Those placed in ’80,000 fixed’ and ‘90,000 fixed’ pay by the sixth CPC have already achieved OROP as their pay equivalents in subsequent CPC are not likely to have a spread of pay band. Also the Judges have already ruled implementation of this concept for themselves. Today for Judges the pension depends on the number of years put in as a Judge subject to a maximum of fourteen years. However in a Chief Justices’ Conference, when Justice Kabir was the CJI, a Resolution was passed that Judges should get the same pension (OROP) when they retire (irrespective of the period for which they may have served as a Judge). It may or may not be relevant to state that a sister of the then CJI served only 3-4 years as Judge till her retirement. Consequent to this Resolution, when Justice Sadasivam was the CJI, SC passed a judicial order in 2014 directing implementation of the said Resolution. Government is now changing the rules to implement it.

    

2. To conclude, the concept of OROP has already been brought in through the ‘80,000 fixed’ and ‘90,000 fixed’ route as also through SC’s judicial order for the Judges. Government’s reluctance to implement it for armed forces is only delaying the inevitable. Government also knows that once OROP is granted to armed forces, it cannot stop there and has to be, sooner or later, implemented for para-military forces and civilians. Having made an election promise for its grant, Modi is certainly in an unenviable position on this issue.