Monday, 18 April 2016

Update 22.4.2016: Information on Rank Pay; Information of Grade Pay being made available by MoD

Request 50072 and Appeal 60112 – Rank Pay Brief

Online RTI Request Form Details

RTI Request Details:-
RTI Request Registration number MODEF/R/2016/50072
Public Authority Department of Defence
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-
Name S. Y. Savur
Gender Male
Address 141, Jal Vayu Towers , NGEF Layout, Indira Nagar PO, Bangalore
Pincode 560038
Country India
State Karnataka
Status Urban
Educational Status Literate
Phone Number +91-9688782227
Mobile Number +91-9449676278
Email-ID sharad10525[at]gmail[dot]com
Request Details :-
Citizenship Indian
Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ? No
(Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters)

Description of Information Sought: -

Please refer to MoD F No. 22/5/2014- D(PCC) quoted in Chapter 6.2 of the 7th CPC with particular reference to Paragraphs 6.2.29 and 6.2.30 regarding MoD comment on the Defence Services that pay of officers was depressed to the extent of the amount of Rank Pay.

D (Pay/Services) was the primary department that replied to and prepared affidavits, briefs etc in the Rank Pay case i.e. Maj (retd) A K Dhanapalan Vs UoI
in OP 2448 of 1996, WA 518 of 1998 in the Honourable High Court of Kerala and SLP (C) No. 5908 of 2003 in the Honourable Supreme Court.

D (Pay/Services) was again the primary department to prepare briefs, affidavits etc in Transfer Petition (C) No. 56 of 2007 and IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 which ultimately was decided in favour of Lt Col N K Nair & Others on 4.9.2012.

Please provide information as defined in Section 2(f) of the information, brief, file notings etc that were provided by D(Pay/services) to D (Pay Commission Cell) for it to prepare the comments for the 7th CPC.

Online RTI Appeal Form Details

RTI Appeal Details:-
RTI Appeal Registration number MODEF/A/2016/60112
Public Authority Department of Defence
Personal Details of Appellant:-
Request Registration Number MODEF/R/2016/50072
Request Registration Date 07/01/2016
Name S. Y. Savur
Gender Male
Address 141, Jal Vayu Towers , NGEF Layout, Indira Nagar PO, Bangalore
Pincode 560038
Country India
State Karnataka
Status Urban
Educational Status Literate
Phone Number +91-9688782227
Mobile Number +91-9449676278
Email-ID sharad10525[at]gmail[dot]com
Appeal Details :-
Citizenship Indian
Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ? No
Ground For Appeal Refused access to Information Requested
CPIO of Public Authority approached Details not provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Number Details not provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Date
(Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters)
Prayer or Relief Sought
I requested D (Pay/Services) to provide me a copy of the brief given to 7 CPC by the Vide 35(1)/2015/D(Pay/Services) dated 10 Feb 2016, the request has been declined under Section 8 (i) because the Committee of Secretaries is considering the recommendations of the 7th CPC.

I HAVE NOT REQUESTED FOR ACTION/INFORMATION ON recommendation of 7 CPC which I know cannot be disclosed at this juncture.
I have requested the comments on Rank Pay case provided by D (Pay/Services) to D (PCC) and which has been quoted in the Report of the 7 CPC.

Therefore, being aggrieved, I am filing this First Appeal for orders to the CPIO to provide me the information requested for.

Reply to Appeal No. MODEF/A/2016/60112

Government of India
Ministry of Defence

No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services)                    New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016


          Reference is invited to the appeal dated 18.2.2016 filed by Shri S Y Savur received vide MoD ID No. MODEF/A/2016/60112/ D (RTI) dated 3.3.2016 (received on 14.3.2016) against the reply dated 10.2.2016 by CPIO, D (Pay/Services), MoD in response to his RTI application dated 7.1.2016.

2.      I have considered the aforesaid appeal on the basis of facts submitted by the appellant and comments furnished by the CPIO, D (Pay/Services), MoD. The VII CPC recommendations are still under consideration of Committee of Secretaries. However, I have directed CPIO, D (Pay/Services), to provide a copy of the inputs given in the issue of Review and Enhancement of Grade Pay case to D (PCC). The appeal is accordingly disposed off.  

