Sunday 29 September 2013

Some interesting information from 5 CPC and its impact on 6 CPC



Fifth Pay Commission

Part VII, 148.2. Pay Fixation methodology and SAI 2/S/98 (if amended after opinion of Ld Attorney General dated 3 Sep 13)

(a)       Pay + Rank Pay

(b)       Stage in the scale

(c)       D.A. at index avg. 1510 + Interim Relief

 (d)      = Existing Emoluments

(e)       Add 40% of (Pay +Rank Pay)

(f)        Total stepped up to the next stage



Sixth Pay Commission

Fitment benefit Chapter 1.2.3 The efforts of the (Sixth) Commission have been to devise a suitable pay package which will not only provide enough incentive to retain the brightest officers but also attract the best to join it in future. The quantum of fitment has been decided, accordingly. At the time of Fifth Central Pay Commission, fitment of 20% of the pre-revised basic pay was recommended. This was subsequently raised by the Government to 40%. The Commission is recommending a new structure of running pay bands and grade pay. In the structure, grade pay has been normally taken at 40% of the maximum of the pre-revised pay scale. Grade pay is, therefore, in the nature of fitment benefit.

The pay in the running pay band, as on 1/1/2006, has been computed by adding the basic pay and dearness allowance at the rate of 74% that would have been payable on the existing Fifth CPC pay scales w.e.f. 1/1/2006 had merger of dearness allowance equal to 50% of the basic pay not been allowed from 1/4/2004.

Anomalies in pay scales. Chapter 1.2.20. All the individual upgradations recommended by the Commission shall, in no case, take effect before 1.1.2006. This is because the Commission has no intention of rectifying these anomalies right from the time of their inception and is of the view that interest of justice will be served if these anomalies are rectified for the present and the future.

Defence Forces Chapter 1.2.24 The Commission has recommended parity between various posts in the Defence Forces and civilian employees. Establishing such parity was necessary for another major recommendation contained in the Report concerning lateral movement of the Defence Forces personnel to Central Para Military Forces (CPMFs), other Central Police Organizations and Defence Civilian Organisations. Such lateral movement would not only result in large savings for the Government but will also help in providing continuous employment to the various grades of Defence Forces personnel and make available a trained and disciplined force for the use of the nation. This will also have numerous other benefits, which have been discussed in detail in Chapter 2.4 of the Report. The pay scales for the Defence Forces have been devised accordingly. As mentioned earlier, the Commission has also recommended a separate element of pay called Military Service Pay for the Defence Forces keeping in view the difficulties specific to the military life. The Military Service Pay is to be treated as pay for all purposes (excluding increments) but will not be available once Defence Forces personnel shift to the CPMFs, etc. The concept has been discussed in detail in Chapter 2.3 relating to pay scales of Defence Forces personnel.

Pay Fixation Chapter 2.2.21.            Fixation has been done ……in the following manner:-

(i) The basic pay (add Rank Pay after Ld Attorney General's opinion) drawn as on 1/1/2006 on the existing Fifth CPC pay scales along with dearness allowance at the rate of 74% (which would have been payable on the Fifth CPC pay scales had merger of 50% dearness allowance as dearness pay not been allowed w.e.f. 1/4/2004) have been totalled and then rounded off to next multiple of 10. This has been taken as the pay in the revised running pay band.

(ii) The grade pay has been computed at the rate of 40% of the maximum of the basic pay in each of the pre-revised pay scale. Where two or more pre-revised pay scales have been merged the maximum of the highest pre-revised pay scale has been taken and 40% thereof is given as grade pay. In some cases, the amount of grade pay has been adjusted so as to maintain a clear differential between successive grades pay.


Saturday 28 September 2013

Curiouser & Curiouser



Curiouser & Curiouser

-         Alice in Wonderland

 

Date
The Event(s)
4.9.2012
Hon’ble Supreme Court passes order in I.A. No. 9 of 2010 in TP [C] No. 56 of 2007

17.10.2012
MoD obtains advice/opinion of Ld Solicitor General of India

6.11.2012
Services HQ furnishes DGL to MoD

21.11.2012
MoD obtains observations of the CGDA and Field Controllers on the Services DGL, wherein PCDA (N) and CDA (AF) observe that the Order applies to 5th CPC also but PCDA (O) does not.

[Curiosity: - Does this over-turn the precedent, and the bureaucracy loves precedent, that majority decisions of the Parliament and Courts need not be taken cognisance of?]  

26.11.2012
MoD “requests” for another DGL from TRIPAS and one from CGDA

27.12.2012
MOD issues order of implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court order based on the CGDA DGL
 
18.1.2013
Chairman, CoSC & CAS writes to Hon’ble RM pointing out four anomalies in the MoD letter of 27.12.2012

2.4.2013
Services HQ furnishes first statement of case dated 2 Apr 13 based on the ibid letter which is circulated by MoD to Def/Fin, CGDA and MoF

23.5.2013
CGDA provides observations and MoF concurs/agrees; MoD does not ask Services HQ to clarify (pre-meditated?) but send the documents to Ld Attorney General

27.5.2013
Chairman CoSC & CAS writes to Hon’ble RM about inaction of MoD on his letter of 18.1.2013 as it is apparent Services HQ has been kept out of the loop

14.6.2013
Hon’ble RM takes a meeting and directs that MoD and Services HQ furnish separate Statements of Case for opinion of Ld Attorney General

1.7.2013
Service HQ provides fresh and elaborate SoC to Ld Attorney General; Nothing known about MoD’s SoC

31.7.2013
RDOA files Contempt Petition (No. 328 of 2013) in Hon’ble Supreme Court

6.8.2013
JS (E) takes a meeting and assures Service HQ SOC matter would be referred to Ld Attorney General together with MoD’s SoC, but………

14.8.2013
MoD (or LA (Def) sends the first SoC (dated 2.4.2013) to Ld Attorney General for opinion with observations of Def/Fin, CGDA and MoF

?
Ld Attorney General returns Service HQ SoC of 1.7.2013 to Min of Law & Justice (for submission through LA (Defence)?)

3.9.2013
Ld Attorney General conveys his opinion and refers only to the Chairman CoSC & CAS’s letter of 18.1.2013

What happened to the MoD’s SoC and Service HQ SoC dated 1.7.2013?

[Curious: - What is the ‘other basis’ when the CGDA & MoF harp on the inviolability of the 4th CPC’s Report & recommendations?]

16.9.2013
Mid-day Today and Services HQ obtain  a copy of the opinion of the Ld Attorney General dated 3.9.2013

?
(1) Where is the Statements of Case sent by MoD for observations of Def/Fin, CGDA and MoF? Has it been submitted to Min of Law & Justice [LA (Defence)] for comments and processing with Ld Attorney General? Is it awaiting the RM’s approval??

(2) For a complete picture, will MoD send to Service HQ the observations of MoF, CGDA, Def/Fin for authentic data and/or counter incorrect inputs i.e. CGDA stating “another basis” for deduction of Rank Pay?

(3) Has MoD (Finance) vide U.O. No. 2038/Addl FA (J) dated 26.5.1987 or MoD’s Case No. PC to MF. B/04780/5/AG/PC Cell (A)/3115/D-Pay/Services) adopted the impugned formula by over-ruling the 4th CPC?

