Please Note: This
is a faithful re-production of the photocopies provided by MoD vide F No. 35
(1)2013-D(Pay/Services) dated 26th April 2013. Some words are
indistinct and I have inserted in italics
words closest in meaning to make coherent sentences.
----------------
By Speed Post
F. No. 35(1) 2013 – D
(Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 26th
April, 2013
To
Shri S. Y.
Savur
141, Jal Vayu Towers
NGEF Layout,
Indira Nagar (PO),
Bangalore – 560038
Subject: Your letter No.
SYS/RTI/MoD/2013 dt. 15.04.2013
Sir,
This is
with reference to your request for information No. SYS/RTI/MoD/2013 dt.
15.4.2013 received in this office on 18.4.2013.
2.
The parawise information as sought by you is as
under: -
(i) The information sought does not exist in D (Pay/Services)
records.
(ii) The information sought does not exist in
D (Pay/Services) records.
(iii) The reasons which are not available on record have been sought
abd as such they cannot be supplied.
(iv) Not applicable in view of (i) above.
(v) The information sought does not exist in D (Pay/Services)
records.
(vi) Not applicable in view of (v) above.
(vii) The information sought does not exist in D
(Pay/Services) records.
(viii) The information sought does not exist in D (Pay/Services)
records.
(ix) No reference was made to SAI/SNI/SAFI No.
2/S/1998 of 19th December 1997 in Memorandum of Writ Appeal and
Additional Affidavit filed therein. Copies of these documents are enclosed
herewith. Information on the background of the decision not to inform the High
Court cannot be given as it is not available on records of D (Pay/Services).
(x) No other information apart from what has
already been provided to you exists in this matter.
The Service HQ also submit their demands to the Pay
Commissions. You may also like to take up the matter with them to seek relevant
information from their side/records.
3. In case you
are not satisfied with the reply you may appeal to Shri Praveen Kumar, Director
(AG-I), Ministry of Defence, Room No. 103, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi within 30
days of receipt of this letter.
4. With
reference to para 4 of your letter …..
Sd/-------------------
* *
* * *
Presented on
23.2.1999
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM
W.A. No. 518 OF 1999
(Against the Judgment
in O.P. No. 2448/1996 dated 5.10.98 of this Hon’ble Court)
Union of India & 2 Others :
Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
Major A. K. Dhanapalan :
Respondent/Appellant
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT
APPEAL
C.F. Paid Rs 100/-
----
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
W.A. No. 518 OF 1999
(Against the Judgment
in O.P. No. 2448 /1996 dated 5.10.1998 of this Hon’ble Court)
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1, Union of India represented by Secretary to Govt
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi
2. Chief of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New Delhi
3. Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers), Pune
vs
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
Major A. K. Dhanapalan, Office of the Chief Engineer (Navy),
Naval Base P.O. Kochi – 682 094
Memorandum of Writ Appeal
under Section 5 of the High Court
Act
by the appellants through their counsel Mathews J. Nedumpara,
Advocate,
I.J. Bldg, Opp to High Court, Cochin 31
----------
The
appellants beg to submit as follows: -
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The appellants above are the original respondents in the
O.P. and the respondent vice versa. The said O.P. was filed seeking a direction
to fix the revised pay of the petitioner as Rs 3200/- with effect from 1.1.186
and also to be restore the ‘rank pay’
that was withheld with effect from December 1985. According to the original
petitioner, the appellants were wrong
in deducting the rank pay while fixing the pay in the integrated pay scale in
terms of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission. The original
petitioner happened to contend ….. (indistinct).. his misconception of the
recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission and the consequent
executive orders issued by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with their
integrated finance giving effect to the recommendations of the Pay Commission.