(Pradeep Kumar)
Director (AG-I) & Appellate Authority
Copy of this order be supplied to: -………..

*        *        *        *        *        *

   Information provided vide MoD No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) dated 04 Apr 2016.

(iii) Rank Pay (Review and enhancement of Grade Pay): The matter relating to grade pay to officers was examined in 2008 also. The Government after a long deliberation on the VI CPC recommendations decided to increase Grade Pay of middle level Armed Forces (except Lt/equiv) thereby meeting the demand of the Services, but did not accept its point on the issue of merger of Rank Pay in Basic Pay. Subsequently, while examining draft Service Instructions for pay revision, Ministry of Finance also did not approve the merger of Rank Pay and Basic Pay and observed that pre-revised scale and Rank Pay should be shown distinctly in two separate columns in pay fixation tables. Accordingly, Service instructions were issued. The demand in case of PBORs was not part of the issues/anomalies raised by the Services in 2009. However, the matter was raised in 2011 and was not agreed to. 

Not merging Rank Pay with Basic Pay was upheld in the Pranab Mukherjee Report. It was also emphaised therein that the Central Pay Commissions are recommendatory authorities and the final decision of the pay scales as well as the parity between various levels/ranks of civilian and armed forces officers is taken by the Cabinet, and as such the Cabinet decision is the final word on the subject.

*                     *                         *                * 

Sunday, 17 April 2016

Analysis Most Welcome; Comments Invited

Had hoped we would have many opinions/perceptions but...........

Mar 24 2016: The Times of India (Delhi)

Resolve pay anomalies: Def chiefs to Mantri
New Delhi:

The Army , Navy and IAF chiefs have once aga in expressed concern over the eroding “status, parity and equivalence'' in terms of salaries and allowances of the armed forces vis-à-vis their civilian counterparts, urging the government to resolve the “persisting core anomalies“ before implementing the  recommendations of 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC).

Defence ministry sources said the three chiefs ­ Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, Admiral Robin Dhowan and General Dalbir Singh Suhag ­ briefed defence minister Manohar Parrikar in this regard on Tuesday evening. “The chiefs flagged 37 issues, holding eight were critical to the armed forces. The MoD will now prepare a formal note for the empowered committee of secretaries, led by the Cabinet Secretary, which has been constituted to process the recommendations of the 7th CPC,” said a source.

The critical issues, which the chiefs said would adversely impact the armed forces' morale if they were not rectified, include the use of the new pay matrix by the 7th CPC. The forces contend the “discriminatory manner” in which the salaries have been structured by the matrix will lead to lesser pay for military personnel as compared to their civilian counterparts.

The armed forces say the 7th CPC also downgrades them to the level of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). Moreover, while the CAPFs can choose the better option between military risk hardship allowances , this reciprocity has not been extended to the armed forces. They also demanded that the calculation of the disability pension be changed from the existing percentage-based system to the earlier slab-based system.

Another demand is the grant of NFU (non-functional upgradation) for officers denied promotions due to lack of vacancies in the steeply-pyramidal structure of the armed forces. The forces also want the placement of all Lt-Generals in the HAG+ (higher administrative grade) pay-scale like directors-general of police.
                  *                              *                                      *                                   *

Monday, 11 April 2016

Did the AG Really Say That?

Dear Readers,

My inbox is flooded with questions whether what the contents of WhatApp messages attributed to the Adjutant General having said something about pay/pension in the 7th CPC regime is correct.

I was not present and the contents of the message have not been sent to me directly so that I could ascertain facts by subjecting it to the same manner in which something was attributed to the RM at an "alleged media interaction" in DSSC.

But all of us are discerning and logical thinkers, so here are some facts.

1. The recommendations of the 7th CPC have been sent by the Govt to a 13-member Empowered Committee of Secretaries (ECS) headed by the Cabinet Secretary for examination and sending recommendations to the Govt/Cabinet for consideration.

2. There has been some noise that the ECS has representation from a pantheon of all Civil services but not one representative from the Defence Forces. So the AG may not have been privy to the deliberations of the ECS.

3. Ministry of Finance (Deptt of Expenditure) is the servicing department for the ECS and has invited comments, opinions and suggestions from various Ministries through the Nodal officers (please see earlier post regarding Nodal officer for MoD).