?
Will Ld Attorney General render another opinion to supplement his opinion of  3.9.2013 by reconsidering the issues of

(1) Minimum pay of the Rank as this was not in the 4th CPC Report or Resolution 9E of 19 Mar 87, 

(2) Raising the Ceiling of the integrated scale based on the MoF OM No. 1/2/86-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 10.4.87 and Chapter 2.3 of the 6th CPC Report quoting previous Pay Commissions recording in their Reports that Brig and DIG are equal for pay fixation purposes,

(3) Will that entail raising the ceiling for 5th CPC as well as Rank Pay deductions have to be corrected?, and

(4) Effect on the pay of Major Generals, even Lt Generals?



Wednesday 25 September 2013

Someone needs to blow the whistle on this



Someone needs to blow the whistle on this
By Bee Cee

From emails sent by Bee Cee
                                                         *           *          *         *         * 
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:42:26 +0530
Subject: Re: Someone needs to blow the whistle on this

Dear Sir,

The Govt had put the issue of OROP in public domain and invited the stake holders to place their views before the Rajya Sabha Petitions Committee. You should have placed your thoughts before them. It is rather too late to voice now.

However the issue of Majors’ pension has been covered by RDOA adequately well and misgivings of AVS report highlighted.

Let us wait the outcome.

Secy RDOA 
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:58 PM,

Dear Navdeep,

I happened to speak to some long retired Major/ eqvts fighting for an improvement in their pensions, and to some other officers regarding OROP recently. I was surprised by the extent of damage and it is quiet clear that this is not going to be resolved till officers(serving/retired) understand what the real problem is, and  find a permanent solution. I am once again reminded of our friend Pragmatic's quote from Chesterton, "It is not that they don't know what the solution is, what they don't know is the problem". 

I have been generally following such issues since '95 but am not aware of any occasion between 1984 (IV CPC) and 2007 (VI CPC) except the High Level Committee post V CPC [3 Vice-Chiefs, Def Sec & Secy(Def Fin)] when the Service HQ put up a reasoned case for the arrest of the downslide that started at the IV CPC. Ironically, implementation of this was undermined by another Committee comprising of the Chiefs and the Cabinet Secy. Therefore the most important issue is for Service HQ and retired senior officers to come clean and connect the gap between their public posturing and what has been actually sought from the Govt, CPCs etc. Officers react or offer comments based on the 'public posturing' of such worthies while GOI/ MOD/ CPCs respond to what has actually been asked for by the Service HQ. As long as this gap is not bridged, replays alternating between tragedy and farce will go on. Karl Marx may be out of fashion now, but his remark on history is apt for our pay/personnel issues.

OROP and Major's Pension

Despite a reasonable understanding of pay/personnel issues, I cannot comprehend the on-going OROP theatrics. I may be wrong, but Pension rules providing past pensioners 50% of the minimum of the relevant ‘replacement pay’ in the new pay band actually provides something very close to OROP
for all. In any case, the argument that you are progressively getting ‘downgraded in pay' and a demand for old pensioners to get the same pension as new ones do not exactly compliment each other. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect OROP is another red herring and an effort to cover up somebody's monumental incompetence at CPCs and of course at the Bagga/ AVS report. This is starkly evident in the Major's predicament on pensions. 

I have seen some blog commentaries, approach papers etc on OROP. Most of them state that the Lt Col is getting too much as compared to the Major, Lt General gets too much over Maj Gen or arguments on a similar vein, by comparing the pensions of different military ranks after Vth and VIth CPCs. I have not seen any discussion that compares the pensions with similarly placed Civilian, CG or CAPF officers. While I too haven't done a full calculation yet for lack of access to specifics, I am confident that such a comparison will not only show where the problem lies, but also expose the dismal complicity of Service HQ in the denial of dues to their own officers.

Take a look at the pension orders for pre-2006 pensioners. In principle, it is the same for both military and civilian officers. 40% increase above 'existing pension,' subject to 50% of the minimum on the 'replacement pay'. Sounds fair and just. But gets absolutely unjust when you look at the
actual figures!

A long retired Major and a Director/Comdt (SG) had similar pension and would have similar increase in pension when you do a 40% addition to 'existing pension'. But when you take 50% of the minimum of 'replacement pay', the Major gets 14,100/- and the Director/Comdt gets about 26,050 (same as Col). The civilian effectively gets almost twice the pension of his pre-VI CPC military counterpart. Any surprise that the ‘Civilian’ scoffs at OROP and is laughing all the way to the bank!

The Major doesn't know (and doesn't bother to find out) what hit him and as a matter of habit gets in line behind a bunch of guys shouting “OROP,” “OROP” making a spectacle of themselves and the veterans community in general. But how did we come to this pass?

It is the Service HQs through Bagga/ AVS report that sought the degradation of the Major to 'minor' (from NFSG/above JAG pay to STS level). This was implemented by the VI CPC. Did they not have the wit to realise that OROP will ensure that retired Majors also would have their pensions reduced to the STS level even though it was earned at a much higher scale?

It is not only Majors, even after the Bagga/AVS instigated downfall, the Lt Col was at par with Director/Comdt (SG), but for some inexplicable reason, Service HQs sought equation of the Col (who was above DIG by pay, service, protocol & pension till the VI CPC) with Director/ Comdt  and of the Brig with DIG. This has led to a fall in the pension for all such pre-2006 pensioners and pay/status of officers post VI CPC. 

To an observer, the whole situation would be comical. You first have a bunch of guys asking for and obtaining a reduction in pay, status and well earned pension. Then you have them again surrendering their hard won medals in protest because the GOI generally agreed to their own demand of reduction in pay and pension through Service HQs. No wonder the political class is confused and others are sniggering at such displays of incompetence laced with threats of emotional blackmail. Are retired officers so semantically and arithmetically challenged that they cannot see matters for themselves and call those responsible to account?

What the pre-2006 Maj/Lt Col/Col/ Brig should seek is not OROP, but Restoration of pre-2006 pension with the same improvement (in percentage terms) over existing pension as has been given (by the VI CPC) to similarly placed civilians. Do this simple extrapolation (which will exclude the AVS/VI CPC interventions from Service HQs) and see the results. Service HQs in any case do not have the mandate to propose a reduction in the pension of those already retired. I would also suggest seeking some penal compensation from those who brought officers to this sorry state.
I used to call these as self-inflicted damages. But that is not really true. These are damages inflicted by selected individuals against their own colleagues. CPCs, MOD, bureaucracy et al may be complicit in the crime. But the instigators are from Service HQ. After retirement, they compound matters by calling for OROP, return medals, hold jamborees at Jantar Mantar and so on to
continue leading the credulous up the garden path. But if they claim to speak for all ESMs it is an insult to my (and many other veterans') intelligence. 
In retrospect, I feel really relieved that the scope of the CPCs and Cadre Reviews did not cover uniforms. Or else, our 'experts' would have proposed 'the Emperor's new clothes' for those serving. May sound funny, but past experience is depressing and indicates that our guys would have not only worn them happily, but strutted about in them like the Emperor in all his glory.

I know these are harsh words. But it is time somebody blew the whistle on these shenanigans that have taken away the financial security and dignity of officers and reduced them to the level of supplicants. Nor does it speak well of the officer corps that the individuals responsible are not shown up for what they have done. Above all, I do not understand the compulsion of Service HQs to be less than forthright with serving and retired officers. This fudging of the factual situation leads to delusional behaviour by some officers, abusing all and sundry and generally making a laughing stock of themselves. What is worse, it is symptomatic of the lack of 'downward accountability' that seems to have become the norm at Service HQs. Service HQ need to merely publish the following data in respect of the VI CPC (include IV & V CPC too if you want to see the full extent of perfidy) to start an informed discussion.