Before addressing to the said controversy, it is only appropriate to make a
brief reference to the background of the introduction of integrated pay scale
and rank pay. The appellants beg to do so, thus:
The
concept of integrated pay-scale along with Rank Pay for officers up to the rank
of Brigadier was introduced with reference to the recommendations of the Fourth
Pay Commission with effect from 1st January 1986. The element of
rank pay commences at the rank of Captain and vary with the difference in
ranks. This was accepted by the Government (Exhibit P1) with some improvement
in the rate of increment in the integrated pay-scale as well as the quantum of
rank pay admissible to the ranks of Major, Lt Colonel and Colonel. The Pay Commission
also recommended the method of fixation of pay in the integrated pay-scale with
effect from 1.1.1986 vide papa 28.113 of their report which was accepted by the
Government. While recommending the method of pay fixation, the Pay Commission
specified that since rank pay is a separate element for officers up to the rank
of Brigadier, the same may be taken into account while fixing pay in the
integrated scale of pay. This method also has been illustrated by the Pay
Commission vide illustration 1 to 4 shown below. It will be seen from the
illustration that to arrive at the emoluments drawn in the revised pay-scale,
the Basic Pay, the D.A, Additional D. A. and Interim Reliefs were added and 20%
of the pre-revised basic pay was also added to arrive at the total emoluments
hereinafter referred to as ‘emoluments.’ It will be seen from the illustrations
that in order to taken into account rank pay, while fixing pay in the
integrated pay scale, the rank pay has been deducted from the emoluments. The
fixation of pay is dealt with in para 28.113 on page 304 of the illustrations
of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission. It is only
fruitful to extract the same and is done craving the lave f this Hon’ble Court
to do so:
“28.113. In
Chapter 30 we have recommended the method for fixation of pay in the proposed
scales for civilian employees, we recommend that the same method may be adopted
for fixation of pay of armed forces personnel also. Since rank pay is a
separate element for officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent, the
same may be taken into account while fixing pay in the integrated scale of pay
recommended by us. An illustration showing the pay in the integrated scale of
pay for army officers of different ranks is given in Annexe 28.1. The following”
Illustration No. 1
1. Rank -
Captain
2. Existing basic pay -
Rs 1300.00
3. DP/DA on basic pay at index average - Rs 1650.00
608 and Interim relief
4. Existing emoluments -
Rs 2950.00
5. Add 20% of basic pay -
Rs 260.00
-------------------------
Total -Rs
3210.00
6. Pay to be fixed in
integrated scale - Rs 3100 + Rank
pay Rs 200
Illustration No. 2
1. Rank -
Major
2. Existing basic pay -
Rs 1600.00
3. DP/DA on basic pay at index average - Rs 1740.00
608 and Interim relief
4. Existing emoluments -
Rs 3340.00
5. Add 20% of basic pay -
Rs 320.00
-------------------------
Total -Rs
3660.00
6. Pay to be fixed in integrated scale - Rs 3400 + Rank pay Rs 400
Illustration No. 3
1. Rank -
Lt Col (Time scale)
2. Existing basic pay -
Rs 1900.00
3. DP/DA on basic pay at index average - Rs 2037.00
608 and Interim relief
4. Existing emoluments -
Rs 3937.00
5. Add 20% of basic pay -
Rs 380.00
-------------------------
Total -Rs
4317.00
6. Pay to be fixed in
integrated scale - Rs 4400 + Rank
pay Rs 400 for rank of Major
Illustration No. 4
1. Rank -
Brigadier
2. Existing basic pay -
Rs 2200.00
3. DP/DA on basic pay at index average - Rs 2346.00
608 and Interim relief
4. Existing emoluments -
Rs 4546.00
5. Add 20% of basic pay -
Rs 440.00
-------------------------
Total -Rs
4986.00
6. Pay to
be fixed in integrated scale - Rs
4600 + Rank pay Rs 1200 (as the maximum pay admissible for the rank of
Brigadier is Rs 4600/- in integrated scale)
2. The above quoted para clearly illustrates how the
computation/fixation has to be effected. In the original petitioner’s case,
what has been done is to compute the emoluments and fix in the integrated pay scale
in conformity with the afore-quoted para and nothing more. The original
petitioner, however, has contended that the appellants have done it wrongly. He
has produced a resolution dated 18.3.1987 of the Ministry of Defence as Exhibit
–P1 in support of his contention that the appellant No. 3 viz the Controller of
Defence Accounts, Pune has wrongly fixed pay in violation to Exhibit-P1 which
is resolution of Ministry of Defence as also papa 28.113 of the recommendations
of the 4th Pay Commission. The said contention has no legs to stand
on and the fallacy of the said contention can be demonstrated instantly.
Admittedly, the Government has accepted the recommendations of the 4th
Pay Commission quoted above with regard to fixation of pay in its Exhibit – P1
resolution. This is evident from page 12 of Exhibit-P1, serial No. 28. For
convenience, that is extracted below:
Serial Recommendation
of the Pay Commission Decision
of the Govt
28. Fixation
of Pay – Method of fixation Accepted
Of
pay recommended for civilian employees
in
Chapter 30 of the Report should also be
applied
to the Armed Forces. Since Rank Pay
is
a separate element for officers upto the rank
of
Brigadier and equivalent, the same may be
taken
into account while fixing pay in the
integrated
scale of pay.
(Para
28.113)
3. The original petitioner cannot have any grievance about
Exhibit- P1. His grievance could only be that appellant No. 3 has deviated from
para 28.113 which illustrates the fixation of pay. This aspect, viz., that he
cannot have a tenable grievance against the fixation effected by the appellant
No. 3 in terms of para 28.113 would be discernible from the following
comparison of the pay fixation carried out by the Pay Commission at
illustration No. 1 (extracted to drive home the point) and what has been
actually done in his case:
Illustration No. 1
As
per Pay Commission Pay allowed in
case
Of
original petitioner
1. Rank Captain Captain
2. Existing basic pay Rs
1300.00 Rs 1250
3. DP/ADA on basic pay at index
Average 608 and interim relief Rs 1650 Rs
1645
4. Existing emoluments Rs
2950 Rs
2875
5. Add 20% of basic pay Rs
260 Rs 250
Total Rs 3210 Rs 3145
6. Pay to be fixed in integrated scale Rs 3100 Rs 3000
Rank
Pay Rs 200 Rank Pay Rs 200
4. The comparison of the illustration given above and the
actual working out of the figures in the original petitioner’s case will make
it clear that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. On the contrary,
the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission has been faithfully
adopted.
5. Though the above comparison of the illustration given in the
Pay Commission’s Report and the actual illustration effected in the
petitioner’s case has been done only in faithful conformity with the law and
wish to add that pursuant to the issuance of Exhibit-P1 resolution, Exhibit –
R3(a) Army Instructions were issued in consultation with the Ministry of
Defence in consultation with their Integrated Finance. R3(a) Army Instructions
are comprehensive enough and ward off any doubts, has attempted to define terms
like rank pay, revised scale, integrated scale also. Para 6 of the said Army
Instructions speaks about how fixation of initial pay in the revised scales
should be effected. Sub para (ii) of the same is the most relevant. For easy
comprehension, it is extracted below:
6. Fixation
of initial pay in the revised scales will be regulated as follows: -
(a)
(i)………………….
(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 at
the rates prescribed in para 3 (a) (ii) above will be deducted. Therefore,
the officer’s pay will be fixed in the revised scale at the stage next
above the amount thus computed. In (case)
the stage of fixation falls below the minimum pay for the rank held by the
officer on 01 January 1986 as prescribed in the tables below, his pay will be
stepped up to such minimum provided the officer has completed the length of
reckonable commissioned service indicated in the same table: -
Rank Minimum pay in integrated scale Completed years of service
Lt 2500 2
Capt 2800 5
Maj 3400 11
Lt Col 3900 16
Col 4500 20
Brig 4900 23
6. To convince this Hon’ble Court that the fixation of pay has
(not) been effected in the right manner, the fixation in the original
petitioner’s case effected above is extracted again with reference to para 6
(ii): -
i)
Rank Captain
ii)
Basic pay Rs
1250
iii)
DA, ADA, IR Rs
1645
Total Rs 2895
iv)
Add 20% of basic pay Rs 250
Total Rs 3145
v)
Less Rank Pay Rs
200
vi)
Pay fixed Basic
Pay Rs 3000
Rank
Pay Rs 200
7. The above discussion will establish beyond doubt that in the
original petitioner’s case, the fixation of pay has been effected in conformity
with the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission, Exhibit –P1 and
the executive orders issued by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with
their Integrated Finance. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have a grievance in
law about the fixation effected and the original petition is absolutely devoid
of merit and ought to have been dismissed with cost to this appellant.