4. The ToI and Economic Times have reported that the 3 Chiefs have (with the assistance of the AG, CoP and AoP) made presentations on certain anomalies to the Hon'ble RM, with the Defence Secretary present, on 22/23 Mar 16, and these have been forwarded to the ECS for consideration.

5. It is possible that what the AG is alleged to have stated might have been said in the discussions with the Hon'ble RM but the finality of the issues would be dependent on what the ECS recommends to the Govt/Cabinet and the subsequent decision of the Govt/Cabinet.   

6. There have also been media reports that the Hon'ble PM said on 04/05 Feb 2016 (New Indian Express) "In relief to Central government employees and pensioners, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has asked a Committee of Secretaries to accept the 7th Pay Commission’s recommendations without diluting them to provide maximum benefits to over 47 lakh government employees and 52 lakh pensioners.

The empowered committee, which was headed by Cabinet Secretary P K Sinha and comprised of  12 Secretaries, was set up on January 27 to process the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission.

A top official in the government told Express that the Committee has been asked to speed up the review so that the Cabinet can  take a decision and the 7th Pay Commission award can be released at the earliest to the employees and pensioners."

Friday, 8 April 2016

33 Years required for Pension clause deleted

33 years service required for pension clause deleted for pre-1.1.2006 retirees. Please download from DP & PW website and approach your Banks for necessary action.

Happy Ugadi/ Baisaki  

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Meeting with RM on 14 Mar 2016

Kind Courtesy Lt Gen S K Bahri PVSM Veteran

From: Ravindra Pathak <>
To: Sk Bahri <>; Satish Kumar Bahri <>
Sent: Thursday, 17 March 2016 7:43 PM
Subject: Meeting with RM

Dear Bahri Sir
I have got various versions of what transpired at the meeting.
Summing up I conclude what the RM said is F O we have given what we had to now go to Committee for any problems and I will see their report is out by 15 May.
Am I right in my conclusion Sir?

Dear Ravi,
You are correct as far as the gist is concerned. However, I am clarifying as to what exactly happened at the meeting.

a)  RM started by saying that Rs 2000 crs had been distributed as arrears and pensions under OROP till date and the balance will be completed by 20 Mar 16.

b) Then he asked if there were any questions on OROP. A number of people like Col Arasu, Maj Gen NB Singh, Col Nain etc put up points. RM directed that now that the one man Judicial Committee has been setup all issues be referred to it. He pointedly said that if you send your points through DESW, to mark copies to him so that he can follow them up. He also said that if some one desires he can request for personal attendance to argue his point. Gen VK Singh further clarified it will be ensured all issues raised are dealt with sympathetically.

c)  Lastly, Maj Gen Satbir Singh raised the issue that four issues are outstanding regarding OROP, which have a total cost of approx Rs 800 crs only. The RM was quick to respond that money is not the problem but if you hold a gun to his head and demand then the govt is not going to accede to any request. He clarified that our continued fast at Jantar Mantar is putting up the back of the govt and it will not listen to anything under duress. He also clarified  regarding the claim by Satbir that Parliament has accepted the Koshiyari Committee report twice is incorrect. RM said that many committee reports are received by the govt and they are never accepted in toto, as it is the decision of the govt as to what it can and what it cannot. (I have seen it myself after being involved in the passage of Real Estate Regulation Act . The govt accepted/rejected some of the recommendations and improved on some)

d)  Towards the end I raised the issue of Wg Cdr CK Sharma that he had been arrested and bodily removed by Haryana police even though they did not produce an arrest warrant. RM said that Haryana police is a law unto itself and passed some uncomplimentary remarks about it. However, he also seemed to have noticed, as I had written to him, that policemen and CAPFs are wearing disruptive pattern clothing and consequently army flag columns had to carry placards to identify themselves. He said that he had spoken and written to the HM to stop this practice.

I have received a number of queries as to what had happened during the meeting even though IESM had omitted my presence, senior most retired officer, in their communications on this meeting, people somehow were aware that I too was invited. Mr R Chandrashekar or Gen VK had also brought out that due to the continued fast at JM we are losing sympathy of general public. I am also called by number of officers, JCOs and OR that why are we continuing at JM after achieving so much and why don't we negotiate amicably with the govt. Hope some one listens as I have tried my best.