The Background
The Sixth Central Pay Commission,
on which, despite the compulsive, even addictive, preference for precedence of
the MoF/DoE and the O/o CGDA (as inferred from the information provided under
Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005) stated the following: -
Para 2.2.12. The annual increment would be 2.5% (modified
to 3% and 4% respectively by Section VII of Resolution 1/1/2008-I.C) with 20%
of the high performers in PB-3 only being granted 3.5% (modified to 4% respectively
by Section VII of Resolution 1/1/2008-I.C dated 29th August 2008)
There
would be not variable increment for PB-4 and upwards.
Para 2.2.17. The ratio of minimum (Pay Band -1)
to maximum (Apex, Cab Sec) would be 1:12.
Para 2.2.18. Annual increments for PB-3 at 2.5%
would be for a span of 32 years (of service).
Annual increments for PB-4 at
2.5% would be for a span of 20 years of service.
Para 2.2.19
(xi). PB-3 and PB-4 would not
have overlapping of pay scales to ensure that everyone in PB-3 pay band enters
in PB-4 (SAG).
(xii) ….Anyone who stagnates at
the maximum in the pay band for one year shall be placed in the immediate next
higher pay band without change in Grade Pay.
Table 2.2.2. New [(Group A Entry) (page 63)] places a Lt drawing Rs
8250 (that mythical edge) at Rs 15, 600 as does the SAI No. 2/S/2008 but table
2.3.1 (Page 89) of the Sixth CPC places the start of the scale of a Lt (and
equivalent Sub-Lieutenant in the Navy and Flying Officer in the Air Force) at
Rs 14,360!
There isn’t any mention of HAG or HAG+ pay band or scales.
Though Resolution 1/1/2008-I.C has re-designated old scales S-31 and S-32 in
pay scales (Rs 22400-600-26000 and Rs 24050-650-26000) from PB-4 to Pay Band
HAG+ of Rs 75500 (derived by multiplying 5th CPC emoluments by a
factor of 2.3, and,
Annual increment of 3%.
Part V of Resolution
1/1/2008-I.C states
(a) – Fixation of pay in the
revised Pay Bands will be done by multiplying the basic pay drawn as on
1/1/2006 on the existing Fifth CPC pay scales by a factor of 1.86 and the
rounded off to the next multiple of 10 and not by a factor of 1.74 as
recommended by the Commission.
(b) In the case of Medical
Doctors, the Dearness allowance on the Non-Practising Allowance will be taken
into account while fixing their pay in the revised Pay Bands.
Revised pay bands and grade
pay - PBORs
2.3.25. Keeping in view the principles propounded in the preceding para,
civilian pay scales will need to be extended in case of PBORs. Further, not
only the edge presently enjoyed by PBORs over civilian posts will need to be
protected, but also the higher emoluments enjoyed by PBORs in X trade group
over those in Y trade group will also have to be maintained. Since most of the
PBORs will now be shifted laterally to the CPOs after their stint in the
Defence Forces, the pay scales recommended for various posts in CPOs will need
to be extended to PBORs. The Commission is unable to recommend different grade
pay for PBORs holding same ranks in the two trade groups because in the Defence
Forces, the seniority is not dependent on the pay scale but on the rank held by
the concerned personnel.
Consequently,
a Naik in Group Y, despite enjoying a lower start vis-à-vis a Sepoy in group X,
will still be superior in rank vis-à-vis the latter. Since, in the revised
scheme of pay bands and grade pay being recommended by the Commission, the
status within a pay band will be determined by the grade pay, it is not
possible to recommend different grade pay for same ranks in different trade groups.
Thus, the edge presently enjoyed by PBORs in X trade group will need to be
protected in the form of separate X Group pay. The Commission has consequently
recommended a separate X Group Pay for the PBORs in the X Group.
