Monday 30 December 2013

New Year's Gift for Thought


S.K.Verma
         I.P.S.
D.G.Police (Rtd)

654, Sector 11,
Chandigarh-160011
Cell: +91-9815711654


Dated: 14.12.13
To,
The Secretary,
Deptt of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Govt of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
3rd Floor, Khan Market,
New Delhi-110003

Sub: Regarding Excess Recovery of Commuted Pension.

Sir,

It is strange but true that pensioners of all services, including the IAS, are victims of excess recovery of commuted pension. Calculation given ahead would scientifically prove my point.

As per rules, commuted pension is restored after 15 years after full recovery of the commuted amount with interest. This period is arbitrary and has no mathematical basis. This results in the recovery that exceeds much more than what is due as explained ahead.

I belong to the 1967 batch of the Indian Police Service. I retired on superannuation on 30th November 2005 on attaining the age of 60 years. Since 1.3.1971 and until 31.12.2005, the Commutation Factor (CF) was 9.81 for the 61 year old (age next birth day) retirees and the prescribed rate of interest was 4.75% p.a. I retired at the top of the pay scale (Rs.26,000) and was sanctioned commuted pension amount of Rs.9,18,216 with a deduction of Rs.7,800 per month. The principal amount of Rs.9, 18, 216 is fully recoverable in 9.81 years [9.81 x 12 x 7800 = 9, 18, 216].

a)      If we consider the prescribed interest rate of 4.75% p.a. as simple interest, the total interest works out to Rs.2, 12, 114. This is recoverable in 2.27 years [212114/7800 = 27.2 months or 2.27 years]. Thus, total recovery period of the commuted amount works out to 9.81 + 2.27 = 12.08 years. Even after full recovery, the pensioner keeps on paying for 15 – 12.08 = 2.92 years. Thus, excess recovery = 2.92 x 12 x 7800 = Rs.2, 73, 312.
b)      If we consider the prescribed interest rate of 4.75% p.a. as compound interest, the total interest works out to Rs.3, 20, 367. This is recoverable in 3.42 years [320367/7800 = 41.07 months or 3.42 years]. Thus, total recovery period of the commuted amount is = 9.81 + 3.42 = 13.23 years. Even after full recovery, the pensioner keeps on paying for 15 – 13.23 = 1.77 years. Thus, excess recovery in 15 years = 1.77 x 12 x 7800 = Rs.1, 65, 672.

It is to be noted that the interest charged on various Govt Advances like House Building Advance, Car Advance, Festival Advance, Marriage Advance etc. is simple interest and not compound interest. Applying the same principle, the commuted amount of pension is fully recoverable with interest from me in 12.08 years. There is no justification for the Govt to recover anything more than what it has advanced to me.

You are requested to take cognisance of this injustice and modify the period of restoration of commuted pension to 12.08 years for all retirees of my category. Accordingly, my commuted pension should be treated as fully paid up and my full pension should be restored on 30.11.2017.

Modified order may kindly be issued after satisfying yourself with the calculations I have provided.
Thanking you,
Yours Faithfully,

(S.K.Verma)

FORIPSO
Forum of Retired IPS Officers
B-64, DGS-CGHS, Sector-22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077


Dated: 14.12.13
To,
The Secretary,
Deptt of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Govt of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
3rd Floor, Khan Market,
New Delhi-110003

Sub: Regarding Wrong Period of 15 Years Prescribed for Recovery of Commuted Pension.

Sir,

First of all, I would like to draw your personal attention to the fact that the subject is not specific to the IPS. It concerns and affects all services including the IAS, irrespective of the rank/ level from which they retired. The subsequent paras would be an eye opener.

As per extant rules, commuted pension is restored after 15 years after the Govt has made full recovery of the commuted amount with interest. This period of 15 years is arbitrary and has no mathematical basis at all. Calculations show that the recovery exceeds much more than the dues.
Retirees between 1986 and 1995

The age of retirement during this period was 58 years. This category of retirees have all completed the prescribed period of 15 years for restoration of pension. Since 1.3.1971 and until 31.12.2005, the Commutation Factor (CF) was 10.46 for the 59 year old (age next birth day) retirees and the officially prescribed rate of interest was 4.75% p.a. Commutation allowed was 1/3rd of the basic pay. The basic pension of Secretaries/DGs who superannuated between 1.1.86 and 31.12.95 at the top of their pay scale (Rs.8,000) was fixed at Rs.4,000 and the commuted portion of their pension was Rs.1,67,318 with a deduction of Rs.1,333 per month. The principal amount of Rs.1,67,318 was fully recovered in 10.46 years [10.46 x 12 x 1333 = 1,67,318].
2.      If we consider the prescribed interest rate of 4.75% p.a. as simple interest, the total interest works out to Rs.36,250. This is recoverable in 2.27 years [36250/1333 = 27.2 months or 2.27 years]. Thus, total recovery period of the commuted amount works out to 10.46 + 2.27 = 12.73 years. Even after full recovery, the pensioner kept on paying for 15 – 12.73 = 2.27 years. Thus, excess recovery = 2.27 x 12 x 1333 = Rs.36,311.
3.      If we consider the prescribed interest rate of 4.75% p.a. as compound interest, the total interest works out to Rs.54,750. This is recoverable in 3.42 years [54750/1333 = 41.07 months or 3.42 years]. Thus, total recovery period of the commuted amount is = 10.46 + 3.42 = 13.88 years. Even after full recovery, the pensioner kept on paying for 15 – 13.88 = 1.12 years. Thus, excess recovery = 1.12 x 12 x 1333 = Rs.17,916.