8. The Learned Single Judge, however, allowed the O.P. on a
wrong appreciation of facts involved. The Learned Single Judge was pleased to
take the view that Exhibit-R3(a) is in apparent conflict with Exhibit –P1 and
there was no justification for deducting the rank pay from the petitioner’s
emoluments while fixing the revised pay. Accordingly, the Learned Singe Judge
was pleased to direct the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 to refix the original
petitioner’s pay with effect from 1.1.1986 without deducting the ‘rank pay’ of
Rs 200/-. The Learned Single Judge also made a declaration that the original
petitioner is entitled to have his pay re-fixed in accordance with Exhibit –
P1. Though the said declaration in itself does not cause any injury or
prejudice to the appellants as the appellants also do not dispute that his pay
ought to be re-fixed in terms of Exhibit – P1 but only contend that it has
already been done so in accordance with Exhibit-P1 and is not in conflict
thereof. The Learned Singe Judge also directed the appellants t effect the
re-fixation within 3 months of the date of the judgment. The appellants are
aggrieved by the said judgment because the Learned Single Judge was at error in
holding the view that the re-fixation effected is in conflict with Exhibit-P1
and ought to be re-fixed without effecting deduction of rank pay of Rs 200/-.
The appellants above, therefore,
beg to file the above Memorandum of Writ Appeal on the following amongst other
GROUNDS
A.
The Learned Singe Judge erred on facts as well
as in law in allowing the O.P. The original petitioner’s pay has been re-fixed
in accordance with the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission as
complied in para -1 of the Exhibit-P1 resolution issued in pursuance thereof
and the Exhibit – R 3(a) administrative instructions issued in pursuance of
Exhibit-P1. The Learned Single Judge went wrong in coming to the conclusion
that the deduction of rank pay of Rs
200/- from the total emoluments is inadmissible in terms of Exhibit-P1 and that
Exhibit-R3(a) administrative instructions while providing for such deduction
effected in conflict with Exhibit-P1 and he has ignored that fact which has
been brought out by way of illustrations below para 28.113 of the report of the
4th Pay Commission. The Learned Single Judge came to such a
conclusion because he has understood Exhibit-P1 and Exhibit-R3(a) in the wrong
perspective.
(Concluded)
[Encl 17-A]
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
W.A. No. 510/2000
Union of India &
Others - Appellants
Vs
A.
K. Dhanapalan -
Respondent
ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT
OF SHRI B. BRAHMA, DIRECTOR (AG)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI – 110 011
I, the
above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That I am
working as Director (AG) in the Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhawan, New
Delhi-110011 and in my official capacity as such I am competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. I say that
the contents of the accompanying application under Section 151 of CPC fro
seeking appropriate directions are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at
New Delhi on this (blank) day of
December, 2000 that the contents of the above affidavit at para 1 to 2 are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief as per official records. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
W.A. No. 510/2000
Union of India &
Others - Appellants
Vs.
A. K. Dhanapalan - Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I,
B. Brahma s/o Shri Kailash Chandra Brahma, aged about 45 years working as
Director (AG) in the Ministry of Defence do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
follows: -
1. I know the facts of the case as disclosed by relevant
records and am swearing to this affidavit on behalf of the Secretary, Ministry
of Defence and an duly authorised and competent to do so.
2. The instant affidavit is filed in faithful compliance of the
directions of this Honourable Court dated 14.10.2000, issued during the hearing
of the above Writ Appeal.