Military Service Pay for
PBORs
2.3.26. The existing relativity of PBORs
vis-à-vis CPOs and other civilian posts is not only fully protected but in fact
it is being enhanced through the grant of Military Service Pay at all levels.
For Defence Forces officers, the Commission has recommended MSP of Rs.6000 for
posts upto Brigadier/equivalent equivalent.
The Commission is of the view that the
rate of MSP as a percentage of the existing pay has to be maintained in case of
officers (up to the level of Brigadier/equivalent) as well as PBORs because the
difficulties faced in field situations by both these categories
are similar. The minimum pre-revised basic pay at the entry level for officers
is Rs. 8250. The minimum pre-revised basic pay at the entry level for PBORs is
Rs.3200. Hence, the ratio between minimum pre-revised basic pay of officers and
PBORs in Fifth CPC pay scales is 2.6. Going by this ratio, the MSP for PBORs
should have been Rs.2308 (6000/2.6). However, in case of officers, rank pay for
various grades up to Brigadier/equivalent was also payable which will no longer
be paid in the revised scheme of running pay bands along with grade pay and MSP
(in case of defence officers). The average rank pay for grades of officers up
to Brigadier/equivalent works out to Rs.1267. This amount will need to be
excluded while computing MSP for PBORs as they were not paid any rank pay. The
MSP for PBORs, therefore, should be in the vicinity of Rs. 1000. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that all
PBORs may be
paid Military Service Pay of Rs.1000 p.m.
Reaction of Veterans
to the missive of the Chairman, CoSC to RM
The media reported that the
incumbent Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of the Air Staff,
writing to the Ministry of Defence that the Armed Forces do not want a separate
Pay Commission.
Subsequently, there has been a
flood of extreme opinions, especially from Veterans, that would make the
aftermath of super-storm Phailin akin to a storm in a teacup. The spectrum
ranges from apoplectic rage over unfair treatment to the Armed Forces through
an RTI application to the Chairman CoSC asking reasons for his decision to
stoic watchfulness, in the faint hope that the wrongs would be corrected and a
sense of hopelessness that the bureaucrat will do the Armed Forces in again.
Looking Back to Look Forward
The undercurrent of the apoplexy
is that “We, the Veterans,” (sounds familiar? The Preamble to the Constitution
starts with the words, “We, the People…..”) were disadvantaged by the past Pay
Commissions and we need to have a separate Pay Commission to correct those
wrongs and anomalies. Certain very vocal Veterans have not enlightened me about
the proposals made by Service HQ vis-à-vis the final report, especially
providing me some report, that despite all our (Veterans now, serving Armed
Forces personnel then) efforts we were ‘done in.’
To the second (and more vexatitious?)
question as to who let the bureaucrats lower our status, et al, was it the
present Chairman CoSC, I have received a barrage of vituperation (and
allegations that because my uniform was blue and the Chairman, CoSC wears
blue), interspersed with clucks of tongues in sympathy at my ignorance of Pay
Commission recommendations and the aftermath.
I, in that "fools tread in where
angels do not dare" frame of mind, reminded those Veterans that they were in
positions where they could have influenced the thought process of the Pay
Commissions, only to be chastised some more that I should stop looking forward
without looking back. Amen!
Purported Aims of the (First/Last) Military Pay Commission
The majority of Veterans appear
to subscribe to the thought process that a separate Military Pay Commission
(MPC) is the need of the day to restore, succinctly, (a) pay parity with the
civil servants (aka IAS) and (b) restoration of the Warrant of Precedence (WoP)
which will, inevitably, restore the Izzat of the Armed Forces.
There are the Cassandras’ who
look back to the results of the previous Central Pay Commissions, manned at the
operational and information feed level (Member-Secretary) by an IAS officer.
Then they apportion blame that rightfully should be placed at the doors of the
past hierarchy of the Armed Forces for being naïve, unable to understand the
requirements of the personnel – Officers, Other Ranks – and Veterans, and
allude to senior ranks being “bought” for “a few pennies more.”