Retirees between 1996 and 2005

The age of retirement was raised to 60 years after the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Permissible commutation was also raised to 40% of the basic pay. Those who retired between 1996 and 1998 have already completed the prescribed period of 15 years for restoration of pension. Since 1.3.1971 and until 31.12.2005, the Commutation Factor (CF) was 9.81 for the 61 year old (age next birth day) retirees and the officially prescribed rate of interest was 4.75% p.a. Secretaries/DGs who superannuated between 1.1.96 and 31.12.05 at the top of their pay scale (Rs.26,000), were sanctioned commuted pension amount of Rs.9,18,216 with a deduction of Rs.7,800 per month. The principal amount of Rs.9,18,216 is fully recovered in 9.81 years [9.81 x 12 x 7800 = 9,18,216].
4.      If we consider the prescribed interest rate of 4.75% p.a. as simple interest, the total interest works out to Rs.2,12,114. This is recoverable in 2.27 years [212114/7800 = 27.2 months or 2.27 years]. Thus, total recovery period of the commuted amount works out to 9.81 + 2.27 = 12.08 years. Even after full recovery, the pensioner keeps on paying for 15 – 12.08 = 2.92 years. Thus, excess recovery = 2.92 x 12 x 7800 = Rs.2,73,312.
5.      If we consider the prescribed interest rate of 4.75% p.a. as compound interest, the total interest works out to Rs.3,20,367. This is recoverable in 3.42 years [320367/7800 = 41.07 months or 3.42 years]. Thus, total recovery period of the commuted amount is = 9.81 + 3.42 = 13.23 years. Even after full recovery, the pensioner keeps on paying for 15 – 13.23 = 1.77 years. Thus, excess recovery = 1.77 x 12 x 7800 = Rs.1,65,672.

Retirees from 2006 Onwards

The age of retirement continues to be 60 years. After the 6th CPC, since 1.1.06, the Commutation Factor (CF) has been downgraded from 9.81 to 8.194 for the 61 year old (age next birth day) retirees, thereby reducing the commuted amount by a whopping 16.5% !!! On top of that, the prescribed rate of interest has been enhanced from 4.75% to 8% p.a. which is an astronomical jump of 68% even in this low interest regime !!! The basic pension of Secretaries/DGs who superannuated on or after 1.1.06 at the top of their pay scale (Rs.80,000) was fixed at Rs.40,000. Their commuted pension amount is Rs.15,73,248 with a deduction of Rs.16,000 per month. As per the old CF of 9.81, they would have been entitled to a commuted sum of Rs.18,83,520. Thus, there is a huge drop of Rs.3,10,272 !!! The currently sanctioned principal amount of Rs.15,73,248 is fully recovered in 8.194 years [8.194 x 12 x 16000 = 15,73,248].
6.      If we consider the prescribed interest rate of 8% p.a. as simple interest,  the total interest works out to Rs.5,10,417. This is recoverable in 2.66 years [510417/16000 = 31.9 months or 2.66 years]. Thus, total recovery period of the commuted amount is = 8.194 + 2.66 = 10.85 years. Even after full recovery, the pensioner keeps on paying for 15 – 10.85 = 4.15 years. Thus, excess recovery = 4.15 x 12 x 16000 = Rs.7,96,800.
7.      If we consider the prescribed interest rate of 8% p.a. as compound interest, the total interest works out to Rs.9,93,007. This is recoverable in 5.17 years [993007/16000 = 62.06 months or 5.17 years]. Thus, total recovery period of the commuted amount is = 8.194 + 5.17 = 13.37 years. Even after full recovery, the pensioner keeps on paying for 15 – 13.37 = 1.63 years. Thus, excess recovery = 1.63 x 12 x 16000 = Rs.3,12,960.

The above calculations are only illustrative, applicable to retired Secretary/DG rank officers who retired on or after 1.1.86 at the top of their pay scale and their pension was fixed at the maximum. Calculations can be made similarly for other cases and the results would tally.

I may point out that the interest charged on various Govt advances like House Building Advance, Car Advance, Festival Advance, Marriage Advance etc. is simple interest and not compound. Applying the same policy, the commuted amount of pension was fully recovered with interest in 12.73 years in case of 1st category of retirees (who retired between 1986 and 1995), in 12.08 years in case of 2nd category of retirees (who retired between 1996 and 2005) and in 10.85 years in case of 3rd category of retirees who retired in 2006 or after. There is no justification for the Govt to recover anything more than what it has advanced to the retirees.

You are requested to kindly take cognisance of this wrong and modify the period of restoration of commuted pension as under:-

a)     1st category of retirees (who retired between 1986 and 1995): They have already repaid the entire amount with interest. The excess amount recovered should be refunded to them with the same rate of interest as was charged from them for recovery (i.e. 4.75% p.a.).
Ø         The same policy should be adopted towards those who retired before 1986. Similar calculations can be done in their case.
b)     2nd category of retirees (who retired between 1996 and 2005): Those who retired 15 years ago have already repaid the entire amount with interest. The excess amount recovered should be refunded to them with the same rate of interest, i.e. 4.75% p.a. For others, the recovery should be stopped and full pension should be restored after completion of 12.08 years.
c)      3rd category of retirees who retired in 2006 or after: The recovery should be stopped and full pension should be restored after completion of 10.85 years.

