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).
No comments:
Post a Comment