3. The present Writ Appeal arises out of a judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, wherein the present respondent’s
viz., the writ petitioner’s pay was directed to be re-fixed in pursuance of
exhibit P-1 without deducting ‘Rank Pay’ initially and then adding the same.
This Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass such a direction, accepting the plea of
the Writ Petitioner that such deduction was not in conformity with the Exhibit
P-1, whereby the petitioner became entitled to the ‘Rank Pay’ of Rs 200/-
.
4. The present Appellants challenge the said directions of a
learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in the instant Appeal, inter alia,
on the premise that a proper construction of Exhibit P-1 alongwith Exhibit
R-3(a) as also paragraph 28.113 of the recommendations of the 4th
Pay Commission which the Government of India has accepted, does not
contemplate taking into account of “Rank Pay”, at two stages viz., whilst
computing the pay on the recommendations of the Pay Commission , as also,
whilst re-fixing the integrated pay. It was further contended that what has been done or purported
to be done by the Government of India by Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit R-3(a) was
only to give effect to the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission
with regard to the grant of “Rank Pay” in the very manner in which the Pay
Commission had recommended, without adding or subtracting anything; and
therefore, the writ petitioner cannot have a grievance against the Government
of India. Assuming for argument’s sake and with conceding the least, if, at
all, the petitioner could ever have a conceivable grievance that could only be
against the Pay Commission itself and not the Government of India. It was
further contended that the petitioner is stopped from harbouring any grievance
against the Pay Commission, as he had opted for revised scale of pay, as
recommended by the Pay Commission on his own will and volition, though, he
could very well not have opted for the revised pay, as recommended by the 4th
Pay Commission, if he had thought that the recommendations of the Commission
are adverse to his interests. Again, the Pay Commission is no more in existence
and no relief could be sought against a body which is not in existence.
Besides, Commission, too, is entitled to the principle of natural justice ad
its recommendations cannot be challenged at this distance of time without it
being on the party array, even assuming that there is merit in the challenge,
though none.
5. Nevertheless, Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, after
hearing the matter, at considerable length was pleased to take a, prima facie,
view that some conflicts do exist vis-Ã -vis the illustrations, supplied by the
4th Pay Commission and the body of its recommendations and,
therefore, it is appropriate to require the Ministry of Defence to further
clarify the matter by filing a further detailed affidavit. The instant
affidavit is sworn to by me in respectful compliance of the aforesaid order of
this Hon’ble Court.
6. I submit with utmost respect that there is no conflict
between the body of the order of the Pay Commission and the illustrations
given. A little elaboration of the nature of the work, that was required to be
undertaken by the Pay Commission and in particular of the conflicting and even
competing claims between Govt servants in different spheres and the need to
come out with a mechanism or policy that will not shatter the equivalence that
needs to be maintained between civil servants and army personnel and that will
do justice to all Govt servants, in different spheres, would elucidate the
position.
7. The 4th Pay Commission, in its report, for the
first time, introduced the concept of “Rank Pay” for Services officers from the
rank of Captain to Brigadier, at different rates. The rationale behind the said
recommendation was to extend the much needed succour to Army officers, who get
stagnated at the maximum of their scale for want of promotional avenues. When
the pay is fixed, taking into account, the rank pay, though promotion could not
be given to such stagnated officers, pay progression is ensured. It is evident
from the paragraphs 28.11-28.13 of the 4th Pay Commission’s report
Part –I, Volume IV, which are reproduced below: -
28.11. It has been urged that the pay scales of
Services officers should be determined with reference to the requirements of
the Services. It has been pointed out that the nature of the cadre structure in
services is different as the number selected for advancement in every rank is
limited in view of the command and control structure of the Services. As a
result, officers who cannot be promoted are entrusted with other assignments
requiring skill and experience. It has been suggested that it will be desirable
to provide necessary incentives to such officers also. In a rank oriented
organisation like the Armed Forces, cadre reviews which result in upgradation
of posts cannot always achieve the desired effect. It has been pointed out that
although the cadre reviews have been carried out in the past brought some
improvement in career progression of service officers, they created problems in
the organisational structure. It has been emphasised that it is not possible to
undertake any further large scale cadre reviews without unacceptable
aberrations in the functional hierarchical structure. It has, therefore, been
suggested that the pay structure for Defence services should be such that a
fair share of the talent is attracted and kept motivated throughout the
Service. In the joint proposals the Services have proposed a running pay band
for all officers covering a time span of 33 years. Separate rank pays have been
proposed for each successive rank on a cumulative basis. It has also been
suggested that separate pay scales in respect of specialised cadres, flying
branch in case of Air Force and aviators and submariners in the case of Navy
may be dispensed with.