Thanking you,
Yours Faithfully,
Sd/--------------------
(J.K. Khanna)
IPS (Rtd)
Secretary, FORIPSO
0120-4322330, 09810940403
D.G.Police (Rtd)
A-102, Sector-55,
Noida-201307 (UP)


Also sent separately to:
To,
The Secretary (PG), Directorate of Public Grievances, Cabinet Secretariat, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

To,
The Chief Controller (Pension), Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Expenditure,  Central Pension Accounting Office (CPAO),
Trikoot – II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.

COMMUTATION VALUES FOR A PENSION OF Re. 1 PER ANNUM
Effective from 1st march, 1971
[See Rules 8,26 (7), 28 (5) and 29 (1) and 29 (2) ]
Age next birthday
 
Commutation value expressed as number of year’s
Purchase
Age next birthday
Commutation value expressed as number of year’s
Purchase
Age next birthday
Commutation value expressed as number of year’s
Purchase
(x)
(y)
(x)
(y)
(x)
(y)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
19.28
19.20
19.11
19.01
18.91
18.81
18.70
18.59
18.47
18.34
18.21
18.07
17.93
17.78
17.62
17.46
17.29
17.11
16.92
16.72
16.52
16.31
16.09
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
15.87
15.64
15.40
15.15
14.90
14.64
14.37
14.10
13.82
13.54
13.25
12.95
12.66
12.35
12.05
11.73
11.42
11.10
10.78
10.46
10.13
 9.81
 9.48
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
9.15
8.82
8.50
8.17
7.85
7.53
7.22
6.91
6.60
6.30
6.01
5.72
5.44
5.17
4.90
4.65
4.40
4.17
3.94
3.72
3.52
3.32
3.13


NOTE:-
1.                  This Table is based on a rate of interest of 4.75 per cent per annum.
2.                  Commuted Value (CVP) = 0.4(Maximum) x P x CF x 12
             where  P   = Pension Ordered
             CF = Commutation Factor



Maximum of Ceiling - Reply to First Appeal



S Y Savur                                                                                           141, Jal Vayu Towers,
Cell: +91 9449676278                                                                      NGEF Layout,
            +91 9688782227                                                                  Indira Nagar (PO),
Email: sysavur@gmail.com                                                            Bangalore-560038

SYS/RTI/MoF/DoE/E.IIIA/2013                                                            25 Oct 2013

To,

Under Secretary & CPIO,
Branch E.III.A, Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, Govt of India,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: RANK PAY CASE

OPINION OF Ld ATTORNEY GENERAL for INDIA – reg: views of MoF

Sir,

1.         Please refer to the Opinion of the Attorney General of India letter No. MLJ No. AG 16/2013-ADV ‘C’ dated 14.8.2013 and AG DY No. 325/AG/OPIN dated 14.8.2013 on the subject of Implementation of Supreme Court order dated 4.9.2012 – Rank Pay Case (Major A. K. Dhanapalan Retd - reg and CGDA Note No. AT/I/1483/RB/X(PC)/V dated 23.5.2013 and agreement of MoF mentioned therein.

2.         At  Para 37, of the ibid letter of Opinion of the Ld Attorney General, in reply to  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?” The Ld Attorney General states, quoting note No. AT/1/1483/RB/X (PC)/V dated 23.5.2013 and agreement of MoF thereon, the following: -

            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.

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 (emphasis supplied). 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.”

3.         Maj Dhanapalan could not have prayed for an increase in the maximum/ceiling  nor could the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala consider the matter because (i) he was a Major and nowhere near the ceiling of the integrated scale, (b) he retired on 01 Sep 97, (extract placed at Annexure A) (c) the 5th CPC report was approved by MoF on 30 Sep 97, (d) the SAI No. 2/S/98 quoted extensively was issued on 19 Dec 97, (e) the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala’s Single Judge’s judgment was on 5 Oct 98 and (f) MoD in its Writ Petitions never mentioned this fact to the Hon’ble High Court to consider (Annexure B). MoF is aware that any Hon’ble Court can only consider facts presented to it.

4.         While MoF quotes SAI 1/S/87 about the ceiling, to justify compliance with Rule 7 (1), the ibid Rule also states “……shall, unless in any case the President by special order otherwise directs….” Such a direction of the President is in Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, Office Memorandum No. 1/1/86-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 10th April 1987 (please see Annexure ‘C’). It may be noted that SAI No. 1/S/87 was issued on 26 May 1987.

5.         A table of the relevant contents of Rule 7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules 1968 and OM No. 1/1/86.Estt (Pay-I) dated 10th April 1987 is given below: -



Rule 7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules 1968
Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, Office Memorandum No. 1/1/86-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 10th April 1987
7. Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale: -
(1) The initial pay of a Government servant who elects, or is deemed to have elected under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 to be governed by the revised scale on and from the 1st day of January 1986, shall unless in any case the President by special order otherwise directs, be fixed separately in respect of his substantive pay in the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien if it had not been suspended, and in respect of his pay in the officiating post held by him…….…..
The undersigned is directed to refer to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, as contained in paras 23.15 and 9.25 of their Report, relating to fixation of pay of Central Government employees on promotion/appointment from one post to another. After careful consideration, the Government have decided to accept the recommendation contained in para 23.15 subject to the modification that there shall be no minimum benefit. The Government have not accepted the recommendation contained in para 9.25 and decided that in case of promotion of Central Secretariat Service Officers from Under Secretary level to Deputy Secretary level also pay should be fixed under FR. 22-C as in all other promotions.