A. Pre VI CPC pay of Defence Services Officers Vs corresponding/ nearest civil pay scales

B. Services proposals to the CPC regarding pay grades and equivalence of officers

C. Post VI CPC pay of Service officers and the corresponding civil scales/grade.

D. Pre and post VI CPC pensions of the above officers.

No one needs to take my word on this and I am willing to have a public conversation on the subject and apologise if I am wrong. Hence I am posting it to many who may have an interest in resolving the matter. You may also post it on your blog if you think it's appropriate.


All the best
BeeCee
 


Subject: RE: Someone needs to blow the whistle on this
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:58:30 +0530


Dear Sir,

At the outset, thank you for giving a prompt response to my mail. I have had no earlier dealings with RDOA and just happened to find the mail id on the net and shall attempt a detailed reply to your mail. The RS Petition Committee route was suggested to me when it was formed. I shall copy verbatim, my response at the time: 

"I don't think OROP will resolve any of the fundamental problems. But it may be an improvement over the present situation. Also I haven't looked at it in detail, but the downside that I now see is that it will be added to a long list of inconsequential concessions given to the armed forces. Of course it would be nice to highlight to Mr. (Rajiv) Chandrasekhar that the problem is in the pay scales and not the pensions. But with no assurance from the Service HQ that they will actually take up the case on pay scales comprehensively, we will just be telling one more person what a lot of dumb guys we are.” 

I have not seen anything to change the above view. But as I said in my earlier mail, recent discussions with some retd Lt Cdrs showed the extent of loss they are suffering and also a remark by someone who had worked hard to correct many of the past errors that, 'I wish we had fought harder at the time', prompted me to send this out.  Whether it's too late or not, I am not sure. That's for the affected parties to decide. But you are actually the first person whose reaction is other than 'this can't be true' or 'Are you serious? Service HQs can't be this dumb'. So I presume you are already aware that what I have said is true and your gripe is only about the timing.

I have actually been talking about these things for a long time whilst in service and after retirement. Only thing is that I have toned it down after retirement because much of the conversation is in the public domain. You can see some of it as guest posts in the blogs 'Pragmatic Euphony' and Navdeep's 'Indianmilitary info' under the pseudonym BeeCee. But I digress.

I was also not aware that RDOA had sought restoration of the Major's pension or highlighted what a dumb idea the AVS report was. What I do have are some papers the retired officers gave me which included, among other things why the pension gap between Lt Col & Maj should be reduced, what a good guy the Major (retd) is, promotion problems in armed forces etc. Then there is something on a proposal to shift the pension calculation from the bottom of PB3 to the middle or so. There is also a letter from GOI Dept of ESM Welfare that no proposal for revision of Major's pension is under consideration.

With due respect to all those making the cases, none except the last letter is relevant to the Major's pension at this juncture. What is relevant is the Major's pension before and after VI CPC in comparison to others who were on similar pension in the civil sector. If you want greater clarity, the Major/Director/ Comdt/ many others drew X pension pre VI CPC. Post VI CPC, the Major gets (X+Y) just because he is military whereas everybody else gets (X+3Y) or something close to it. I don't have the exact figures but it should be close enough. This is such plain discrimination that even a rookie lawyer would prove in court. So I don't see the difficulty in resolution except of course that the reduction was caused by the Services themselves. That is all.

Anyway as I understand from your mail, RDOA is already doing this and I may be preaching to the already converted. But I'll copy this to those officers who were not aware that RDOA has sought restoration of their pension and some others who may be interested.

Kind regards
 
On 23 June 2011 12:21,

This is Cmde(Retd) Biji Cheriyan, the 'mysterious BeeCee' that you enquired about in a mail that was forwarded to me.

Evidently, you have seen only the post and not my original mail that was copied to many. My name is in the email id itself. In Navdeep's blog, a pseudonym has been used just as in another blog, 'Pragmatic Euphony' where too I have written on similar issues. The blog owners perhaps agree with me that it is not the messenger, but the message that is important. You evidently disagree. Well it's a point of view. But the original intention of using a pseudonym was precisely to avoid what you are doing, sidetracking of issues at hand with comments about the person raising it. Obviously we haven't succeeded but we'll leave it to others to decide what is more important to focus on.
The Secy RDOA had also responded to me directly, questioning the timing of my mail. Copied below is my response to him (again I know nothing about him except that he wrote to me as Secy RDOA):

“Just so you know, it is not that I had a moment of epiphany after retirement and started shouting 'Eureka, Eureka' on pay matters. These issues have been raised from 1995-96 onwards at various forums including at discussions on the Bagga Committee and in the lead up to the VI CPC. Many of our people who have dealt with these issues are well aware of my views and also my identity. You may have been taken by surprise (if you have read the post that is), they shouldn't be.
I presume I have answered what you wanted to know about me from 'Jaspal Bhinder' (who too is unknown to me). If there's anything more, don't hesitate to ask.

But as I said in my original mail, no one needs to take my word on any of these things. Just work it out for yourselves. And I am willing to have a conversation on it.

Regards

BC 

On 25 June 2011 11:00, 
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your prompt mail.

My point all along has been that almost the entire reduction in pay, perks, status, pension etc has been the consequence of acts of commission (had it been omission some excuse could be considered) by the Service HQ:

1. The seeking of lower pay and perks by the Service HQs as opposed to a very liberal one that is available for the Organised Gp A Services and would have been automatically available to us if we had not sought to be 'different' for the sake of being different. 15 years after raising this issue in the lead up to the V CPC, no one has been able to answer this or indicate even a small benefit that we have got by being 'different'. 

2. The issue of poor pensions in this case is a consequence of the poor pay structure.  As long as this is not corrected, the pension problem will remain. 

3. There is definitely a case for Mil. Pensions as existed before III CPC. Some good justification was given by Lt Gen Chibber in his book many years ago. But it is not for OROP, but a higher rate of pension that can be justified.

It is not really for me to say what the IESM, RDOA or anybody else must do. But I can say with conviction that the primary error is at the Service HQs and not the bureaucracy, CPC or MoD. So the actions taken so far are misdirected, shall we say?

As I have said elsewhere, there is nothing very complex about these matters and you don't need Karmarkar's algorithm to work it out. All that is needed is for Service HQs to re-examine their proposals and admit that there has been a mistake and they need to get back to civil norms.

If the veterans can convince the Service HQs to mend their ways, half the battle is won the other half is to lend their weight to the revised stance of Service HQs. At the moment I would say you are effectively working at cross-purposes.
I don't think this requires any calls to battle. Just a rational (not emotional) proposal that a few guys can sit down and write!

And I am willing to continue the conversation if you need my support for a rational proposal. In the meantime, I would still say that for pre-2006 pensioners (officers only, I haven't looked at others) restoration of pension is the way to go and not OROP.
Regards

BC


Dear Veteran

Thanks for writing in clearing the haze -- even if just a bit!

My BASIC objection that I had voiced to Veteran Bhinder was that I was unhappy to have an opinion posted to the Indian Veterans Group that was 'anonymous'. IndVet Group is a fairly small Group of less than 150 members and we have made an effort to an ensure that the members of it get as diverse opinions on any subject as is possible -- but, in all fairness, SIGNED ones.