28.12. We have given careful consideration to the
joint proposals of the Services headquarters. We appreciate that the
organisation structure and requirements of Services are different. We also
think that the pay structure should be such that it makes armed forces
attractive as a career and provides a reasonable pay progression to the
officers of the Services. Taking all factors into account, we recommend the
following integrated pay scale for all officers up to the rank of Brigadier and
equivalent in the three Services: -
Rs
2300-100-4200-EB-100-5100
28.13. We also recommend that, in addition to pay in
the above integrated scale, the following rank pays may be given to officers in
the Army and their equivalents in the other Services: -
Rank Amount
of rank pay
(Rs.
p.m.)
Captain
and equivalent 200
Major and equivalent 400
Lt
Col (Selection) and equivalent 600
Col
and equivalent 800
Brigadier
and equivalent 1200
In Navy, a
Captain, on completion of three years service in that rank, will draw the rank
pay of Rs 1200/- p.m. recommended for Brigadier.
8. The
Government, however, accepted the recommendations of the 4th CPC
with the following improvements as given below: -
4th CPC Recommendation
(a) Integrated Pay Scale: An integrated pay scale of Rs
2300-100-4200-EB-5100 is recommended for all officers upto the rank of
Brigadier and equivalent in the three Services including officers in the
specialised cadres of AMC, ADC and RVC.
Decision of the Government
(a) Accepted with
the improvement as under: -
Rs
2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB-150-5100
4th CPC Recommendation
(b) Rank Pay - in addition to pay in
the above integrated scale, the following rank pays may be given to officers in
the Army and their equivalents in the other Services: -
Rank Amount
of rank pay
(Rs.
p.m.)
Captain
and equivalent 200
Major and equivalent 400
Lt
Col (Selection) and equivalent 600
Col
and equivalent 800
Brigadier
and equivalent 1200
In Navy, a Captain, on completion
of three years service in that rank, will draw the rank pay of Rs 1200/- p.m.
recommended for Brigadier.
Decision of the Government
(b) Accepted with
improvement as under: -
Rank Amount
of rank pay
(Rs.
p.m.)
Captain
and equivalent 200
Major and equivalent 400
Lt
Col (Selection) and equivalent 800
Col
and equivalent 1000
Brigadier
and equivalent 1200
9. To further explain the position as to why Rank pay was first
deducted from the emoluments of the officer and subsequently added, it is,
respectfully submitted that the rationale lies with the recommendations of the
4th Pay Commission, in regard to the pay fixation formula, as given
in paragraph 30.2 which is reproduced below: -
30.2. “We have
given careful consideration to all these suggestions. Taking all factors into
account we recommend that pay of employees may be fixed in the proposed scales
of pay in the following manner: -“
(i)
For all employees, an amount representing 20 per
cent of basic pay in the existing scale subject to a minimum of Rs 50/- may be
added to the “existing emoluments.” Pay may thereafter be fixed in the proposed
scale at the stage next above the emoluments thus computed. If the minimum of
the proposed scale is more than the amount so arrived at, pay may be fixed at
the minimum of the proposed scale. For this purpose the term “existing
emoluments” will include the following: -
(a) basic pay in the existing
scale,
(b) dearness
pay, additional dearness allowance, and ad hoc dearness allowance appropriate
to the basic pay admissible at index average 608 (1960 = 100), and
(c) amounts of
first and second instalments of interim relief admissible on the basic pay
referred to in (a) above
(ii) In the case of employees who are in
receipt of special pay in addition to pay in existing scale, and where the
existing scale with special pay has been replaced by a scale of pay without any
special pay, pay may be fixed in the proposed scale in accordance with the
provisions of para graph 30.2 (i) above, except that in such cases, the term
“existing emoluments” will comprise the following: -
(a) basic pay in the existing
scale,
(b) existing amount of special
pay,
(c) dearness
pay, additional dearness allowance, and ad hoc dearness allowance appropriate
to the basic pay admissible at index average 608 (1960 = 100), and
(d) amounts of
first and second instalments of interim relief admissible on the basic pay and
special pay under the relevant orders.