Past members of the Services Pay
Cells (PARC) have written many pieces, on many blogs, on how the Armed Forces
were short-changed more by Armed Forces themselves, with the bureaucracy accepting
diluted recommendations. Then, those who made the recommendations in haste when
in Service, without adequate background work and facts, repented in leisure as
Veterans.
How else can one explain that the
Armed Forces face the brunt of insurgencies everywhere but the civilians and
CPOs’ are paid extra allowances? How else can one explain that O/o CGDA
provides select documents to buttress its arguments to deny the Armed Forces of
legitimate dues and MoF, with all its acumen of financial aspects, is “convinced”
of the misleading, agrees with O/o CGDA?
Instead or blaming the
bureaucracy for denying the Armed Forces, a different tack must be adopted.
Responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff Committee
First, the Chiefs of Staff
Committee should be a sagacious committee. They must remember that they are in
the glare of an information technology that will more often magnify every
incorrect decision than be given equal credit for a right decision. They must
forget turf wars to present a united front of insisting on a full member on
this and the future Pay Commissions.
Armed Forces Pay Commission Cell (AFPCC)
Preparatory work needs to be done
thoroughly, and methodically. For this expertise of the Accounts Branch of the
Air Force must be co-opted as members of the Armed Forces Pay Commission Cell
(AFPCC) set up under the CoSC Secretariat and not in the AG’s Branch for a
simple, but obvious reason: - it concerns the three Armed Forces and their
Veterans.
The X-Factor
X-Factor
is not a mythical issue conjured up by the Armed Forces for the 7th
CPC. It was disguised under the nomenclature “edge for the Armed Forces” but
was edged out! It should have been a component of Armed Forces’ pay since the
inclusion of Armed Forces in the Terms of Reference of this, the 7th Central
Pay Commission as well as for the future. The X-Factor must include special
conditions of military life and deployment (as compared to normal civilian
employment) including disadvantages such as the higher danger to life, being
subject to stricter discipline and a disciplinary process that is swift and
fair, an adverse promotion ratio, turbulence due to being pitch forked into
situations that are not in their normal line of duties, and the adverse balance
of Service conditions of employment such as inadequate accommodation, even in peace areas, let alone speaking of remote
places of work etc.
Why should there be
Compensation for the X-Factor?
While
there are advantages of high quality of training and early responsibility and
accountability, the elements listed above must be viewed as requiring special
skill and, if not specific, but proportionate compensation. It needs to be appreciated
that an the measurement of the X-factor has to be in financial terms and that
the amount may need to be varied depending on the situation.
There have been significant changes in both Armed Forces and
civilian life during the period since the Third Central Pay Commission. For the
Armed Forces, the commitment to anti-insurgency operations has increased across
the decades. They have reacted to support anti-insurgency operations in the
North East, then in Assam and J&K.
Externally, the Armed Forces have been called upon to deal with national
calamities at home and military operations in the national interest in Maldives
and in Sri Lanka. Now, the Armed Forces now have to contend with two-front
operations scenario increasing operational demands including preparations but
with critical shortages in weapons, fighting ships and aircraft. For example, a
two decade decision making process to purchase the Advanced Jet Trainer
resulted in losses of about 400 MiG-21 aircraft and hundreds of pilots, because
the MoD was ignorant that the MiG-21 aircraft’s strong point is air superiority
flying by experienced pilots and, the aircraft is not for training unskilled and least experienced trainee
pilots.
The greatest impact have been caused by asymmetrical allowances to
civilians like the Non-Functional Upgradation, increased allowances for normal
working in insurgency prone areas, sustained legal challenges, often against
legal advice of law officers, to judgments of the Armed Forces Tribunals, High
Courts and orders of the Supreme Court. These legal challenges are often
perceived as not accepting any judgment/order which is not in consonance with
the line of pre-determined thinking/interpretation of the MoD.