Having said that, if you were to go back to my a/m response, my questions are just as valid, still. I will just repeat one of them here: It is quite within your rights to disagree with the actions of IESM -- after all, IESM consists of (fallible) humans! BUT, to make your objections count, you need to be specific about what you think IESM ought to have done till date and what exactly should it do henceforth. And, not just that, tell us at which point in time are YOU willing to join the battle lines yourself. You see, we have had a lot of armchair strategists advising that we should take to the streets Bhainsla-style -- and yet, when we asked them how many volunteers would they be bringing with them when they come -- there was solemn silence (bliss?) from them!!

As i said, discussion can only be welcome in all situations -- but, obviously, between recognisable entities who have a stake in the action as well as the result.

Cheers!

 

From: Biji Cheriyan <bijicheriyan@hotmail.com>
Date: 31 October 2011 11:46
Subject: FW: [IESM_GovBody] Fwd: Someone needs to blow the whistle on this

Dear Sir,

I suspect Navdeep had been holding back for so long out of sheer politeness and respect for those in uniform.
But now that he has decided to spill some of the beans in his latest post, I think it is time for those interested to revisit the previous mails and see the connection.

And for those really interested in finding a solution, a look at my very first post on the subject, 'Not so Pragmatic" in May 2008(Guest post in the blog Pragmatic Euphony and also in Navdeep's blog) will put the developments in perspective.

Regards

Biji

Dear Sir,
 
When Bagga Committe proposals were under consideration, I did some skulduggery at NHQ and made a presentation to the CNS, PSOs and APSOs countering the official Personnel Branch recommendations. I thought the issue was important enough to take the risk and was also sure I was right. The post VI CPC situation is generally what I had predicted would happen if we did not mend our ways. Interestingly, none of those present said I was wrong, but did nothing about it.

Service officers have lost out much more than they themselves realise and are clutching at straws like the Rank Pay case for succour. But look at it this way. The Col (TS) now gets that 26 years (earlier if he makes it to Col) what was available to him as a Major in 14 years if we had just let things be. Anyone's got a formula to calculate the cumulative loss to all officers since 1984? One person in the know told me in 2006 that the main reason MoD backed out from accepting the Rank Pay judgement was that the pay out to army officers alone was to the tune of Rs.200 Cr in 2006. This is only a fraction of the actual loss in pay. What about the perks and other concessions based on pay?

As far as the 'Civil' set up is concerned, I think I have had more interaction than most with IAS, IFS (in my ‘diplomatic’ years) and IDAS. Some of them still stay in touch. While there is a 'cultural' divide between them and the Services in the approach to life and issues, I don't see them actively working to undermine Service officers. Barring exceptions, they too just have the normal human affliction of keeping what is best  for themselves. That should in any case be a given, when we take up matters with them. If you want to see where the greater problem lies, look at the mismatch between the advertisements from Service Hqs to join 'the great career in the armed forces' and our posturing after each CPC. The public tend to believe the ads and those in MoD probably see through this posturing which is at variance with our actions and look at it for entertainment value. That is all. 

Let me quote an example. The other day I saw on TV, the widow of an IPS officer saying that families of policemen who die in the course of their duty must get the same rewards as available to army personnel. I found it humorous but some in the army would have been preening themselves to quote this at some forum. If he just checked the records, he would find that the original GOI order says, "the facilities and concessions available to the CPOs etc would now be extended to the armed forces" or something to that effect. Rarely are we ahead of the 'civilians' in these matters, but we like to pretend otherwise.

And it is not just officers, look at the attempts NHQ has made to remove the 'Gazetted' status of MCPOs. Had stymied it for some time. But why doesn't it at least occur to those who propose such stupid ideas that NHQ may not even have the authority to do it.

Biji





Dear HS,

My last mail yesterday and your mail below crossed each other and some aspects you have raised in this may have already been addressed. All the same, I'll reply to these one by one. In my first post on these issues (still available on Navdeep's blog) I had said that if we put all our proposals to the GOI/CPC together, we would generally get what the VI CPC recommended. Do have a look at it.
I still have not seen our proposals to the VI CPC and when someone send me a copy of the presentation for 'correction of anomalies', I really thought (as I said at the time) that it must be a spoof by some prankster. Then I was told that it was the real thing. I hold no brief for the CPCs, bureaucracy or MoD. They may also have no sympathy for the armed forces. But that is usually irrelevant to the issue at hand. What you get out of the CPC or GOI/MoD is a response to the proposals from Service HQs, not a unilateral decision. If it is a unilateral decision it can be challenged, logically. If it is what you asked for or better, you are stuck with it. Hence my stand that Service HQs must publicise what they asked for and what was given.
I have also said on the blog in another post that the CPC were "less than honest brokers". That is true, but it could be rather embarrassing if it is revealed that the manipulation was necessary to accede to demands from Service HQs. More often than not, skulduggery by CPCs, ill-intentions of bureaucracy etc seem to be in the nature of 'anticipatory bail'  by our own guys.

Coming to your specifics: 

(a) - I can understand wanting to be different. But I can't understand wanting to be different just for the sake of reducing the dignity and well being of 'your own'. Are you aware of any gains of being 'different' in pay matters? I am not. And as far as the approach to VI CPC is concerned, they were specifically cautioned on the drawbacks of this approach. So what is the excuse?

(b),(c) - The basic norm for pay determination since the IV CPC was that upto 14 years, pay progression will be similar for all Organised Gp A Services, incl Armed Forces, which is why the Lt was given 2/Lt's pay when the 2/Lt rank was abolished at V CPC(projected as an achievement at the time) and Major's pay got reduced to the Captain's(6th year level/STS) at VIth. If Bagga/AVS had reduced him to 9th year, he would have JAG/Dy Secy level (which incidentally was what I had suggested during 'Bagga' committee discussions) to minimise cadre disruption.

Bagga/ AVS had already reduced the Lt Col to NFSG level, so the logical approach at VI CPC(withot looking foolish) would have been to ask for Lt Col to get Comdt(SG)/ Director scale though it was less than his existing relative pay. This could not have been denied by the CPC.
 But Service HQs wanted the Col to be at Director's level (Ask whoever made the proposal why he/she did it). The only way the CPC could accept it was by lowering the Lt Col from his perch. Of course, the CPC could have overruled Service HQs to give Lt Cols, Cols and Brigs their actual due. But realistically, it would be expecting too much of them. If you think your own officers are not worth much, why would others intercede on their behalf. I know that there was a lot of heartburn (and rightly so) for Lt Cols. But aren't the above, the facts of the case?
Incidentally, a decade earlier, the Joint Proposals to V CPC had also asked the CPC to reduce the Lt Col's pay and status to that of a Dy Secy. This was even before Gen. Bagga reduced them to NFSG level. So to answer the question in your next mail, Lt Cols were shafted by CPC not on their own but as officially requested for by the Service HQs. The 'Trishanku' position they now find themselves in, may have been arrived at to cover the duplicity, when many officers started asking awkward questions. So who are we fooling but ourselves?

(c) - I have never been a votary of separate Pay Commission. You can imagine what would happen if our 'experts' who brought us to this state are given a free run. I suspect the GOI agreed to it as anybody who deals with our pay issues gets completely confused by our ridiculous demands, followed by a blame game involving all and sundry except those actually responsible for the mess. The aim should be to have similar norms. Is this so difficult to understand?. 