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.

6.         It is a fact and on record that Lt Colonels are promoted to Colonels and, Colonels are promoted to Brigadiers to carry out higher duties and hold higher responsibilities. Therefore a special dispensation is available for increasing the ceiling.

7.         In view of the above, please provide information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 on the non-applicability of provisions Para 2 of ibid OM dated 10th April 1987, to officers who are promoted or appointed to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance as Colonels and Brigadiers and equivalent, and who will exceed the maximum of the integrated scale consequent to striking down of the deduction of Rank Pay for re-fixation as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04 Sep 2012.
  
8.         Indian Postal Order No. 19F 707666 for Rs 10/- payable to DDO, Dept of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block at New Delhi is enclosed as application fee. It is requested that the undersigned may not be requested to visit the offices of MoF to search for the information for reasons stated in earlier applications for information.

Yours truly,


(S Y Savur)
Enclosures: as stated above

ANNEXURE ‘A’
BY FAX – 011-25675488
(Kind attention: Shri Mohinder Singh IDAS
Jt CGDA, AT-I)
No: Tech/321/4CPC/Court case
Office of the PCDA (O)
Golibar Maidan,
Pune 411001
Date: 21 Nov 2012
To,
The CGDA
Audit I Section, O/O CGDA,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
Delhi Cantt 110011

Sub:    Implementation of Honourable Supreme Court Order dated 04-09-2012 in IA
No. 9 of 2010 in Transfer Petition (C) No. 56/2007 – UoI Vs N K Nair and others 
on Rank Pay case:

Ref:     HQrs No. AT/I/1483-Army/C (PC) dated 16/11/2012 & MoD ID No. PC-34(6)/2012/D(Pay/Services) dated 14/11/12 received vide letter ibid.

Contents of the Note dated 7/11/12 recorded by service HQrs and DGL submitted alongwith the same have been examined and the following is stated: -

(A)       The Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 04/09/12 is to refix the pay of all similarly situated officers w.e.f. 01/01/86 without deducting Rank Pay, where pay was earlier fixed in integrated pay scale after deducting Rank Pay as per SAI 01/S/87. This involves pay revision as on 01/01/86 and thereafter based on the pay so revised, further increment(s), stagnation increment(s), pay revision on subsequent promotions/demotions, pay revision on Fifth & Sixth Pay Commission etc will be carried out.

(B)       (a) While implementing the High Court of Kerala verdict in case of Maj (Retd) Dhanapalan, this office has revised his pay in the rank of Capt as on 01/01/86 by re-fixing without deducting Rank Pay. The change in pay continued till 31/12/95. His pay as on 01/01/96 was fixed at the same stage, as per earlier revision on Fifth Pay Commission Orders.

(b)       The High Court order was silent about revision of pay based allowances. Maj Dhanapalan was admitted arrears of DA and IR II only amongst the pay-based allowances with reference to revised basic pay fixed as per Court order.

(c)        The officer has retired pre-maturely on 01/09/07. Since there was no change in last pay drawn at the time of pre-mature retirement, no arrears on account of leave encashment were due to him. Also, no amendment to LPC-cum-Data Sheet was issued by PCDA (P), Allahabad for revision of pension and pensionary benefits……….”

/////TRUE TYPED EXTRACT//////




ANNEXURE ‘B’

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 and 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…….
Sd/-------------------
/////TRUE TYPED COPY/////







ANNEXURE ‘C’

MOST IMMEDIATE

No.1 /2/86-Estt.( Pay-I)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING)

                                       New Delhi, the 10th April, 1987

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission - Decisions relating to fixation of pay on promotion/appointment from one post to another carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance.

The undersigned is directed to refer to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, as contained in paras 23.15 and 9.25 of their Report, relating to fixation of pay of Central Government employees on promotion/appointment from one post to another. After careful consideration, the Government have decided to accept the recommendation contained in para 23.15 subject to the modification that there shall be no minimum benefit. The Government have not accepted the recommendation contained in para 9.25 and decided that in case of promotion of Central Secretariat Service Officers from Under Secretary level to Deputy Secretary level also pay should be fixed under FR. 22-C as in all other promotions.

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.

3. Action is being taken separately to amend the rule.

4. In so far as the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders are being issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
Sd/------------------------
(SeethepalIi S.Rao)
Director
Tel. No. 3015272
All Ministries/Departments of Government of India etc. etc.
No.1/2/86-Estt.(Pay - I)                       dated the 10th April, 1987
Copies also forwarded to:-
1.         The Comptroller & Auditor General of India and all States under his control
2.         Controller General of Accounts/Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Finance
3.         Secretaries to Union Public Service Commission/Supreme Court of India/Election Commission/Lok Sabha Secretariat/Rajya Sabha Secretariat/Cabinet Secretariat/Central Vigilance Commission/President’s Secretariat/Vice President's Secretariat/Prime Minister's Office/Planning Commission/Fourth Central Pay Commission.
4.         Department of Personnel & Training (AIS Division)/JCM Admn. Section.
5.         Additional Secretary (Union Territories), Ministry of Home Affairs.
6.         All State Governments and Union Territories.
7.         Governors of all States/Lt. Governors of Union Territories.
8.         Secretary, National Council (Staff Side), 13-C, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi.
9.         All Members of the Staff Side of the National Council of JCM/Departmental Council.
10.       All Officers/Sections of the Department of Personnel and Training/Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances/Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare.
11.       Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.
12.       3000 Spare Sets.

