From the Grapevive with no proof of its Authenticity

Grapevine has this

Armed Forces HQ have written to RM in January 2013 highlighting the following anomalies consequent to the GoI/MoD letter of 27.12.2012: -

Observation 1: -      The GoI/MoD order of 27.12.2012 has decided that re-fixation of Pay is only for all Armed Forces officers who were in receipt of Rank Pay as on 1.1.1986.

Anomalies it will create: 1. This order is against the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirming/upholding the judgment of the Kerala High Court, which ordered that the rank pay deduction is illegal and correction should be applicable from 1.1.1986. Such a deviation from the documented verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was never discussed in any of the meetings taken by MoD and CGDA with representatives of the Services HQ. It indicates that the change has been made subsequent to some “in camera” discussions between MoD and CGDA and is daringly subversive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s verdicts, thereby causing immeasurable financial losses to all similarly placed officers.

2. The stipulation in the GoI/MoD letter restricts officers promoted to the rank of Captain and equivalents after 1.1.1986 will be outside the ambit of the order is discriminatory. The order also ensures denial to officers of the same seniority and rank promoted after 1.1.1986 who will now draw different but lesser Basic Pay but lesser BP than those who were Captains and equivalents as on 1.1.1986.

Observation 2: - The Govt order states that there will be no change in any other provisions of the SAI/SNI/SAFI 1/S/1987 relating to deduction of rank pay for only those officers who were in the ranks of Capts to Brig as on 1.1.1986.

Anomaly it will create: -Since the integrated pay scale of 4^th CPC was fixed by MoD after deducting rank pay from re-fixed basic Pay, by not revising the scale, re-fixation of pay in terms of the GoI/MoD letter will result in stagnation of the majority of Colonels and Brigadiers at the top of the scale i.e. Rs 5100 in the initial re-fixation itself. It will then result in reduction of entitled pay for Brig and equivalents after the re-fixation with rank pay amounts being deducted to remain with the old integrated pay scale. This is evident from the calculation sheets that CGDA provided to the HPC. This reduction in pay is not only against principles of natural justice but also not authorised by the Central Cabinet decision approving the report of the 4^th CPC.  

Observation 3: - GoI/MoD orders state that there would be no change in the implementation of the 5^th and 6^th CPC except to the extent of requirement to re-fix pay necessitated by the re-fixation of pay as on 1.1.1986.

Anomaly it will create: - During the implementation of the 5^th CPC, citing the impugned method adopted by MoD, which is was neither authorised by the Cabinet in 1987 nor was it reflected in the 4 CPC Report  as precedent, the pay scales of officers were downwardly adjusted by an amount equal to the revised Rank Pay. It causes a cascading effect on lesser revised pay being given to Armed Forces officers in the 5^th CPC. Even the pay fixation formula of the 5^th CPC, which as stated earlier, was similar to that of the 4^th CPC, has not been amended by deletion of provisions for deducting rank pay on 1.1.1996. The GoI/MoD letter does not address these and other serious infirmities and violates the spirit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders. 

In conclusion, the Service HQ have stated that the GoI/MoD letter falls well short of providing justice as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is feared will fuel more litigation and could increase the feeling of alienation if the just benefits of the Defence Forces are not given soon.

Services HQ have requested the Hon’ble RM to have a re-look at the issue in its entirety and issue orders for carrying out suitable corrections in the GoI/MoD letter in consonance with the many affidavits submitted by the Govt to ensure correct and effective implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

E & O E

Please note: author of this blog does not vouch for the authencity of the grapevine’s drippings.