(d) - This is another favourite red herring of ours. Nobody says that you need to have a rank for rank pay equation at every level. All that is required is that after 14 years the percentage of officers in each grade were laid down - SAG (17%), HAG (3%). That is all. Have we tried asking for this at all? When I contested 'Bagga recommendations' at NHQ, not quietly but fully out in the open (because I thought the issue was important enough), I had suggested the following:

Lt Col-DIG; Col/ Brig - SAG/JS; Maj Gen -AS/Addl DG; Lt Gen – DGP; CinC - Secy. (This was after restoring pre IV CPC Maj (SG) to Dir/(Comdt(SG). Below that you could have Maj-DS, Capt-STS and Lt -JTS/Entry level.

By the time of the VI CPC, the Bagga/AVS damage was already done and then I suggested to our guys to have Lt Col - Dir/ Comdt (SG) and Col-DIG(need to check this). Others remaining the same.

The above is possible if we just accept the civil norms and CPCs would be hard put to deny the logic already accepted for everyone else. Instead I don't know what we came up with. My own feeling is that some at Service HQs do not want the majority of officers to be paid their due but are not honest enough to say so. Hence all this contradiction between words and action.

The bureaucracy, CPC etc may not be that well disposed to the Services. But that is irrelevant to the debate when the problem lies within the Services itself. They probably go along with this duplicity because it saves the GOI some money and keep the Services off balance. And why should they expose this duplicity if it is to their advantage.



Dear Sir,

1.   I have gone through your email and as also the series of other mails which was appended to it.

2.   My observations are as below:-

 (a)    I accept that Service HQ committed harakiri by asking for 'different' treatment from CPCs and in the bargain getting treated (in)differently!

 (b)   Even if we said in the past that pls give the Maj same Pay (and hence pension) as his civ counterpart (NFSG/Comdt(SG)/Dir) would it have been easily accepted? Because the real ill-intention was always to push our ranks down and simultaneously compare our higher ranks (with more No of years behind) with junior AIS Cadre (or even Organised Gp A for that matter).

 (c)   The above meanness was abundantly clear when, after 6th CPC, Govt refused to ramp up our Grade Pay for all officers Capt upwards even after strong protests by Chairman COSC. They simply constituted a High Level Committee (God only knows if it actually deliberated on the issue or not as it simply appears to have vanished in thin air with no outcome in sight)) to look into Grade Pay issue. Lt Cols were mollified by increasing their Grade Pay from Rs 7600 to Rs 8000 with combat-ready rider. So now Lt Cols' Grade Pay is unique in GoI with no one getting the same amount. And also those opting for deputation were retained in PB-3 (how funny can it get really?). So now a civ says Lt Cols are equivalent to DS only when working in civ set up because on deputation they are in PB-3!

 (d)   Earlier I was upbeat about it but now I dare say that by getting separate pay commission for ourselves, we may have shot ourselves in the foot! Hope I'm proved wrong!

 (e)   How do you equate 10 Mil ranks (Lt to Gen) with 6 of Central Civ Service (viz. US, DS, Dir, JS, AS, Spl Secy, Secy)?


Hope my points made some sense.

Thanks and warm regards,
-
  


Sunday 22 September 2013

Knives of the Generals



Knives of the Generals

(Not to be confused with Night of the Generals, the movie)

For many months now I have been reading about the Indian Army (hereinafter Army) and how many grouses officers have against the Generals and also the MS Branch. I also wrote a rebuttal of the allegations by a Veteran Indian Naval officer about the financial shenanigans of Flag officers. 

I recently read about the Army’s investigations of a clandestine unit whose funds and services were used by a former Army Chief to topple a government of a State, no less. It was ironical that this discovery should also have the inevitable corollary of that former Chief trying to prevent his successor from getting the hot seat, which one his predecessors had made "reservation" as alleged in the media.

Let me start the main piece with two caveats. First, my father, a former India Number One in Tennis and also had played at Wimbledon before WW II, was in the Army (Captain, commissioned in 1942) and fought in the famous Battle of the Tennis Court in Kohima. (Please see page 121 of the paperback version of book Springboard to Victory by C. E. Lucas-Phillips). He quit without accepting a Permanent Commission. Second, I was a member of the 19th Higher Command Course (year 1990-91) at the then College of Combat (Commandants were Lt Gen Narahari and later Lt Gen Vijay Madan).

Army’s Chiefs have somehow managed to be in the spotlight for reasons that do not reflect their true capabilities as leaders and commanders. Neville Maxwell’s book India’s China War brought out that Thimayya was shamed by Pandit Nehru after withdrawing his resignation (page 316). Thapar accepted the Govt’s dictates, without demur as Maxwell states (page 315) instead of resigning, much against strategic and tactical considerations. There are more books on such matters of later times i.e Kargil etc.
   
1990-91 was the year of a spasm of display of Army's morality in full view of the Nation. The then Chief (an artillery officer) must have believed that medium guns are more suited to clean up than the pen when he decided to sack many General officers! So, the newspapers went to town (even in a small place like Mhow, where the ‘papers were delivered a day late), with the name(s) of the Generals and why they were shown the door unceremoniously. Their alleged offence was using nether that part of the body associated with re-production with members of the opposite sex, other than their spouses, usually with the consent of the “other”! Perhaps, in his wisdom and zeal, the then Chief though it was better to make it a (prime time) show without thinking over, or caring for the collateral damage to the Army! 

The only relief in all this bleak atmosphere was when Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw came to address the HCC. After the tea (and Bhanwarilal’s kachoris) break, the first question was "what did the Filed Marshal think of the Army Chief’s moral crusade." His reply was, as usual, pithy and witty, “I would have retired as a Lieutenant!” He did not entertain any more questions on that topic (of Army's morality crusade!) even in the pre-lunch drinks. Of course, the next day we were briefed to tread on egg-shells when the Army Chief would address HCC a couple of weeks later and also for the then Air Chief's address. The CAS, it seems,  had walked out in a huff the previous year, incensed by yet another irreverent question the HCC participants’ had a reputation for!

I had retired for a few years when the Adarsh scam hit the headlines. It was sad that Deepak Kapoor, also a co-participant in 19 HCC, was accused (and whatever happened to that case?) and offered a reason quite in contrast with his reputation for being thorough with his background information. (And Nirmal Vij, in it too?)

But the offal started to hit the ceiling when there were allegations of some financial skulduggery in Northern Command when Deepak was in command (and it appears an epidemic that such discoveries and resultant allegations are always a couple of years after the incumbents have demitted office!).

So VK Singh started to clean up the Aegean stables he took charge from Deepak. VKS had two Lt Generals investigated and shown the door and as he climbed the ladder to that seat of high morality, the rungs of the ladder started to unhinge, one at a time. 

He challenged the change in the year of his birth, which he had acquiesced to a few years earlier. He never told the Nation why he could not refuse then and face the consequences (no promotion to Lt Gen? No GOC II Corps?) instead of doing what he did a year before his superannuation. Perhaps he forgot that one cannot cover all flanks unless one has a superior defence strategy and more important did not learn from the Adm Bhagwat-Sushil Kumar episode! And since the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave matter the quietus with some advice, I will leave it at that. 

So now we have Bikram Singh skirmishing on several fronts! I hope he will read and ponder on this paraphrased passage by Alfred Vogts, in The History of Militarism: -

“Again and again, military men have seen themselves hurled into wars by ambitions, passions and blunders…..almost wholly uninformed as to the limits of their military potential and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirement …they let loose.”            
    