/////TYPED TRUE COPY////

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

PHOTOCOPY OF PROOF OF APPLICATION FEE PAID
&
MAILING OF RTI APPLICATION

F. No. 7/1/2013-E.III-A/534
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure

North Block, New Delhi
Dated 5th November 2013.




To

Sh S. Y. Savur,
141 Jal Vayu Towers,
Beniganahalli,
Indira  Nagar (PO),
Bangalore – 560038

Sub: Application seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 – reg.

Sir,

            Please refer your RTI application, dated 25.10.2013 received in this Branch on 1.11.2013 through RTI Cell of this Department vide their O.M. No. 11/699/2013-RTI dated 30.10.2013 on the subject mentioned above.

2.         The information available with this Department on the subject matter has already been furnished to you vide this Branch’s letter dated 5.11.2013. No further information is available in this Branch. However, since Ministry of Defence is the administrative Ministry in this case and the O.M dated 10.4.1987 referred by you in your RTI application relates to DOPT, the RTI application is transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to Ministry of Defence and DOPT.

3.         The Appellate Authority is Sh. Amar Nath Singh, Deputy Secretary, Room No. 74-C, North Block, New Delhi. Appeal, if any, may be preferred within 30 days of the receipt of this letter.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-----------------
(S.K. Biswas)
Under Secretary & CPIO
Copy to: -       (1) CPIO, D(Pay/Services), Min of Defence, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.  
                        (2) CPIO, Deptt of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi
(3) US (RTI), Department of Exp w.r.t. U.O. No. 11 (699)/2013-RTI dated 30.10.2013  

*          *          *          *          *          *

The Right to Information Act, 2005
First Appeal for Central Government/State Government

I.D. No_________                                                Date: _________
[For office use]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To,

Shri Amar Nath Singh,
Deputy Secretary & First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005,
E.III-A Branch, Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance,
Room No. 74-C, North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001

Sir,
As I am aggrieved by the decision of Under Secretary & Central Public Information Officer, E.III-A Branch, Deptt of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.

1.         Details of appellant

1.1.        Name:          S. Y. Savur

1.2.      Address:        141, Jal Vayu Towers, NGEF Layout, Indira Nagar (PO), Bangalore- 560038
             
1.3.      Phone/Cell No.:  -    +91 9449676278 or +91 9688782227

1.4.      Email ID: - sysavur@gmail.com

2.        Details of Central Public Information Officer

2.1.      Name/Designation: -          Sh S. K. Biswas, Under Secretary & CPIO

2.2.      Full Address: - E.III-A Branch, Department of Expenditure

2.3.      Name of Public Authority: - Ministry of Finance, Government of India

3.        Details of RTI application to CPIO

3.1.      Reference Number: SYS/RTI/MoF/DoE/E.IIIA/2013            dated 25 Oct 2013 through RTI Cell of the Department vide O.M. No. 11/699/2013-RTI dated 30.10.2013

3.2.      Date of Application: - 25.10.2013

3.3.      Mailed on: - 25.10.2013 by Speed Post No. EK420266547IN

3.4.      Date of receipt by CPIO: - 01. 11. 2013

4. Particulars of payment of filing fee: Paid Rs.10/- by IPO No. 19F 707666 dated: - 25.10.2013 of Indira Nagar Post office.

5. Details of information sought (Also please see attached photocopy of application):

5.1.      While MoF quotes SAI 1/S/87 about the ceiling, to justify compliance with proviso (b) Rule 7 (1) (A), the ibid Rule also states “……shall, unless in any case the President by special order otherwise directs….” Such a direction of the President is in Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, Office Memorandum No. 1/1/86-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 10th April 1987. It may be noted that SAI No. 1/S/87 was issued on 26 May 1987.

5.2.      Rule 7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules 1968 states, inter alia: -

“…..7. Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale: -
(1) The initial pay of a Government servant who elects, or is deemed to have elected under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 to be governed by the revised scale on and from the 1st day of January 1986, shall unless in any case the President by special order otherwise directs, be fixed separately in respect of his substantive pay in the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien if it had not been suspended, and in respect of his pay in the officiating post held by him…….…..

5.3.      Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, Office Memorandum No. 1/1/86.Estt (Pay-I) dated 10th April 1987 states, inter alia: -

…..The undersigned is directed to refer to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, as contained in paras 23.15 and 9.25 of their Report, relating to fixation of pay of Central Government employees on promotion/appointment from one post to another. After careful consideration, the Government have decided to accept the recommendation contained in para 23.15 subject to the modification that there shall be no minimum benefit. The Government have not accepted the recommendation contained in para 9.25 and decided that in case of promotion of Central Secretariat Service Officers from Under Secretary level to Deputy Secretary level also pay should be fixed under FR. 22-C as in all other promotions.

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……

5.4.      It is a fact and on record that Lt Colonels are promoted to Colonels and, Colonels are promoted to Brigadiers to carry out higher duties and hold higher responsibilities. Therefore a special dispensation is available for increasing the ceiling.

5.5.      In view of the above, CPIO was requested to provide information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 on the non-applicability of Para 2 of ibid OM dated 10th April 1987, to officers who are promoted or appointed to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance as Colonels and Brigadiers and equivalent, and who will exceed the maximum of the integrated scale consequent to striking down of the deduction of Rank Pay for re-fixation as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04 Sep 2012.