Turbulence such as dislocation to family
and social life caused by regular changes to the type and physical location of
work are taken to be part of the lives of personnel of the Armed Forces.
Turbulence is assumed to be an inherent part of Service life. Reductions in
promotion opportunities and falling levels of candidates for officers training
is one aspect. Deployment of the Army in operations that should be handled by
CPOs have shown increased levels of turbulence with the preparation for
operations and civil contingencies by Armed Forces. These elements outweighed
improvements in access to pay, allowances, education and medical care, which
MOD cited in arguments against an Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission.
In contrast, civilian data is inconclusive, incomplete of provided in fits and
starts when requested for under the RTI Act, 2005. There is evidence on the
falling proportion of young men seeking employment in the Armed Forces due to
economic or social factors. It is inescapable but to conclude that this
component has worsened for the Armed Forces.
The X-Factor also concerns dangers of threats of real or
perceived violence, environments or areas which are physically unsafe or
uncomfortable for natural living, man-made and/or due to political reasons and
where the potential loss of life or limb and injury to oneself or others is
higher than in civilian Govt employment. Just because these are rarely
highlighted, as Armed Forces personnel have continued to accept them as a
feature of military life, there is scant attention paid to this component. While
it demonstrates the virtues of the ethos of military life, it detracts from the treatment
meted out by the MoD by litigating against every legal challenges, and aided
often by the DGAFMS Branch, (which is perhaps second to the PCDA (O) or PCDA
(P) in reducing the benefits for disabled personnel of the Armed Forces.
In Para 2.3.12 of
its Analysis of the recommendation for Military Service Pay, the (Sixth Central Pay) Commission
is of the view that running pay bands on par with those recommended for
civilian officers needs to be introduced in respect of the Defence Forces as
well. This is also in conformity with the recommendations of all the three
earlier Central Pay Commissions that had simultaneously considered the pay
scales and related issues of civilians as well as the Defence Forces. The edge enjoyed by the Defence Forces over
the civilian scales will, after suitable enhancement to meet the genuine
aspirations of the Defence Forces, be given as a separate element called
Military Service Pay. Presently the edge enjoyed by the Defence Forces officers
is limited to the rank of Brigadier. This edge will need to be protected. The
edge will be carried to the post of Major General as well because Military
Service Pay shall be taken in account for purposes of fitment at the time of
promotion from Brigadier to Major General. Higher grades do not need to be
extended any MSP. Consequently, the Military Service Pay will be extended to all the posts in
the Defence Forces upto the level of Brigadier/equivalent. MSP being a new
element, no arrears shall be paid on this account. It will, however, be
considered for purposes of fixation of pay and pension.
In Para 2.3.13,
the Commission recommends that Military Service Pay shall count as pay for all
purposes except for computing the annual increment(s). However, status of the
Defence Forces officers would be determined by the grade pay attached to their
post as is the case with civilians. This will meet the two
major demands of the Defence Forces viz. i) Parity with civilian posts with a
distinct edge to compensate for hardships specific to defence service, and ii)
Grant of Military Service Pay.
As stated
earlier, the Commission has taken adequate care while devising the Military
Service Pay to ensure that not only the element of edge over civilian pay
scales currently enjoyed by the Defence Forces is maintained but also that the
genuine aspirations of the
Defence Forces officers are met.”
MoF
and O/o CGDA have argued, with MoD being a mute spectator at best, or willing
abettor at worst, in refuting every factor that would provide the mythical edge
that other allowances are paid to compensate the Armed Forces against the
X-Factor. MoF/CGDA/MoD would find it difficult to explain why the allowances
are disproportionate, and more often in favour of the Government’s civilian
employees. MoD has yet to provide a reply to an RTI application dated 11 Sep 13
on the decision to implement or not to implement the NFU for PB-3, PB-4, and
HAG band of Armed Forces officers!
Pay Scales IAS etc
Edge for IAS –present
position
Para 3.2.6
of the 6th CPC report states that …..Indian Administrative Service has traditionally enjoyed an edge
vis-à-vis other AIS and Central Services. This edge has continued right from
the time the First Central Pay Commission with varying amounts. From the Third
CPC onwards, the edge for IAS vis-à-vis other services has been as under:-
Grade
Service Third CPC Fourth CPC Fifth CPC
JTS IAS 700-1300 2200-4000 8000-13500
IPS 700-1300 2200-4000 8000-13500
IFS 700-1300
2200-4000 8000-13500
Group A 700-1300 2200-4000
8000-13500
STS IAS 1200-2000 3200-4750
10650-15850
IPS 1200-1700
3000-4500 10000-15200
IFS 1100-1600
3000-4500 10000-15200
Group A 1100-1600 3000-4500
10000-15200
JAG IAS - 3950-5000 12750-16500
IPS -
3700-5000 12000-16500
IFS -
3700-5000 12000-16500
Group A 1500-2000 3700-5000
12000-16500
NFSG IAS 2000-2250 4800-5700
15100-18300
IPS 1800-2000
4500-5700 14300-18300
IFS 1650-1800 4100-5300 14300-18300
Group A 2000-2250 4500-5700 14300-18300
[Please note that the pay scale of a Lieutenant was starting at Rs
8250 in the 5th CPC.]
Para 3.2.7. .Analysis
and Recommendations: - The
edge of IAS in pay scales is limited to Senior Time Scale, Junior
Administrative Grade, and Non-Functional Selection Grade. Other All India
Services and Central Services have been demanding parity with IAS. This demand
was projected before the various Central Pay Commissions constituted earlier
but the edge has continued. The Fifth CPC recorded that no persuasive reason existed
to do away with this edge. The position has not changed since then. The role of
IAS is still very important in the overall scheme of governance. They have an
important coordinating, multi-functional and integrating role in the
administrative framework with wide experience of working across various levels in
diverse areas in Government. They hold important field level posts at the
district level and at the cutting edge at the start of their careers with
critical decision making and crisis management responsibilities. The leadership
function, the strategic, coordinating, and integrative role at this level
requires the best talent available. The existing position would, therefore,
need to be maintained. It will ensure that IAS officers near the beginning of their
career are given slightly higher remuneration vis-à-vis other services and act
as an incentive for the brightest candidates to enter this service. This is
essential as the initial postings of IAS officers are generally to small
places, they face frequent transfers and the pulls and pressures they have to
stand upto early in their career are much more intense. The slight edge in the
initial stages of their career would, to an extent, neutralize these problems. The Commission, accordingly, is
of view that the existing edge for IAS in the three grades viz. Senior Time
Scale, Junior Administrative Grade and Non-Functional Selection Grade needs to
be retained.
3.2.8 The
issue of exact quantum of edge that needs to be extended for these three grades
in IAS in the revised structure of running pay bands will now need to be
addressed. A perusal of the Fifth CPC pay scales reveals that the edge for IAS
in STS, JAG and NFSG pay scales is equal to two additional increments. This
edge, in monetary terms, works out to Rs.650 at the level of Under Secretary,
Rs.750 at the level of Deputy Secretary and Rs.800 at the level of Director.
Dearness allowance and dearness pay is additionally payable on this edge.
However, this edge is presently not counted for purposes of annual increment
and the rate of annual increment for posts in STS, JAG and NFSG is presently same
for IAS as well as Group A / other All India Services. In the revised scheme of
running pay bands, the increments will be payable as a percentage of pay in the
pay band and grade pay thereon. Therefore, the edge will also count for
increments. Consequently, the existing edge enjoyed by IAS in these three grades
will need to be adjusted appropriately. Besides, the existing edge will have to
be dovetailed with the new scheme of running pay bands. Keeping these factors
in view, the Commission
has recommended slightly higher grade pay of Rs.6500 for Senior Time Scale,
Rs.7500 for Junior Administrative Grade and Rs.8300 for Non-Functional
Selection Grade of IAS. These grades pay exceed the grades pay for other
services by Rs.400 at Senior Time Scale, Rs.900 at Junior Administrative Grade
and Rs.700 at Non-Functional Selection Grade.
Pay Commission in the Clouds
Pay could be determined by using
the Cost Inflation Index (CII) generated by the MoF. For example, pay bands as
generated by 6 CPC will be increased using the CII to arrive at a base figure
for 7th CPC by the following formula: -
Pay in the Pay
band x CII for 2013-14 (939) divided by CII of 2006-7 (519) of the year that
the recommendations of the Sixth CPC came into effect.
It is not strange , given the
habitual denial by MoD, that arrears of MSP is denied because it benefits only
Armed Forces officers, which as per MoD, is a new, forcing a cynic to ask if
the Grade Pay, which benefits IAS and all others, was an old allowance/pay!
Annual increases in salaries could
be based on the same formula i.e. Salary of 2014 x CII in current year, divided
by the base year of 7th CPC (say 2014), instead of an arbitrary 2.5%
or 3 % increased to 3% and 4% respectively (with the Member-Secretary of the
Commission thankfully finding more resources on being elevated as Secretary,
Expenditure!).
Using the CII, there would then
be no need to have the half yearly increases in DA (para 4.1.19 of Sixth CPC
report and Para 2 (vi) of Resolution 1/1/2008-I.C), which anyway are paid as
arrears and saves the Govt a duplication of effort!
Pay Fixation – Civilian & Armed Forces Scales
The Fifth CPC pay scale were substituted with pay bands by
a multiplication factor of 1.86 adopted in the Resolution 1/1/2008-I.C vis-à-vis 1.74 recommended by the Pay
Commission.
All increases in the Cloud PC would be as per the following
formula: –
(i)
An increase of the CII factor of the subject year
(say 2014-15) over the next year (say 2015-16) x the pay drawn + 125% DA.
(ii)
The larger the number of years in say Pay band
1, the higher the basic pay, using the above CII based formula: -
Illustration 1: – Mr X –
Starting pay scale Rs 4400 base year 2006-7 (CII
519), present year 2013-14 (CII 939) + 125% DA
Rs 4400+1100 x 939 divided
by 519 = Rs 9950 (rounded off to next rupee)
Illustration 2: - new
entrant Mr Y
Starting pay scale with base year 2011-12 (CII 852),
present year 2013-14 (939) or one year service;
Rs 4400+1100 x 939
divided by 852 = Rs 6061 (rounded off to next rupee).
(iii)
DA would be determined by the CII index for the
financial year.
(iv)
Retirement/Superannuation
Pension= 50% of Sum of pay in the pay band and grade pay, and
(v)
Family
Pension = 50 % of Sum of pay band and grade pay.
Illustration No. 1 – For thought
processes purpose only
Name of Pay
Band/ scale
|
Corresponding 6th CPC Pay
Bands/scales
and Maximum of Grade Pay of Pay Band
|
Recommended
7th CPC Pay Band/Scales and Grade Pay @ Pay scale of 6th CPC x CII of
2013-14 = 939 divided by CII of 2006-7=519 rounded off to the nearest Rs 100
|
||||
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
Scales
|
DA
|
Total
|
GP
|
Pay Scales
|
GP
|
|
-1S
|
4440-7440
|
5500-9300
|
9900-16740
|
1300
|
18000-30300
|
2400
|
4440-7440
|
”
|
1400
|
”
|
2550
|
||
4440-7440
|
”
|
1600
|
”
|
2900
|
||
4440-7440
|
”
|
1650
|
”
|
2990
|
||
PB-1
|
5200-20200
|
6500-25250
|
11700-45450
|
1800
|
21200-82230
|
3300
|
”
|
1900
|
”
|
3450
|
|||
”
|
2000
|
”
|
3600
|
|||
”
|
2400
|
”
|
4400
|
|||
”
|
2800
|
”
|
5100
|
|||
PB-2
|
9300-34800
|
11625-43500
|
20925-78300
|
4200
|
37900-141664
|
7600
|
”
|
4600
|
”
|
8300
|
|||
”
|
4800
|
”
|
8700
|
|||
”
|
5400
|
”
|
9800
|
|||
PB-3
|
15600-39100
|
19500-48875
|
35100-87975
|
6600
|
63500-159200
|
11900
|
”
|
7600
|
”
|
13750
|
|||
PB-4
|
37400-67000
|
46750-83750
|
84150-150750
|
8700
|
155250-272700
|
15740
|
”
|
8900
|
”
|
||||
”
|
10000
|
”
|
||||
10000
|
”
|
|||||
HAG
|
67000-79000
|
83750-98750
|
150750-177750
|
Nil
|
272700-321600
|
Nil
|
HAG+
|
75500-80000
|
94375-100000
|
169875-180000
|
Nil
|
307300-325700
|
Nil
|
APEX
|
80000
Fixed
|
100000
|
180000
|
Nil
|
325700
|
Nil
|
CAB
Sec
|
90000
Fixed
|
112500
|
202500
|
Nil
|
366400
|
Nil
|
Pay Fixation – Armed Forces Officers
The existing pay bands would be
maintained subject to one change –a 3% increase per year of qualified service
in a particular rank. The larger the number of years in say Pay band 1, the
higher the basic pay, using the above CII based formula. DA would be determined
by the CII index for the financial year.
Illustration No. 2 – for thought
processes purpose only
Rank (and equivalent)
|
Existing (table
2.3.1) & SAI 2/S/2008
|
Recommended
|
|||||||
Pay Band
|
Pay Scale
|
DA @125%
|
Total
|
GP
|
MSP
|
Pay Scale
|
GP
|
MSP or
X-Factor
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
Lt
|
3
|
15600-17490
|
19500-21900
|
35100-39390
|
5400
|
6000
|
63500-71300
|
9800
|
10900
|
Capt
|
3
|
18450-20540
|
23100-25675
|
41550-46215
|
6100
|
6000
|
75200-83600
|
11100
|
10900
|
Major
|
3
|
22800-27930
|
28500-34900
|
51300-62830
|
6600
|
6000
|
92800-113675
|
12000
|
10900
|
Lt Col
|
4
|
28370-32450
|
35460-40600
|
64155-73050
|
8700
|
6000
|
116100-132165
|
15740
|
10900
|
Col
|
4
|
32890-33670
|
41112-42090
|
74002-75760
|
8900
|
6000
|
133890-137100
|
16100
|
10900
|
Brig
|
4
|
34020-35590
|
42525-44490
|
76545-
80080
|
8900
|
6000
|
138500-144880
|
16100
|
10900
|
Maj Gen
|
4
|
67000-79000
|
83750-98750
|
150750-177750
|
10000
|
Nil
|
272744-321600
|
18100
|
|
Lt Gen
|
4
|
75500-80000
|
94375-100000
|
169875-180000
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
307345-325700
|
Nil
|
nil
|
DGAFMS
|
Apex
|
80000
|
100000
|
180000
|
Nil
|
325700
|
|||
Army Cdr/VCOAS
|
Apex
|
80000
|
100000
|
180000
|
Nil
|
325700
|
|||
COAS
|
Cab Secy
|
90000
|
112500
|
202500
|
Nil
|
366400
|
|||
Pay Fixation – Armed Forces Other than Officers Ranks
The existing pay bands would be
maintained subject to one change –a 3% increase per year of qualified service
in a particular rank. The larger the number of years in say Pay band 1, the
higher the basic pay, using the above CII based formula. DA would be determined
by the CII index for the financial year.