Jai Hind

Saturday 21 September 2013

CGDA Practising Economy with the Truth



PRACTISING ECONOMY WITH THE TRUTH
(Paragraph Numbers from Opinion of Ld Attorney General signed on 3.9.13 &  Observations in alphabets i.e. (A) by author)

Query (II)      Whether the minimum pay for each rank given in Para 6 (a) (ii) of SAFI 1/S/87, needs to be re-fixed/changed?

32.       Para 6 (a) (ii) of the Instructions dated 26.05.1987 refers to officers in the ranks of Captain, Major, Lt Colonel, Colonel and Brigadier and indicates minimum pay in the integrated scale against each rank.

33.       According to the armed forces, the minimum pay for each rank needs to be revised after taking into account the non-deduction of rank pay in terms of the Court’s order.

34.       The CGDA has indicated that the minimum pay for each rank has not been arrived at after deduction of rank pay. It was in fact a recommendation of 4th CPC. Minimum pay has not been depressed due to deduction of rank pay. Further, there is no court order directing change in minimum pay for the rank.    

35.       The Ministry of Finance has indicated its agreement with views of CGDA.

36.       The issue of revision of pay scale did not arise and was not decided in Major Dhanapalan’s case. The issue of the minimum pay scale does not pertain to the real issue dealt with above. When the officer’s pay is revised I implementation of the Court’s order, the minimum of the pay scale does not come in the way, because if the pay has to be fixed at a stage next higher than the minimum, the same can be done. There is no need to revise the minimum, if as stated by the CGDA, it has been fixed on another basis.    

Economy with the Truth by CGDA – No. 1

(A)       Neither Chapter 28 (even in Para 28.113 and illustration thereof) nor Chapter 30 of the 4th CPC Report or the Govt of India, Min of Defence Resolution 9E mention the deduction of Rank Pay.

(B)       Confirmation is provided by MoD in Note 8 of File No. 34(6)/2012-D (Pay/Services) dated 12 Sep 12 and reproduced below: -

4.         The Service Instructions issued in this regard were based on the GoI Resolutions and the portion there from relevant to the instant case read as under: -
       
“6. Fixation of initial pay in the revised scales will be regulated as follows: -
     
a (i)     An amount representing 20 percent of the basic pay in the existing scale shall be added to the existing emoluments of the officer.

(ii) After the existing emoluments have been so increased, an amount equivalent to the rank pay, if any appropriate to the rank held by the officer on 01 January, 1986 as the rates prescribed in para 3 (a) (ii) above, will be deducted. Thereafter, the officer’s pay will be fixed in the revised scale at the stage next above the amount thus computed.”

(C)               So is the impugned SAI No.1/S/87 the “another basis?” But the SAI is in contravention of the 4th CPC Report/Recommendations and Resolution 9E as determined by the Hon'ble Courts!

Query (III)    Whether the Basic Pay ceiling of integrated Scale in IV CPC for officers up to Brig/equivalent, which is Rs 5100/- also needs to be modified to give effect to the Court orders?  


37.       The differing views on this issue are as under:

            ISSUE 3: REVISING THE TOP OF INTEGRATED SCALE.

Armed Forces Views:  The top of the integrated scale as recommended by Pay Commission was Rs 5000. However the issue was further examined by the Government and it was decided to change the integrated scale to Rs 2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB-5100. The services now contend that the top of the scale of Rs 5100 should also be increased to remove the effects of deduction of rank pay. They have drawn equivalence  between Brig (on armed forces side) and DIG (Police) on civilian side to draw pay comparison. It is submitted that while DIG (Police) got Rs 6150 basic pay, the Brigadier’s pay in the integrated scale ws Rs 4950 with an additional amount of rank pay of Rs 1200.

The services point out that now with no deduction of rank pay, senior Cols and Brig would not be able to get full pay fixation benefit (20% of emoluments) as in their case revised emoluments go beyond the top of integrated scale from day one. The Services have proposed to adjust the top of the scale suitably to relate the original span of the integrated scale of 29 years as recommended by Pay Commission. Grant of stagnation increments or personal pay to the concerned officers have not been favoured by the services as they are not considered for purpose of determining corresponding replacement scale in subsequent CPCs.  

Amendment Sought by Armed Forces.         The Armed Forces have asked that the anomaly can be resolved by enhancing the upper limit of Rs 5100 in the integrated pay scale of IVth CPC, which has been arrived at after making allowance for the Rank, to ensure effective implementation of the Govt orders. 


CGDA’s views.             CGDA has pointed out that in order to benefit such officers an element of personal pay was projected in the instant case to MoF. But it was not agreed to by Ministry of Finance. In view of para 6 (o) of SAI 1/S/87 (Annexure XX) which states as under: -  

‘If the amount so computed as at sub-para a (ii) above is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay will be fixed at the maximum of the revised scale.’

The relevant Service Instructions provide for maximum three stagnation increments upto the rank of Brig, after completion of every two years qualifying service once the officer reaches the maximum of the scale. However, it is ensured that Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance plus stagnation increments do not exceed the maximum of Basic Pay plus rank pay of the next higher rank i.e. Major General – Rs 5900-200-6700. 

Further, there is no court order directing changing of the integrated pay scale. In case the demand is met, the pay scale of next senior officer s will get burst, disturbing the horizontal and vertical relativity pay scales on Services side, paramilitary forces and civilian side also.

MoF views.      This Ministry agrees with the view of the office of CGDA on this issue as contained in their note No. AT/1/1483/RB/X (PC)/V dated 23.5.2013 (Annexure XVII).  

However, it has been mentioned in the said Note of the CGDA that in cases where emoluments (revised pay) computed without deducting rank pay crosses the maximum of the revised integrated scale, the Ministry of Defence has proposed that the difference by which the revised pay of the integrated pay scale may be protected by way of Personal Pay to be absorbed in stagnation increments or pay on promotion, but the same was not agreed to by the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance did not agree to the same for the following reasons: -  

(i)         At the outset, this issue was neither prayed for by Major Dhanapalan in his petition nor was it considered by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court nor is it covered in the order passed by the Hon’ble Court dt 5.10.1998.

(ii)        Para 6 (o) of Section II of the Special Army Instructions dated 26.5.1987 (Annexure XX) already provided that if the amount so computed as at pata 6 (a) (ii) is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay shall be fixed at the maximum of the revised scale. In other words, if the initial pay fixed in the revised integrated scale exceeds the maximum thereof, pay cannot be more than the said maximum. Thus now that the …. Pertaining to deduction of rank pay part at para 6 (a) (ii) from existing emoluments (or revised emoluments) as on 1.1.1986 has been removed, the amount computed without deduction for the fixation of initial pay/fitment in the revised pay scale as on 1.1.1986 also cannot exceed the maximum of the revised integrated scale effective from 1.1.1986 as the principle laid down in said para 6 (c) is not part of judicial pronouncement based on which the order of 27.12.2102 has been issued.        

Thus the demand of Service Headquarters does not flow from the judicial pronouncement in this case. This being so, its implementation as part of the order dt 27.12.2012 does not arise.  

Apart from the above, the proposal of the Ministry of Defence for Personal Pay, in such a case is not justified on merits also as brought out below: -

(i)         A person drawing pay in a particular scale of pay attached to the post held by him, cannot draw pay in excess of the maximum of the connected scale of pay. This is the concept of a Specific pay scale. Of course since the rank pay is a separate element, the total pay (Pay in the integrated scale + rank pay) can very well exceed the maximum of the integrated pay scale and that is exactly what is happening here. It is being …. that Rank Pay is a separate element in addition in the pay in the integrated scale and as such Pay + rank pay is not restricted to the maximum of the integrated scale. It is only the pay in the integrated scale that is not to exceed the maximum thereof.      