6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:

6.1.      Letter reference No: -         F. No. 7/1/2013-E.III-A/534
6.2.      Date of CPIO’s Decision: - 5th November, 2013

6.3.      Date of receipt of decision by the appellant: - 8th November 2013

7.        Brief facts of the case:

7.1.      The Ld Attorney General for India in letter No. MLJ No. AG 16/2013-ADV ‘C’ dated 14.8.2013 and AG DY No. 325/AG/OPIN dated 14.8.2013 on the subject of Implementation of Supreme Court order dated 4.9.2012 – Rank Pay Case (Major A. K. Dhanapalan Retd – reg, the Ld Attorney General referred to O/o CGDA Note No. AT/I/1483/RB/X(PC)/V dated 23.5.2013 and agreement of MoF mentioned therein vide MoF, DoE. ID Note No. 187654/E.III-A/2012 dated 5.7.2013.

7.2.      At  Para 37, of the ibid Opinion of the Ld Attorney General, in reply to  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?” The Ld Attorney General states, quoting note No. AT/1/1483/RB/X (PC)/V dated 23.5.2013 and agreement of MoF (vide MoF, DoE, ID Note No. 187654/E-IIIA/2012 dated 5.7.2013) thereon, the following: -

            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 (c) 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.

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 (emphasis supplied). 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.”

7.3.      A copy of MoF, DoE, ID Note No. 187654/E-IIIA/2012 dated 5.7.2013 referred to in the CPIO’s decision dated 05.11.2013 (attached at page 16), was received earlier in response to another request. Therefore, this applicant/appellant requested for information on applicability of Rule 7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules 1986 vis-à-vis Para 2 of the DoPT OM dated 10 Apr 1987, the operative part of which stated: -     

“…..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……” ,(emphasis supplied).

8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal: -

8.1.      Under Secretary and CPIO of E.III-A Branch, Deptt of Expenditure, MoF has transferred the application dated 25.10.2013 under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, for reasons stated to MoD as Administrative Ministry, and to DOP&T because it issued Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, Office Memorandum No. 1/1/86-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 10th April 1987 which over-rules FR-22 in situations described therein.

8.2.      Duties of Deptt of Expenditure, as stated at sub-para 9.3 below, include the administration of the Financial Rules / Regulations / Orders. These are neither the charter of the MoD or the DOP&T as available on their respective websites.

8.3.      Further, extensive correspondence concerning financial aspects relating to the Rank Pay case have always been forwarded by MoD to the MoF, Deptt of Expenditure, E.III-A Branch. Opinions, comments, amendments which MoF has conveyed vide many ID Notes No. 187654/E-IIIA/2012 on MoD Files No. 34(6)/2012-D (Pay/Services) bear the signatures of the Deputy Secretary leading to the incorporation of amendments directed in the issue of ibid MoD letter dated 27.12.2012. At no stage was the opinion or comments of the DOP&T sought in the Rank Pay matter either in Maj (retd) Dhanapalan’s case or in the TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 or I.A No. 9 of 2010.

8.4.      CPIO, E.III-A Branch, DoE, MoF makes it even more difficult for this applicant/appellant to comprehend reasons for referring the request for information to MoD or DOP&T in respect of the OM dated 10 Apr 1987 because

(i)        SAI No. 1/S/1987 was issued without concurrence of then MoF (Exp). Please see the references indicated at the end of SAI No. 1/S/1987 i.e. Case No. PC to MF B/04780/5/AG/PC Cell (A)/3115/D(Pay/Services) and MoD (Finance) U.O. No. 2038/Addl FA(J) dated 26 May 1987. 

(ii)       MoF (Exp) U.O. No. C-57 (over-written as 67)/E-III(A)/2004 dated 15.4.2004, and MoF, DoE ID Note No. 7(16)/E.III/2004 dated 6.8.2004 may be referred to for confirmation, if necessary.   

(iii)      MoF, DOE, ID No. 187654/E-IIIA/2012 dated 05.07.2013, an entire Statement of Case has been prepared by DoE, E.III-A instead/on behalf of MoD, the Administrative Ministry, which appears to have forwarded the same without any comments/opinions.

8.5.      Any fixation without pay limits, as it involved financial aspects, would mandate that DOP&T refers even issue of the ibid OM for concurrence and/or approval of MoF/DoE/E.III-A.
8.6.      Further, other Ministries/Departments would have sought the concurrence of MoF for applying provisions of Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, Office Memorandum No. 1/1/86-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 10th April 1987 for civilian officers of the concerned Ministries appointed to or promoted to such posts that attract the provisions of the ibid OM dated 10 Apr 1987.
8.7.      Therefore, extensive discussions and/or deliberations must be on record with attendant notings, and approval of the then Finance Minister negating the averment of CPIO vide Para 2 of his reply dated 5.11.2013 that “No further information is available in this Branch.”   

8.8.      Therefore, sending the ibid application for information amounts to either a refusal to provide information, or delaying the provision of information for reasons best known to the CPIO, thereby necessitating this First Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.      
9. Any other information in support of appeal: -
9.1.      From the detailed exposition of the author of the MoF, DoE ID note dated 05 July 2013, it becomes obvious that MoF has not been apprised by O/o CGDA that Maj Dhanapalan retired as a Major on 31.08.1997 and so he could not have prayed for an increase in the maximum/ceiling nor could the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala consider the matter for the following reasons [Paras 8 to 12 of MoF, DoE, ID Note No. 187654/E.III-A/2012 dated 5.7.2013 may also be referred to]. Disclosure  -

(a) He was a Major and nowhere near the ceiling of the integrated scale,

(b) He retired, pre-maturely on his own request, on 01 Sep 97,

(c) The 5th CPC report was approved by MoF on 30 Sep 97,

(d) The SAI No. 2/S/98 quoted extensively was issued on 19 Dec 97,

(e) The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala’s Single Judge’s judgment was delivered on 5 Oct 98, and

(f) MoD in its Writ Petitions never mentioned this fact to the Hon’ble High Court to consider. MoF is aware that any Hon’ble Court can only consider facts presented to it.

