Notes:
From the seminar held at CDM on 5 Mar 14
Words in
parenthesis ( ) are inserted by Aerial View to make for easier reading.
Certain
parts, such as salutations have been edited out but the gist has been re-typed
intact.
Names of Querists have been omitted.
Session I
Question 1: Was the implementation of Supreme Court
judgment in the Rank Pay factored into your study, for instance pre-6th
CPC, Lt Col was getting Rs 13500. Whether cumulative effect of previous pay
commission was taken into account while undertaking this study?
Answer by Panel: Yes, this was considered by the team in
entirety, right from Third Pay Commission. Inputs from pay cells of all three
Services were taken as to how NFU would be implemented and the methodology of
implementation before working out the four options and recommending the most
preferred option.
Additional comment by Member, AFPIC, Air HQ (VB): There was a meeting with Hon’ble RM on
OROP last week. This was due to the doubts raised by many on the scope of OROP
as outlines by Mr Chidambaram in his budget speech. They asked the definition
of OROP from Service HQ which was provided as “OROP would mean same pension to
two personnel who retired with the same rank and same length of service
irrespective of date of retirement. Any future enhancement of pension would be
passed on to past pensioners also.” This was officially agreed in the meeting.
RM also agreed to extend this concept to family pension. Services HQ requested
to include disability pension and war injury pension also in this concept which
was also agreed to. RM also reiterated that (Rs) 500 crore is the nominal
amount and finance is not the constraint and this will be implemented whatever
be the amount. Payments would be effected from 01 Apr 14 and Service HQ, CGDA
and MoD should work together to give the best package.
Additional comment by Lt Gen (retd) K R Rao: Let us not go by what the defence
Minister has said. We have to get that very clearly from the Finance Minister.
Many a times we have got promises from the Defence Minister but it does not
find its way (through the Finance Ministry). This has been the experience with
previous and present Finance Ministers. He suggested to the Pay Cell members
that they should not get complacent by the promise of the Defence Minister.
Question 2: So far a few issues and suggestions have been
brought out. First was with respect to de-linking of pay scale (from rank)
which Gp Capt Bhaskaran brought out. When the post of 2nd Lt was done
away with in 5th CPC, unfortunately the Captain’s post did not climb
up but was brought down to the post of 2nd Lt. Our pay scale should
have started much higher like Rs 8250. So there is a danger in doing away with
Lt Col and Brigadier. That is when Lt Col rank is vacated, it is occupied by
Colonel. Same would be the case with Brigadier rank (and Maj Gen). Suppose we
pitch for increase in grade pay of all officers from Rs 8900 to Rs 10000 then
we can be rest assured that this will be done for all Gp ‘A’ officers who are
drawing grade pay of Rs 8900. So situation will not change; it will just climb
to higher level of Rs 10000.
JAG are those officers of Gp ‘A’ who
are drawing grade pay of Rs 7600.This we are attaining after 9 to 12 years of
service instead of 16 to 19 years of service.
As part of Option IV, in the list of
advantages it was mentioned that status parity will be achieved but financial
parity will not be achieved. However, the opposite is correct. This is because
in financial parity a Col (TS) when compared to a IAS officer rises upto the
rank of Secretary till 54 years of age, when he retires and is drawing higher
emoluments. What he is suffering from is status. This aspect needs to be kept
in mind. This can be calculated and found that at 54 years the Col gets the
same emoluments as (an) IAS officer who has now become Addl Secy.
In 2013, the pension drawn is actually
greater than what was shown. Actually Rs 5858 is the pension of Sepoy at 19
years of service retiring on 31 Dec 05 or earlier. So at 2013, pension of the
Sepoy retiring after 19 years of service will be much higher. In UK, there is a
strong move to get the Services under the new pension code i.e. the
contributory pension scheme.
A
word about representative pension existing between post-war pay committee and
the 3rd pay commission. The Chief’s pension was Rs 1000 in those
days and all other pensions were drawn with reference to (the) Chief’s pension.
However, between the first and third pay commissions there was no rise in the
pay of the Chief as a result his pension remained constant. So the major who
was drawing pension of 70% in the post war committee in 1946 descended to 36%
in the third pay commission. So the model representative pension may not serve
our purpose. What are the comments of the panel on this?
Answer by the Panel: The team did deliberate on the Option IV
wherein it was brought out to do away with Lt Col and Brig rank(s). There would
be Command and Control issues but as in the Navy, where the Commodore and the
Captain (ranks) are interchangeable, a similar thing can be implemented in
other services between Lt Col and Col and Brig and Maj Gen. A detailed study
needs to be carried out on this issue and also comparative study with respect
to other Armed Forces of the world has to be carried out.
Question 3: Was there a study on pay disparity between Govt
and non-Govt employees?
Answer by the Panel: This was not done as parameters are
different and it is not right to compare Armed Forces with the corporate world.
Question 4: This is with respect to the emoluments drawn by
Col (TS) and IAS officer at 24 years of service. The MSP is a special pay given
to the Armed Forces personnel for the circumstances in which the Armed Forces
personnel work and it should not be included in the emoluments when calculating
parity. An IAS officer joining at the age of 26 years would be in the
appointment of Addl Secy after 28 years but he would be in the pay band of Rs
67000 and not Rs 37400. So he would definitely draw more pay than Col (TS).
Before the 5th CPC, the pay
scale of Lt Col was Rs 13500 and Rank Pay was Rs 1600. Total pay would have
been Rs 15100. This would have placed his as equivalent to Director. Director
was at Rs 14300 but was put in the pay band of Rs 37400 and grade pay in the 6th
CPC of Rs 8700 whereas Lt Col who was actually drawing Rs 15100 was put in
grade pay of Rs 8000. Will this be taken into consideration when we present our
case in the 7th CPC?
Additional Comment by a Panelist: In OROP, while calculating and making the
base for OROP, even if we compare after 01 Jan 06, a Lt Col retiring with 30
years of service will get a tentative (pension of) of Rs 30000 and a Lt Col
with similar service retiring in 2015 will get Rs 38000*. A difference of Rs
8000 will exist. Hence, there is a requirement to dynamically change the OROP
every year so that the entire benefit would be given to an officer retiring
earlier. A Jawan retired in 1967 or 1973 as a Sepoy. Today a Jawan is retiring
as a Havildar because of ACP. So, when we implement OROP, then the Jawan who
retired earlier should be given pension of Havildar. The DGL should go in that
matter.
(* Aerial
View – How? Since both Lt Cols will start at the same amount of the pay band
(Rs 37400 + GP Rs 8000 + MSP 6000), there appears to be some error in this
calculation as the Lt Cols starting at the figure on the pay band will get 3%
increment till they reach 30 years of service, whether in 2014 or 2015! Please
see another post on this blog for estimated figures.)
Answer by the Panel: The study team had specified the
multiplication factor as X% rather than laying out the quantum of X. DA would
be added to this X. This X will vary and it will not remain the same once
decided and will not be addressed by subsequent pay commissions.
Additional Comment by a Participant: On 31 Jul 14, there will be 14 Brig who
will be retiring with a pay of Rs 81900# i.e. Rs 1900 more than an Army Cdr and
they will get a pension of Rs 950 more than the Army Cdr. Similarly, the Col
(TS) would be getting a pension of Rs 81700 but 7th CPC could change
that datum. I fully agree that because of the running pay band and MSP should
not be considered while calculating emoluments, but the civilians consider MSP
also as part of emoluments, whether we like it or not. We have to find ways to
counter this.
(# Aerial
View – if a Brig (starting at Rs 43390 + 8900 + 6000) is promoted to that rank
at the age of 48 he will reach Rs 82850 in the 14th year of his
service as Brig! But even the COAS retires at 62 years of age. Unless the
Querist has included DA, which anyway is not reckonable for calculating
pension!! )
Additional comment by Member, AFPIC: As brought out by Lt Gen
(retd) Rao and Brig Rao, the pay cell is actively monitoring the OROP
implementation as told by the Defence Minister. The pay cell is also working on
certain models and would definitely take the views of CDM before finalising it.
Question 5: Right till 3rd Pay
Commission, the Armed Forces had an edge over civilian pay scale. This has to be
kept in mind in the 7th Pay Commission. Maj Gen and above lost out
on the advantage of rank pay and MSP when pay fixation happened. Their pay got
stagnated. That resulted in a case like a junior getting more pay and pension.
Army Cdrs get the pay of Secretaries and Chiefs get the pay of Cab Secy. But no
MSP is given, hence they lose out on the edge over civilians. These factors
need to be considered for the 7th CPC. Another point in OROP is that
the definition has to be interpreted correctly. A person having the same rank
having one year service and another with 10 years service will get different
pensions. As per present definition both should get the same pension since both
are holding the same rank. This is a challenge while implementing OROP. What are
the views of the Panel on this?
Answer by the Panel: The length of service has to be taken into
consideration while deciding pension. Otherwise there will be no motivation for
Armed Forces personnel to work beyond the first day of picking up his rank.
There will be problem for retention in service.
The point is valid because the Supreme
Court in 1997 was also in a dilemma on the definition of OROP. The definition
has a hidden parity and point is taken. Since this is questioned by the law
itself, the definition should be all encompassing. This definition was agreed
to in consultation with Army HQ and Air HQ but the first para needs to be
re-visited.
The point is, whatever we may wish,
the MoD has to be taken on board as in the case of Maj Dhanapalan’s rank pay
issue. In spite of the Supreme Court giving the order, it has been twisted and
amended the way they want to. The pay cell should throw some light on this
issue.
Additional Comment by Lt Gen (retd) Rao: Supreme Court had given clear cut order in
Major Dhanapalan’s case** and all three Service HQ had unanimously agreed to
implement it. However, MoD (Fin) had put some objections and approached Supreme
Court again. This case has been partially won and the rest also will be
resolved. This case should not be linked to 7th Pay Commission.
(** - Aerial
View – UoI’s SLP in Maj Dhanapalan’s case was dismissed by the Supreme Court on
12 Jul 2005. It was in the TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 in UoI Vs Lt Col N K Nair
& others that the Supreme Court gave the orders on 08 Mar 2010 which was
challenged by UoI in IA No. 9 of 2010 followed by orders against UoI on 04 Sep
12. It is CGDA’s case supported by MoF/DoE that its interpretation of limiting
the payment of arrears to 4th CPC that has been challenged by Lt Col
N K Nair & Another in Contempt Petition (C) No. 328 of 2013.
Session II
Question 1: R/Adm (retd) Alan O’Leary, a participant
addressed the question to the two (retired) IDAS officers in the panel. He said
that both IDAS (retd) officers had been associated with the Armed Forces for a
number of years and that there were no problems in functioning with them.
However, he said that post the 6th Pay Commission, when the Armed
Forces were fighting their cases in the MoD, the two lady FADS that he had the
opportunity to interact with were ignorant of the cases of the Armed Forces and
that they were also against the Armed Forces. He thereafter asked the two
retired IDAS officer why such wrong doing against the Armed Forces has to be
defended.
Answer by the Panel: Mr Cowshish answered that he could not
comment on the actions of the FADS’ and neither on pay matters as he had never
handled pay and allowances issues. He however said that the ignorance of the
FADS’ can be conceded because for example a person who has spent 30 years in
artillery would definitely have 100% more knowledge than someone who has just
come to the Ministry with almost no background on matters military. He
emphasised that in such situations what is required is dialogue and more often
than not, post the dialogue, the ignorant and uncaring civilian understands the
point. He further said that no system is perfect and neither is every
individual the same and the merit in each case comes out post discussions.
Certain persons behaving in a particular manner is more of an individual
mind-set than a class mind-set.
Question No.2: The question was addressed to Dr Mishra. It
was brought out that, in the experience of the Querist, the MoD took very long
in resolving issues and for this he illustrated with an example from the 5th
Pay Commission. He said that the Major’s scale in the 5th CPC was
fixed at Rs 11600-11925 0n 29 Feb 2000. However, only officers promoted to rank
of Major post this date, were given the new pay scale. The seniors were not.
This led to a situation wherein seniors were getting less pay than their
juniors. The matter was taken up with Finance which took the matter up with Mod
in 2000. The issue was finally resolved I 2008 only an necessary orders were
issued. The Querist wanted to know that when everybody was aware of the correct
thing to be done, why the MoD took so long in deciding the issue. The Querist’s
feeling were repeated by a number of others who quoted a number of minor pay
and allowances related cases of the Armed Forces which had been resolved by MoD
post delays ranging from one year upwards.