(ii)        A similar provision exists in proviso (b) to Rule 7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules 1968 relating to fixation/fitment of initial pay of civilian Government servants in the revised pay scales as on 1.1.1986. A copy of the relevant extract from the said Rules is at Annexure XXII. Therefore, no special dispensation can be allowed in this case now that the pay to be fixed in the integrated pay scale as on and  w.e.f 1.1.1986 exceeds the maximum of the integrated scale.

(iii)       In case a person stagnates at the maximum of the scale, stagnation increments in the concerned pay scale as preapproved Rules are applicable. Office of CGDA has confirmed that stagnation increments are admissible to Armed Forces officers as per orders of 11.9.1987.    

(iv)       In fact the phenomenon of initial pay fixed in a revised pay scale at the maximum from the very date of implementation of the revised pay scales has been specially taken note of by the 6th CPC. The 6th Central Pay Commission noted that many of the pay scales recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission got “burst” at the time initial fixation where revised pay of some of the employees became higher than the maximum of the revised pay scales and these employees, therefore, had started to stagnate right from the time of implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission pay scales. It is for this reason that the 6th Central Pay Commission has recommended the concept of running pay band instead of specific pay scales. The Commission noted that since the individual pay scale has a limited span, it often leads to stagnation. The Commission, therefore, recommended the concept of running pay bands to address these issues. In this connection, the recommendations of the Pay Commission contained in para 1.2.7, 1.2.8. and 2.2.4 are collectively placed at Annexure XXIII.     

(v)        Thus the situation as it existed upto 1.1.2006 was that there were cases of the employees reaching at the maximum of the individual pay scale and this did not by itself mean allowing them to draw pay more than the maximum of the pay scale by way of Personal pay. They were only allowed stagnation increments and that is admissible in case of Armed Forces personnel also. Therefore, any benefit in the form of personal pay is the instant matter is against the normal and general policy.

(vi)       Also, the initial pay fixed in this as on 1.1.1986, which is of course w.e.f 1.1.1986 after the order dated 27.12.2012 in implementation of the judicial pronouncement in this case, does not fall below the initial pay earlier fixed in the integrated pay scale before issue of the order dt 27.12.2012 and, therefore, this is no actual loss in the initial pay and hence, there is no basis for grant of personal pay in such cases.”     

38.       Para 6 (a) (c) of the Instructions dated 26.05.197 provides as follows: -

If the amount so computed as at sub-para (ii) above is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay will be fixed at the maximum of the revised scale.” 

39.       It is clear from the above that ceiling on pay scales rises out of Para 6 (a) (c), which did not arise nor was considered in Major Dhanapalan’s case. 

40.       The only issue decided by the Kerala High Court and consequently the Supreme Court is whether rank pay is to be deducted at the time of fixing pay in the integrated scale in terms of Para 6 (a) (ii). Ceiling fixed under Para 6 (c) is not subject matter of these judgments. 

Economy with the Truth by CGDA – No. 2

(A)      This is what the 6th CPC has to state in establishing the equivalence of DIG to Brigadier.

Chapter 2.3 of Sixth Central Pay Commission Report


Pay scales of Defence Forces Personnel

Pages 72 to 75

(Please note from the tables,  wherever there is Rank Pay an amount equal to rank pay has been deducted for officers in ranks from Captain to Brigadiers)

Introduction 2.3.1. The first two Pay Commissions did not consider the pay scales, allowances and other service conditions of Defence Forces personnel. At that time, the structure of emoluments of the Defence Forces personnel was looked into by the departmental committees which included the representatives of the three services.

Post-war Pay Committee

2.3.2. After the First Pay Commission, a Post War Pay Committee was constituted for the Defence Forces personnel. Their recommendations were implemented from 1/7/1947. The
Committee simplified the pay structure of the Defence Forces personnel considerably and abolished a number of allowances which had either relevance only to war conditions or which could be merged with the pay. The Committee established a broad relativity of officers of Defence Forces with the officers of Class-I Central Services and the Indian Police Service (IPS). Insofar as Personnel Below Officer Ranks (PBORs) were concerned, the fully trained infantry solider with 3 years service was equated with a semi-skilled worker. Pension related issues of the Defence Forces were considered subsequently by the Defence Forces Pension Revision Committee constituted in 1949 which gave its report in 1950.

Raghuramaiya Committee

2.3.3. Subsequent to the report of the Second Pay Commission, the consequential changes for Defence Forces personnel were effected as per the recommendations made by the Raghuramaiah Committee that gave its report in 1960. The revisions made by this Committee were consequential in nature and broadly followed the revisions made by the Second CPC on the civil side. The Committee did not modify any of the principles followed by the Post War Pay Committee. The Raghuramaiya Committee specifically mentioned that the accepted parallel between defence service officers and Class-I services of the Central Government, particularly the Indian Police Service should be continued.

Subsequent developments

2.3.4. Subsequently, the parity of officers’ pay scale in Defence Forces vis-à-vis that of the IPS got cemented further and modifications in the IPS scales became a trigger for corresponding changes in the analogous grade in the Defence Forces.
Chapter 2.3
Third Pay Commission

2.3.5. The Third Pay Commission was the first Commission whose terms of reference included examination of the structure of emoluments, the retirement benefits and terms and conditions of the Defence Forces personnel. The Commission noted that the relativity of the officers in Defence Forces vis-à-vis IPS was only a working method of devising scales of pay for the service officers* which did not mean that the functional role of the two services were similar (* emphasis added by author).
The Commission, however, qualified this statement by mentioning that the job profile of IPS officers was the closest civilian analogue vis-à-vis infantry officers and that a working relationship did exist between the two organizations. The Commission also specifically noted that the pay structure of the Indian Administrative Service with its long pay scales was particularly unsuitable for service officers.*

Disturbance Allowance and the edge in Defence Forces pay scales

2.3.6. The Defence Forces had demanded a higher rate of Special Disturbance Allowance from the Third Pay Commission. The Commission, however, noted that the Disturbance Allowance was granted in 1950 as a temporary measure to improve the earnings of service officers without interfering with the pay scales introduced as per the recommendations of the Post War Pay Committee which had brought down the pay scales of many Indian Commissioned Officers (ICOs). At such time, the grant of Disturbance Allowance offered some relief to them.* The Third Pay Commission noted that the extent of turbulence was off-set by the special facilities given to Defence Forces personnel and no justification existed for continuance of the Special Disturbance Allowance as a separate entity. The Commission, however, did not recommend total abolition of this allowance as it had existed for a long time and instead merged this allowance with the pay scales of Defence Forces officers. Hence, the Third CPC pay scales of Defence Forces officers also contained an element of Special Disturbance Allowance which had hitherto been given as a separate allowance. On account of this fact, post-Third CPC, the pay scales of Defence Forces officers had a slight edge vis-à-vis the analogous posts in the civilian side.

Fourth CPC

2.3.7. The Fourth CPC, while devising the revised pay scales of Defence Forces officers took into note the proposal seeking running pay bands put forth by the Defence Forces. The Defence Forces had desired a running pay band so as to ensure a smooth and improved career progression which otherwise was not possible especially as any large scale cadre review in the Defence Forces would have created unacceptable aberrations in their hierarchical structure.