9.2.      While MoF ID Note dated 5.7.2013 (Paras 18 and 19) quotes sub-paras of SAI 1/S/87 about the ceiling of the integrated pay scale and O/o CGDA seeks to justify compliance with proviso (b) of Rule 7 (1) (A), the ibid Rule also states “……shall, unless in any case the President by special order otherwise directs….” Such a direction of the President is in Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, Office Memorandum No. 1/1/86-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 10th April 1987. It may be noted that SAI No. 1/S/87 was issued on 26 May 1987.

9.3.      The MOF website describes, inter alia, the functions of the Department of Expenditure (source: http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_expenditure/Department of Expenditure) as follows: -

The Department of Expenditure is the nodal Department for overseeing the public financial management system in the Central Government and matters connected with State finances. The principal activities of the Department include pre-sanction appraisal of major schemes/projects (both Plan and non-Plan expenditure), handling the bulk of the Central budgetary resources transferred to States, implementation of the recommendations of the Finance and Central Pay Commissions, overseeing the expenditure management in the Central Ministries/Departments through the interface with the Financial Advisors and the administration of the Financial Rules / Regulations / Orders through monitoring of Audit comments/observations….” (Emphasis supplied).  
9.4.      The administrative Ministry, i.e. MoD, always sought/seeks opinions/concurrence on financial aspects of implementation of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala (in the Maj Dhanapalan Vs UoI case) and Hon’ble Supreme Court (in UoI Vs Lt Col N. K. Nair & Others case), from MoF/DoE/E.III-A. MoD has been compliant with MoF/DoE/E.III-A observations, views, opinions and concurrence as evidenced, inter alia, from MoF ID/UO Notes referred to below: -
            (a)      In the case Maj (retd) Dhanapalan Vs UoI & others: -
(i)        MoF (Exp) U.O. No. C-57 (over-written as 67)/E-III(A)/2004 dated 15.4.2004, and

(ii)       MoF, DoE ID Note No. 7(16)/E.III/2004 dated 6.8.2004.   

(b)      In the case of Sunil Kumar Chand & Others Vs UoI (WP (C) 96/2009): -

(i)        Endorsement Number 1702/SE/2010 dated 31.3.2010 of MoF (Exp),

(ii)       MoF (Exp) No. 2548/JS (Per)/2009 dated 12.4.2010,

(iii)      MoD PC No. 34 (1).2006 –D(Pay/Services) dated 13.4.2010 to JS (Pers), MoF, DoE, requesting a representative of MoF, DoE, to be deputed to brief the Solicitor General of India, and

(iv)      MoF (Exp) No. 2548/JS (Per)/2009 dated 16.4.2010

(b)      In the case of IA No. 9 of 2010 in UoI & Others Vs Lt Col N.K. Nair & Others: -

(i)        Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, U.O No. 871832/JS (Pers)/10 dated 03.11.2010,
(ii)       MoD ID F No. 34 (6)/2012 – D (Pay/Services) dated 5.11.2012 forwarding file to MoF, DoE, (Shri A. N. Singh, Deputy Secretary) for “concurrence regarding implementation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 4.9.2012, 
(iii)      MOF. DOE ID Note No. 187654/E.III (A)/2012 dated 09. 11. 2012,
            (iii)      MoF, DoE ID No. 187654/E-IIIA/2012 dated 24.12.2012, and
            (iv)      MoF, DOE, ID No. 187654/E-IIIA/2012 dated 05.07.2013.
9.5.      The Department of Personnel & Training (source: http://persmin.gov.in/DOPT_AboutUS.asp) is the coordinating agency of the Central Government in personnel matters, specially in respect of issues concerning recruitment, training, career development and staff welfare. The Department has been functioning under the charge of Secretary (Personnel) who is presently assisted by two Special Secretaries, one Additional Secretary, four Joint Secretaries and other supporting officers and staff. Functionally, the Department is presently divided into ten divisions, each of which is headed by an officer of the level of Joint Secretary or above. The Divisions of the Departments are Establishment Officer (EO), Establishment, Administrative Tribunal, Central Secretariat (CS), Cadre Review (CR), Retraining and Redeployment (RR), State Reorganization (SR), Welfare, Vigilance, and Training.
10. Prayer/relief sought for: -
10.1.    The CPIO, by sending my application to MoD and DoPT, is clearly disregarding or ignorant of the duties/charter of the Deptt of Expenditure as enunciated in the MoF website referred to above.
10.2.   Para 19 of MoF, DoE ID Note No. 187654/E.III-A/2012 dated 5.7.2012 supports O/o CGDA quoting proviso (b) of Rule 7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules 1986 but makes no mention of the ibid OM dated 10.4.1987.  
10.3.   This applicant/appellant may be provided information sought within the rules and time frame of the RTI Act 2005.
11. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for: -  
11.1.    Therefore, this appellant seeks relief, without any further delay, by way of information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 on the applicability or non-applicability of the DOPT O.M, dated 10 Apr 1987 to Armed Forces officers whose pay may exceed the ceiling stated in Para 6 (c) of the impugned SAI No. 1/S/1987 due to striking down the deduction of Rank Pay in re-fixing pay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA No. 9 of 2010 on 4.9.2012.
11.1.    Deptt of Expenditure has overarching duties as stated in the MoF website, an extract of which is produced at sub-para 9.1 above.  
11.2.    The MoD sought/seeks opinions/concurrence on financial aspects from MoF/DoE/E.III-A in the Rank Pay matter as indicated, inter alia, in sub-para 9.4. above.
11.3.    Information provided by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities of MoD, MoF, O/o CGDA  in replies to earlier requests for information by this appellant, clearly indicate that in the Rank Pay matter there was no reference to DOP&T for its views or opinions.   
11.4.    In the views of MoF/DoE dated 5 Jul 13 (appended to the reference to Ld Attorney General), MoF/DoE has not informed O/o CGDA or to MoD that Rule 7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules 1986 supersedes DOP&T OM dated 10 Apr 1987 referred to in RTI application dated 25 Oct 13. 
11.5.    MoD has unquestioningly incorporated the opinions of and amendments proposed by MoF/DoE/E.III-A, in the MoD letter No. 34(6)/2012-D(Pay/Services) dated 27.12.2012.
11.6.    It is apparent from the opinion dated MoF ID No. 187654/E.III-A/2012 dated 5.7.2013 and the foregoing that the final decision on financial aspects – minimum of pay for each rank, maximum of ceiling etc - rests with MoF/DoE/E.III-A and its interpretation.
11.7.    It is inconceivable that the information requested for does not exist on the files of the MoF/DoE/E.III-A because even DOP &T would have approached MoF/DoE for its concurrence before issuing the OM dated 10th April 1987.
12. Personal Presence at hearing: - No

