Importance of Option 1 of 7th Pay Commission for Revised Pension
RSCWS explains the advantages of choosing Importance of Option 1 of 7th Pay Commission for Revised Pension
Railway Senior Citizens Welfare Society elaborates advantages for Pre 2016 pensioners in choosing Importance of Option 1 of 7th Pay Commission for Revised Pension
IMPORTANCE OF OPTION 1 OF 7THÂ 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  homogeneous  group  (Para10.1.53 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.
Enlcs: 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 Â PENSIONER |
PRE 2006 |
||||||
Increments |
Pay with increments |
Corres- ponding Existing pension (col. 2/2) |
Revsd pension with MF of |
Pension for |
Reduction in pension with denial of Option 1 (col 5-4) |
Revsd pension with MF of 2.57 |
Reductio |
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 |
||||||||
Pay on retirement |
Notional pay-5th CPC |
Notional pay-6th CPC (Fitment table-6th CPC) |
Notional pay-7th CPC with MF OF |
Operative |
Pay based on option |
Pension as per option 3 (col.5/2) |
Pension as per option 1 (col.6/2) |
Loss of |
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. |