The Fourth Pay Commission, accordingly, recommended an integrated pay scale for all officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent in three services and separately gave a rank pay ranging from Rs.200 to Rs.1200 p.m. for posts from Captain/equivalent to Brigadier/equivalent. During such time, the Defence Forces had desired inclusion of the officers in the rank of Major General also in the proposed integrated pay scale. This was, however, not found acceptable by the Fourth CPC who, therefore, placed Major Generals
in the pay scale of Rs.5900-6700 being the senior administrative pay scale (SAG) for civilians.

Fifth CPC

 2.3.8. The Fifth CPC took note of the fact that the Special Disturbance Allowance had been incorporated by the Third CPC in the pay scales of Defence Forces officers. The Commission, accordingly, recommended a similar edge in the starting pay of Lieutenant (the rank of 2nd Lieutenant having been recommended to be abolished by the Commission) who was, therefore, given the starting pay of Rs.8250 as against Rs.8000 recommended for a civilian Group A officer. Before the Fifth CPC, the Defence Forces
had proposed two running pay bands for Defence Forces officers – (i) till the post of Colonel; and (ii) from Brigadier to Lt. General. The Fifth CPC, however, concluded that a separate dispensation for Defence Forces in the form of running pay bands would have repercussions on civilian employees and that the better method would be to provide explicit compensation in regular pay scales. The Commission, accordingly, recommended abolition of integrated pay scales by regular pay scales with progression in pay being provided by the mechanism of ACP Scheme. The Fifth CPC, however, retained the concept of rank pay for officers till the post of Brigadier. The pay scale of Major General/equivalent was recommended as Rs.18400-22400 on par with SAG scale of civilians.

Relativity between Defence Forces and civilian officers established by the earlier Pay Commissions

2.3.9. The relativity existing between pay scales of analogous posts in the Defence Forces and the civilians since the time of Third Central Pay Commission is tabulated as follows:

Third CPC recommendations (in Rs.)

Civilian
Defence Forces*

Grade                                Pay Scale
Grade                      Pay Scale

JTS                                      700-1300
2nd Lieut.                    750-790
Lieut.                             830-950

STS                                   1100-1600
Capt.                          1020-1450
Major                         1350-1750

JAG                                   1200-2000

Lt. Col. (Acting)        1500-1900
Lt. Col. (Subs.)          1700-1900
Lt. Col. (TS)               1800 (Fixed)

NFSG                               2000-2250
Colonel                     1950-75-2175

DIG                                  2250-2500
Brig.                     2200-100-2400

SAG I                               2500-2750
Major General              2500-2750

HAG                                 3000 Fixed
Lt. General                       3000 (Fixed)

Secretary                             3500
Fixed General                    3500 (Fixed)


 Service Chiefs                   4000 (Fixed)


*(The pay scales in Navy were slightly different.)

Fourth CPC recommendations
Civilian
Defence Forces

Grade                          Pay  Scale (Rs.)

Grade                                 Pay Scale (Rs.)

JTS                                       2200-4000
STS                                      3000-4500
JAG                                     3700-5000
NFSG                                 4500-5700
DIG                                      5100-5700
                                             (Revised to
                                             5100-6150)












SAG                                  5900-6700

HAG                                7600 (fixed)

Secretary                        8000 (fixed)

Cab. Secy.                      9000 (fixed)


2nd Lieut. to Brig.                2300-100-4200-
                                                  EB-100-5000
                                                  (Integrated
                                                   pay scale)
                                                (Revised to
                                                  2300-5100)


Rank                       Amount of rank pay
                                               (p.m.)
Capt. & equ. 200
Major & equ. 400
Lt. Col. (Sel. & equ.) 600
Col. & equ. 800
Brig. & equ. 1200


Pay scales for higher levels

Maj. Gen. & equ.           5900-200-6700

Lt. Gen.                          7600 (fixed)

Army Comm.               8000 (fixed)

Service Chiefs              9000 (fixed)

Fifth CPC recommendations

Civilian
Defence Forces

Grade                               Pay Scale (Rs.)

Grade                 Pay Scale        Rank pay
                                   (Rs.)                  (p.m.)

JTS                                     8000-13500

Lieut.                  8250-10050
Capt.                    9600-11400                 400

STS                                     10000-15200
Maj.                     11600-14850              1200

JAG                                    12000-16500
Lt. Col.               13500-17100                1600

NFSG                                 14300-18300
Col.                       15100-17350             2000

DIG                               16400-20000
Brig.                     15350-17600       2400

SAG                                   18400-22400
Maj. Gen.            18400-22400

HAG                                  22400-24500
Lt. Gen. & equ. 22400-24500

Secretary                                26000
(fixed)

Vice Chiefs and Army Comm.
Equivalent                      26000 (fixed)
Cab. Secy.                                 30000
                                                   (fixed)

Service Chiefs               30000 (fixed)

Analysis

 2.3.10. The following facts emerge from the history of the rank structure of officers in the Defence Forces:-

(i) A broad parity has always existed between the pay scales of Defence Forces officers and civilian group A services in general and with IPS in particular.

(ii) Special Disturbance Allowance was given to the Defence Forces officers in 1950 as a temporary measure to improve their earnings without interfering with the pay scales introduced as per the recommendations of the Post War Pay Committee which had brought down the pay scales of many Indian Commissioned Officers (ICOs).

(iii) An edge was provided by the Third CPC in the Defence Forces officer’s pay scales because the Commission had converted the then existing Special Disturbance Allowance into an edge in starting pay vis-à-vis the civilian group A officers.

(iv) The Fourth CPC had continued this edge in devising the running pay band for Defence Forces officers up to the rank of Brigadier and had revised the integrated pay scale taking in account the time taken for promotion to different pay scales. The element of rank pay was carved out of the pay scales so revised after giving the edge vis-à-vis civilian group A officers.

(v) The Fifth CPC maintained this edge even though it reverted from running pay bands to individual pay scales for various officers’ ranks in the Defence Forces.

(vi) The edge in the Defence Forces pay scales for their officers is on account of the Special Disturbance Allowance. Otherwise, the established relativity of the posts of Major General and Brigadier is with SAG and DIG pay scales of civilians/police forces respectively.

(vii) The Defence Forces had sought running pay band upto the post of Major General before the Fourth CPC. The Commission, however, conceded the running pay band only upto the post of Brigadier/equivalent.

(viii) The Fifth CPC had not recommended running pay in Defence Forces on account of the repercussions it would have had on civilian pay scales.

It may be noted that the Govt of India has approved the Report and accepted the Recommendations of the 6th CPC vide Resolution No. 1/1/2008-I C dated 29th August 2008 modifying Pay Bands,  New HAG+ scale, Grade Pay.

(B)       Para 2 of Office Memorandum No.1 /2/86-Estt.( Pay-I) issued by GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS (DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING) at New Delhi, dated the 10th April, 1987 and addressed to all Ministries and Department of GoI states as follows: -

2. In supersession of all the various existing orders, the President is pleased to decide that where a Government servant is promoted or appointed to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by him, the provisions contained in FR. 22-C shall apply without pay limits.

Don’t Colonels and Brigadiers carry execute duties and bear responsibilities of greater importance on promotion/appointment?

Then why the upper (sic) ceiling not being raised?

As my mathematics teacher used to say and write on the blackboard – Q E D. He said it was Quite Easily Done (actually it is Quad Erat Demonstrandum).