Answer by the Panel: Dr Mishra replied that he was of the
strongest opinion that the Armed Forces should have a separate pay commission,
much in the manner of the education sector which had opted for their own pay
commission last time around and had emerged very well satisfied with the deal
that they had got from the government. Regarding the question about the delays,
he said that he was surprised that the issue took eight years to resolve
because when he was PCDA in Mumbai there were 112 such cases pending for six
years and he had resolved them in six days. All it took was getting the right
information from the Service HQ. Mr Cowshish further added that he had alluded
in his speech that delays are a reflection of the inefficiency in decision
making and that he agreed that nothing could remain pending for years together.
The problem in his view that people in MoD do not know how to say ‘No’ and
hence they sit on issues hoping that the problem would go away which was again
an indicator of inefficient decision making processes.
Question No. 3: The Querist said that he had worked in the
BRO and MES and he was of the opinion that all was not well in both the
organisations due to anomalies and the down-gradation of Service officers that
had happened in both organisations over the years. For example, as per the
Warrant of Precedence, Colonel and Chief Engineer were at the same level in
these organisations. However, today a CE is drawing a Grade Pay of Rs 10000
while a Colonel is at Grade Pay of Rs 8700. Secondly, a re-designation of
civilian officers in these organisations was carried out by MoD in 2003 because
they were cadre controlling authority. As per the re-designation, a post
tenanted by a Superintendent Engineer/Lt Col equivalent was re-designated as
Director. Now, since a Director post is tenanted by a Colonel in Service HQ,
the erstwhile SE started equating himself to a Colonel and expected the Lt Col
to serve under him. These issues, he said. Lead to Command and Control problems
in these organisations on a day to day basis. He further continued by saying
that his second point was addressed to Dr Mishra and Mr Cowshish as to why
there was no clarity on certain issues namely Rank Pay not being counted
towards determining status when it was used to determine all other allowances
and the like. He further stated that the 6th CPC had added another
controversy of the grade pay and while there was a notification which
states that grade pay is to be used to
determine seniority within a particular cadre, the MoD was using it to equate
between civilians and Service officers. He wanted to know from the two retired
civilian officers as to why civilians always got the benefit of doubt from the
MoD.
Answer by the Panel: Mr Cowshish replied that he felt that there
was some typecasting and that he did not know why he should be replying this
question but he was of the opinion that if there were anomalies then they
needed to be removed in a time bound manner. He continued by saying that he did
not hold a brief for any system which discriminated against either civilians or
Armed Forces personnel. So, if an Addl DG on the Border Roads felt aggrieved
about serving under a service appointed DG with a lower grade pay then
similarly Service officers in the quoted example in the question has an equal
right to feel aggrieved. He further said that it was incorrect to always start
with the assumption that I am a Service officer and all that I say is right
while everybody else is wrong.
Quoting the
example of the Colonel and the Chief Engineer equivalence he said that as per
BRO regulations the status of the Chief Engineer is the same irrespective of
him being a GREF officer or a Service officer. It is hence better not to make
an issue out of something which is just a local skirmish because if you do so
it will only result in self-righteous indignation.
Additional Comments by the Panel: At this point a number of
officers interjected and Lt Gen (retd) Rao brought out that the examples quoted
above were real problems and that they could not be brushed off as local
skirmishes. R/Adm (retd) O’Leary said that when it came to the pay and
allowances of Armed Forces personnel, civilians kind of banded together and
made it into a us vs. them issue.
At this Mr
Cowshish again took up the mike and said that in his opinion such problems,
wherever they exist either on the civilian or army side, needed to be resolved
impartially but to carry out a demonization of civilian officers and that
civilians do things deliberately would be wrong.
Maj Gen
(retd) Satbir Singh joined the discussion here and said that committees set up
to look into such issues of anomalies and status parity should do their job
completely and not add to more problems. He quoted the example of NFU, which
has been given to all civilian officers in the BRO and MES but not to Service
officers. This, according to him, has led to further issues among the personnel
of these organisations.
Mr Cowshish
again interjected and said that while he and his fellow Defence Accounts cadre
personnel had no role to play in the pay commission, he was aware that in
today’s setting he was personifying the evil civilian and that he had only one
point to make finally and that was that there was a tremendous amount of
self-righteousness about every point made and that this was queering the pitch
and made individuals lose sight of logic, thus preventing the problems from
being resolved. Problems, wherever they existed, need to be resolved on both
sides, whether civilian or military.