Illustration No. 3
Averages of X, Y and Z Group –
for thought processes purposes only
Rank
(and
equi)
|
Existing (table
2.3.1 & SAI 1/S/2008)
|
Recommended (x CII
2013-14 of 939 divided by CII 2006-7 of 519)
|
||||||||||
Pay Band
|
Pay Scale
|
DA @
125%
|
Total
|
GP
|
MSP
|
X Gp Pay
|
Pay Scale
|
GP
|
MSP
|
X Group Pay
|
||
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
Sepoy/
Apprentice/
AC,
LAC/
Seaman
II/
Seaman
I
|
PB-1
|
6270-8100
|
7840 -10125
|
14110 -18225
|
2000
|
2000
|
1400
|
25530 - 33000
|
3600
|
2500
|
2500
|
|
Naik/
Cpl/
Art
V/
Leading
Seaman
|
PB-1
|
6440-8660
|
8050 -10825
|
14490- 19485
|
2400
|
2000
|
1400
|
26220 - 35260
|
4300
|
2500
|
2500
|
|
Havaldar
/Sgt/
Art
IV/
Petty
Officer
|
PB1
|
7230-9840
|
9040 - 12300
|
16270 - 22140
|
2800
|
2000
|
1400
|
29450 - 40100
|
5100
|
2500
|
2500
|
|
Naib
Subedar/JWO/Artificer III-I/Chief Petty Officer
|
PB-2
|
10040-12480
|
12550 - 15600
|
22590 - 28080
|
4200
|
2000
|
1400
|
46300 - 50850
|
7600
|
2500
|
2500
|
|
Subedar/Warrant
Officer/Chief Artificer/MCPO II
|
PB-2
|
11750 – 13650
|
16380 - 17062
|
28130 - 30712
|
4600
|
2000
|
1400
|
50900 –
55565
|
8400
|
2500
|
2500
|
|
Sub
Major/MCPO II/Master Warrant Officer/MCPO I
|
PB-2
|
12620 – 17750
|
15775 –
22190
|
28395 - 39940
|
4800
|
2000
|
1400
|
51400 - 72260
|
8700
|
2500
|
2500
|
|
And Allowances
All allowances functional and
non-functional allowances admissible to the IAS, with the same parameters as
for IAS must be available for Audit and Accounts Services, Central Police
Organisations, Central Services, IPS, and the Armed Forces.
The Armed Forces and CPOs
operating outside their normal areas of operations and performing duties not in
their sphere of activity will be given and advantage over and above the
X-factor by additional compensation as the original allowances for thr duration
that they operate outside their bases. For example, if the Army has to pull out
a battalion from its peace/training area in UP for aid to the civil power in
Uttarkhand, it will be given an additional compensation till it returns to the
peace/training area. Similarly, if the NSG based in Hyderabad, is given
operational duties elsewhere, for example in Jharkhand, it will be given
additional compensation for the duration of the deployment.
The above will be over and above whatever the IAS
and or IPS will ensure/authorise for its officers and personnel performing
their normal duties in the parent cadre areas i.e. Assam cadre performing
normal duties in Assam etc.
Conclusion
The need to have future Pay Commissions may be dispensed
with.
Annual increases in Basic Pay and DA may be linked to the
Cost Inflation Index (CII). If the CII is good enough to pay Capital Gains tax
on immoveable property, then it should be good enough to base increases in
Basic Pay and DA on.
If that is done, then this wonderful, suspenseful, anomaly
ridden (more because of the selective implementation by the IAS lobby) Pay
Commission would become superfluous.
An annual Pay Review Board, whose Chair and members would
remain for 5 years, could consider the demands of the Govt employees, including
Armed Forces in a holistic manner and not based on what service, IAS, IPS, IA&AS,
IFS or IRS or Armed Forces or Class A Services or AFHQ Services.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment