4th and 5th CPCs
I don't have much to say here about the 4th and 5th and the text quoted below is from their reports. Haven't seen our proposal to the 4th CPC, but the celebratory air after its award, indicates that 'we got what we asked for'. The report also makes it clear that their recommendation was based on the Services' proposals.
Equations/ Relativity as suggested/ understood by the 6th CPC
The real mischief here is in the way the 6th CPC has quoted past CPCs/ precedents and tabulated them using some kind of pre-determined equation, and used them as the basis for their recommendations. I had written about it elsewhere soon after the report came out. Let me enumerate some issues. There may be more.
1. Comparison with IPS and IAS in 3rd CPC - The lines quoted are only partial and does not convey the spirit of what was said. What the 3rd CPC had actually said was that comparing the diversity of functions and total strength, Service officers must be compared with the entire lot of Class I services including engineering and medical, not just the IPS. For pay scales, they had also said that longer scales of IAS were not suitable(because promotions were faster in the Services?). More importantly, we need to remember that each Service had its own pay scales before the 4th CPC, which were made uniform at the 4th CPC. These comparisons of pay scales became superfluous after that.
2. 4th and 5th - They have more or less correctly quoted and confirmed that the 4th CPC went by Services' proposals while the 5th did not. In other words, where they listened to us, we lost out, otherwise status quo ante was maintained. This status quo ante was again disturbed by Bagga/ AVS which paved the way for further dilution at the 6th CPC.
Relative pay scales/ tabulation - This is where the most mischief has been played as can be seen from the following: