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,
-