Session III
Question 1: I have a point regarding bench marking
the uniformity of two areas, one is the entry point and the other is the
retirement age. So to give you an example, I am a select Gp Capt in the Air
Forec. My age of superannuation is 54 years. Why it is 54 years is because I am
from the Flying branch. If I had been a time scale Gp Capt with 26 years of
service, then I would have to superannuate, being in the Flying branch, at the
age of 52 years. Now I am in a tri-Service establishment, where the Army
figures are different. In Army, whether Select or Time Scale Colonel, the
superannuation age is 54 years. I also would like to take this opportunity to
point out another similar anomaly within the Air Force in the Flying branch and
the Ground Duties branch, where once again the superannuation ages for the same
rank are different. My suggestion is that since pay and pension is a Services
matter, there should be a commonality.
Answer by the Panel: Lt Gen (retd) Rao said, “Yes, this point was
discussed in the previous pay commission, therefore I request member of AFPIC,
Air HQ (VB) to reply to this point.”
Additional Comments by Member, AFPIC: Sir, the point is valid, but the
difference is not between Flying and Ground Duty branches, it is also between
various Ground Duty branches like Medical, Met etc. It is more related to when
you come into service, age and qualification. For example, the age of superannuation
of Edn branch for both time scale and select Gp Capt is 57 years. However, the
point raised is to be considered that there should be rationalisation of age of
retirement and why bring it to 57 years for officers and not 60 years for all.
It shall be dealt with in due course and shall be considered.
Question No. 2: I have one suggestion to make. I don’t know
whether it is there or not, the question of having a separate Pay Commission or
representation in the 7th CPC. I have one suggestion, why don’t we
ask for pro-rata representation in the cell, for example the railways comprise
the maximum, say 15% of Central Govt employees, the CPC should have 15%
representation by Railways, so similar thing we can bank on, thereby the number
of Service personnel in the Pay Commission Cell can go up.
Answer by the Panel:
Lt Gen (retd) Rao: A quick response, for the sixth pay
commission, we represented in the same fashion. We have no objection in the
service like railways have 22 lakh employees and we have 14 lakhs, if I
remember the figures correctly. We have no problem in having more members from
the railways but we want our member in the pay commission cell. On second
thoughts, let me assure you that if at all there is a single member from the
Services, he shall be outwitted and they will say your point was not through
but your member was there. So I do not think that a member is going to bring
any change. That is my experience of the sixth pay commission. We will have to
fight, we have to fight at COSC, we have to fight as tri-services a fight as
serving and retired personnel. My personal opinion is that (having) a member
shall not make any major difference.
Additional comment by R/Adm (retd) O’Leary: I fully agree that the methodology has
to change, the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force have to butt in.
Additional comment by Lt Gen (retd) Rao: Lots of things happen on the personal
front at the level of the Chiefs. For example, the introduction of three
categories of high altitude allowance. This could happen because then COAS was
flying over this region along with Defence Minister and he took this
opportunity to explain the issue. So lots of things move on personal equations
of the Chiefs level, but coming back to the point, (a) member in the pay commission
will not have desired results. Another point I have to make is that a number of
allowances had been projected and they were rejected. But the same needs to be
projected again. It is nice to see the old-timers (of AFPIC) and they are aware
as to why the points were rejected. Accordingly, this time the pay commission
cell would be mature in giving suitable replies.
Question No. 3: It is not a question but a suggestion as per
Central Govt rules, we are supposed to be given two years child care leave,
which is being implemented for Central Govt employees, but not for us. So, in
case it is being implemented it is fine, if not then we can ask for child care
allowance, especially for a couple, both serving in difficult areas.
Answer by the Panel: Absolutely
valid point; Hope the pay commission panel will look into it.
Question No. 4: Another point; we are getting education
allowance for children which is around, I think, Rs 12000 per year. It is too
meagre for children education to put them in good schools and besides that we
claim the allowance and most of the time they ask for the bills and it is
difficult to keep the bills. I think there should be a god fixed amount for
education allowance so that our children can be taught in good schools.
Answer by the Panel: Point well taken; the next time the
projection should be pitched very high and regarding documentation, when we
talked about LTC, we asked why do you want to submit claims, let the amount be
automatically deposited in the officer’s account. In this regard they said,
forget it, if some one is not claiming, I am saving money (for) the Govt.
Question No. 4: A third point is about transport allowance,
which is different for different (categories) of cities where we get different
transport allowance. But the rate of petrol and diesel are almost the same. How
do we cater for class B and C cities?