(iii) In the case of employees, who are in
receipt of special pay in addition to pay in existing scales and in whose case,
special pay continues with the proposed scale of pay, either, at the same rate
or at a different rate, the pay in the proposed scale may be fixed in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 30.2 (i) above excluding the
existing special pay and the amounts admissible thereon such as dearness pay,
additional dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance. In such cases
special pay at the new rate may be drawn in addition to pay in the proposed
scale.
(iv) In the case of medical officers, who are
in receipt of non-practising allowance, pay may be fixed in the proposed scale
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 30.2 (i) above except that in
such cases, the term ‘existing emoluments” will not include ‘non-practising
allowance’ at existing rates and will comprise only the following: -
(a) basic pay in the existing
scale,
(b) dearness
pay, additional dearness allowance, and ad hoc dearness allowance appropriate
to the basic pay admissible at index average 608 (1960 = 100), and
(c) amounts of
first and second instalments of interim relief admissible on t he basic pay and
NPA under the relevant orders.
In such cases,
NPA at the new rates may be drawn in addition to pay in the proposed scale.
(v) If the pay of government employees gets
bunched on fixation in the proposed scales, the pay in such cases may be
stepped up in the manner provided under the Central Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 1973.
10. The 4th Central Pay Commission, also, recommended
vide paragraph 28.113 of its report that “In chapter 30 we have recommended the
method for fixation of pay in proposed scales for civilian employees. We
recommend that the same method may be adopted for fixation of pay of armed force
personnel, also. Since rank pay is a separate element for officers upto the
rank of Brigadier and equivalent, the same may be taken into account while
fixing pay in the integrated scale of pay recommended by us. An illustration,
showing the pay in the integrated scale of pay for army officers of different
ranks is given in Annexure 28.1. The following illustrations indicate the
manner in which pay should be fixed for the Armed forces personnel.”
11. It is submitted that the benefit, intended by the Pay Commission,
to be given to the Govt employees while transiting from old pay scale to the
revised pay scale as on 1.1.1986 is 20% of the basic pay. This method of pay
fixation is applicable to all Govt employees. This method of pay fixation is,
equally, applicable in respect of services officers, as would be evident from
para 28.113. The implication would be that in the case of the Services
officers, also the benefit, intended by the Pay Commission as accepted by the
Government, is 20% of the basic pay. To fall in line with the principle, the 4th
Pay Commission also recommended that the rank pay recommended by them, in
addition to integrated pay scale, would also be taken into account, while
fixing the pay. This principle of taking such Rank Pay into account has been
illustrated by the 4th Pay Commission in the manner indicated in the
illustration offered by the Pay Commission, themselves. The very purpose of
offering an illustration by the Pay Commission was to explain in the best way
what does its recommendation mean and intended.
12. There is, therefore, no conflict between the ‘body’ of the
recommendations and the ‘illustrations’ given.
13. I, respectfully, submit that the explanation offered above
would sufficiently clarify the points which this Hon’ble Court wanted the
Ministry of Defence to clarify, It is, respectfully, submitted that this
Hon’ble Court be gracious enough to allow the Appeal in the light of the
clarification offered above with costs all throughout.
Dated this the _________ day of December, 2000.
Sd/------------
(DEPONENT)
Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent above
on this, the ________ day of December, 2000.
(ADVOCATE)
* * * * *
