Importance of Option 1 of 7th CPC for Revised Pension

Importance of Option 1 of 7th CPC for Revised Pension

IMPORTANCE OF OPTION 1 OF 7TH CPC FOR REVISED PENSION
- BIG LOSS IN PENSION IF IT IS DENIED

By N. P. MOHAN, President, RSCWS

Most of the Pre 2016 pensioners will suffer heavy loss in Revised Pension, if the Option 1 recommended by the Seventh CPC is denied to them.

It was after 20 years that 7th CPC recommended parity between past pensioners and those retiring after 1-1-2016 under Option 1 which means consideration of increments earned while in service as detailed in Para 10.1.67 of the Report. This objective of PARITY (Recommended by Commission after examining all factors in depth in Chapter 10) is fulfilled only with the implementation of option 1 without any dilution/deviation. Non implementation of option 1 on the plea of non availability of record in a few cases will have the following adverse effects:

i) Pre 2006 pensioners, in particular, who are victim of modified parity will suffer a much bigger loss compared to the post 2006 retirees because in their case the basic pension which is multiplied by 2.57 in the interim phase takes into accounts their increments before retirement. This aspect has been examined in the case of Pre & Post S 19 pensioner as an example. From the Table 1 given below, it will be clear that the reduction in pension for post 2006 pensioner is of a uniform small magnitude as compared to the loss increasing exponentially with each increment lost in case of pre 2006 pensioner. Similar is the case in other scales also

ii) 7th CPC has considered pre 2016 pensioners as one homogenous group (Para 10.1.53 refers). It means that all pre 2016 pensioners have to be treated alike. But with denial of option 1, pre 2016 pensioners will get divided into two groups i.e. Pre 2006 and Post 2006 Pensioners - which violates the settled law of equality between the equals.

iii) In many cases, Option 3 gives much lower pension compared to option 1 recommended by 7th CPC. This will be clear from Table 2 below. Where a comparison has been made between two options.

Encls: 2 Tables


TABLE- 1 SHOWING LARGE REDUCTION IN REVISED PENSION OF
PRE-2006 PENSIONERS COMPARED WITH POST-2006 PENSIONERS IF OPTION 1 IS DENIED ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF LEVEL 11 (Scale S 19 - PB3)

POST 2006 PENSIONER
PRE 2006 PENSIONER






Increments




Pay with increments @ 3% pa


Corresponding Existing pension (col. 2/2)



Revised pension with MF of 2.57


Pension for
L 11 as per matrix table


Reduction in pension with denial of Option 1 (col 5-4)



Revised pension with MF of 2.57
Reduction in pension with denial of Option 1 (col 5-7)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
25200
12600
32382
33850
1468
32382
1468
1
25956
12978
33353
34850
1497
32382
2468
2
26735
13367
34354
35900
1546
32382
3518
3
27537
13768
35385
37000
1615
32382
4618
4
28363
14181
36446
38100
1654
32382
5718
5
29214
14607
37540
39250
1710
32382
6868
6
30090
15045
38666
40450
1784
32382
8068
7
30993
15496
39826
41650
1824
32382
9268
8
31923
15961
41021
42900
1879
32382
10518
9
32880
16440
42251
44200
1949
32382
11818
10
33867
16933
43519
45550
2031
32382
13168
11
34883
17441
44824
46900
2076
32382
14518
1. From the above table it will be clear, that pre-2006 pensioners, as victims of Modified Parity will stand to lose more in pension compared to post -2006 pensioners if Option 1 of counting increments is not accepted by Govt. 

2. The loss in pension for post 2006 pensioners is in the range of Rs.1700 (from 1468 to a max of 2076 as per col. 6) only and is nearly constant , whereas for pre-2006 pensioners the loss in pension increases by almost Rs.1000/- for every one increment (Refer cols. 6 & 8). 3. For example, the loss suffered in pension of pre 2006 pensioner in losing 5 increments works out to 6868 as against 1710 for post 2006 pensioner. 

N. P. MOHAN 29-9-2016


TABLE 2 SHOWING REVISED PENSION OF SCALE S 29-PB 4 (LEVEL 14) PENSIONERS OF 4th CPC REGIME WITH & 3rd OPTION BASED ON NOTIONAL PAY OF SUCCESSIVE PAY COMMISSIONS

(Para 5 of minutes of meeting held on 6th October, 2016) vs OPTION 1 BASED ON INCREMENTS EARNED







Pay on retirement






Notional pay-5th CPC




Notional pay-6th CPC (Fitment table-6th CPC)



Notional pay-7th CPC with MF OF 2.57-3rd option (col.3 xMF)
Operative Pay of col. 4 in the next cell of pay matrix (MOF OM dt 25-7-2016)




Pay based on option 1 with increments ( as per pay matrix)





Pension as per option 3 (col.5/2)





Pension as per option 1 (col.6/2)
Loss of Revised pension if Option 1 is not given (Difference between Option 1 & 3) (col.8-7)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5900
18400
54700
140579
144200
144200
72100
72100
0
6100
18400
54700
140579
144200
148500
72100
74250
2150
6300
18400
54700
140579
144200
153000
72100
76500
4400
6500
18900
56050
144049
144200
157600
72100
78800
6700
6700
18900
56050
144049
144200
162300
72100
81150
9050
6900
18900
56050
144049
144200
167200
72100
83600
11500
7100
19400
56050
144049
144200
172200
72100
86100
14000
7300
19400
56050
144049
144200
177400
72100
88700
16600
NOTE: 1.3rd Option is not suitable at all. The loss in pension is clear from col. 9. 

2. Notional pay in 6th CPC in col. 3 has been taken from the Fitment table issued by MOF (DOE) on 30-8-2008. 

- Compiled by: N. P. MOHAN 24-10-2016

Source:-http://rscws.com

2 comments:

  1. Pensioners should be allowed to commute up to 40% of the increase in pension to avoid irregularity in the commutation amount received by pre-2016 pensioners. Please take urgent action to bring this to the notice of Government.


    ReplyDelete
  2. let us know what to do to get higher pension

    ReplyDelete

Latest Posts

Get More