Answer by the Panel: Firstly, the classification of cities is
done at Central Govt level; secondly, we recommended that all allowances to be
linked to (rate of) inflation, but it has not seen the light of day.
Additional comment: As
for tpt allowance is concerned, firstly, the cost of petrol is neutralised by
the rise of DA; secondly, tpt allowance was increased by 25% when the DA
crossed 50%, so in a way the higher price of petrol has been compensated for,
so it may be looked in a different manner.
Additional comment bt Member, AFPIC: Regarding the children education
allowance, it was brought up from Rs 40 per month to Rs 1200 per month. We
shall tray to place a case for a better amount. Regarding the child care leave,
it is reverse gender discrimination. A (recently bereaved) widower shall not
get child care leave whereas a lady will get it. We shall try to get this
anomaly corrected.
Additional comment by R/Adm (retd) O’Leary: On this education allowance, I request
Member AFPIC to consider the case of Army Sepoys who retire early. Their
children stop schooling, which is an issue related to the pension and one other
thing. I would like to mention in the last pay commission there was a
representation by Strategic Forces that they wanted 50% more basic pay and
double their allowances since they are strategic forces, for which we had not
agreed. However they have got field unit allowance, which they get even when
they are serving in Delhi.
Question No.5: It indeed gives us a short lived & high
feeling when we discuss all these proposals which normally we put up as a
ritual before every pay commission. I am not hopeful……I am not pessimistic that
during this pay commission also we shall not be able to get fruitful results. I
have a simple solution to all this, let us not send any representation to this
pay commission or be part of the CPC. Divide our strategy into two parts – one
part general and second part defence. We go ahead with all that is given to our
civilian counterparts for officers and ORs and we concentrate on the military
allowances.
Answers by the Panel:
Lt Gen (retd) Rao: This was the
strategy that I was talking about. I said let us get the pay as close as
possible with civil counterparts and then let lus concentrate on our allowances
that are specific to us.
R/Adm (retd) Alan O’Leary: But what the Govt does is that, they offset our
allowances against pay, this is not what we asked for. The best case scenario
shall be ‘no separate discussion’ on whatever is given to IAS/IPS/Gp ‘A’
services is acceptable to us and our allowances are a separate issue.
Brig JK Rao: Sorry, I have a different view. Already
there is a disparity in the allowances between Civil Govt ad Armed Forces
serving in the same place. First, they should be made applicable to us; in
addition to that the Military/Armed Forces allowances are separate. We should
get this basic thing right.
Another participant: But my point is that we should be at par
with civil counterparts both in terms of pay and allowances. Subsequently, we
should discuss military (related) allowances.
Lt Gen (retd) Rao: There are
three types of allowances as I had talked about; allowances that are common
with civilian employees, second are the risk related allowances and thirdly,
allowances that are Service specific.
Question No. 6: Disability allowance and related issues –
firstly there is a specific reason to (medically) board out an individual. I
want to raise this issue in this forum because there is an example in Air
Force, a little short of a year ago, there was a cadet who was seriously
injured in a training establishment. As a special case, they got MoD’s approval
and commissioned him in another branch six months later. So the point is, if it
is pre-commission there may still be some sensitivity as to whether to board
him out with whatever compensation or should we carry on with him till his
retirement. But it happens in service and there is a precedent, why are we not
as benevolent especially in view of the ruling which has come regarding
disability. Rather than saying why don’t we give more allowances, why board him
out?
Lt Gen (retd) K R Rao: That is an in-service issue and is not
concerned with pay commission.
Question No. 7: It was said by most speakers that an Army
jawan retires at 35 years of age and 17 years of service. My question to the
house is, why is he retiring at 35 years and 45 years of age? Is he being shunted
out or ACP is giving him a tenure of Havildar? Then he does not become a JCO
but let him carry on till the age of superannuation and put the equivalence of
pension at that point.
Lt Gen (retd) KR Rao: There is as service limit which is laid out for
various ranks, like a Havildar retires at 26 years of service, So let us assume
that a person is recruited at 19 years of ager, by 45 years of age he goes out.
But the interesting part of the 6th CPC was that all Armed Forces
can be seconded to the police forces. But it was not agreed to by the Home
ministry.
* * * * * *
E & O E
No comments:
Post a Comment