13. Enclosures: - Photocopies of
(i) Original RTI application with its enclosures: -   attached (pages 9 to 15)
            (ii)   Postal proof of mailing Speed Post: -             attached (page 15)
(iii)  Acknowledgement of CPIO: -                                     attached (Page 16)
(iv)   Decision letter of CPIO: -                                           attached (Page 16)

14. Declaration: I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.


*          *          *          *          *          *
Reply to First Appeal from MoF, Deptt of Expenditure
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
E.III (A) BRANCH
Case No.                                                         AA/90/2013
Name of Appellant:                          Sh S. Y. Savur
                                                                        Vs
            CPIO, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE 
SUBJECT:-  Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act 2005

            Sh. S. Y. Savur, the appellant, preferred RTI application dated 25.10.2013 under the RTI Act, 2005 which were forwarded by the RTI Cell of this Department to Sh. S. K. Biswas, US (E.III-A) & the CPIO.

2.         In his RTI application dated 25.10.2013, Shri S. Y. Savut sought the information on the following point: -

“provide information on the non-applicability of provisions (of) Para 2 of ibid OM dated 10th April 1987, to officers who are promoted or appointed to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance as Colonels and Brigadiers and equivalent, and who will exceed the maximum of the integrated scale consequent to striking down of the deduction of Rank Pay for re-fixation as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4 September, 2012.”  

3.         In his reply to Shri Savur, the CPIO (E.III-A) vide his letter dated 5.11.2013 has stated as follows:

“The information available with this Department on the subject matter has already been furnished to you vide this Branch’s letter dated 5.11.2013. No further information is available in this Branch. However, since Ministry of Defence is the Administrative Ministry in this case and the OM dated 10.4.1987 referred by you in your RTI application relates to DOPT, the RTI application is transferred under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to Ministry of Defence and DOPT.”

4.         Not satisfied with the reply dated 5.11.2013 the appellant has preferred his first Appeal dated 13.11.2013 vide which he has stated as follows:

The CPIO, by sending my application to MoD and DoPT, is clearly disregarding or ignorant of the duties/charter of the Department of Expenditure as enunciated in the MoF website referred above.

This applicant/appellant may be provided information sought within the rules and time frame of the RTI Act 2005.
  
5.         I have gone through the RTI application preferred by the appellant on 25.10.2013 and also the aforesaid reply of the CPIO dated 5.11.2013. The appellant has not sought any personal hearing.
6.         As regards Rank Pay, the documents available with this Department have already been provided to the appellant. His query in the RTI application is about the non-applicability of provisions (of) Para 2 of ibid OM dated 10th April 1987, to officers who are promoted or appointed to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance as Colonels and Brigadiers and equivalent. Since the CPIO is not in custody of any such information in material form, he cannot provide the same. However, the detailed note dated 5.7.2013 of this Department to Ministry of Defence, a copy of which has already been provided to the Appellant, has all the details on the issue of Rank Pay, as arising out of the Major Dhanapalan’s case. No further information is available in this Department.    

ORDER

7.         In view of the above, the appeal is disposed off.
           
Sd/-----------------------
(Amar Nath Singh)
Deputy Secretary (E.III-A) & 1st Appellate Authority
20.12.2013

T0
(i)        Sh. S Y Savur, 141 Jal Vayu Towers, Beniganahalli, Indira Nagar (PO), Bangalore - 560038

(ii)       Sh. S. K. Biswas, CPIO & US (E.III-A) Deptt of Expenditure

Copy to: -

1.         US (RTI), Department of Expenditure for information with a copy of Appeal Application.