Sunday, 2 November 2014

Non-Functional Upgradation - Reply from MoD - Additional payment

Over the past few months I have read a few of the usual "Generals let us down" comments on chatroll about Non-Functional Upgradations.

[Paragraph about a certain person's uninformed comments have been removed after his violent objections and personal attack on this blogger.]
It appears posting the following information as obtained from MoD on this blog has not helped: -

       (a) MoD's reasons for not implementing NFU and sending it to 7th CPC has not be read by many, though it is on this blog.

       (b) MoD's replies to two RTI requests.
Now, efforts are on to obtain MoD's notings on the Cabinet Secretary Committee on Anomaly resolution comprising 70 pages. Additional payment is being sent tomorrow.

Further, CPIO, MoD-D (Pay/Services) has transferred to MoF, DoE my request for the Report of the Cabinet Secretary headed Committee of Secretaries as MoF, DoE is the custodian of the ibid report.     


  1. "..that is why Gens don't want NFU implemented..."

    Sir, if that has been stated in as many words, then it would certainly be, to say the least, an over-simplification.

    But, as in all issues connected with parities in pay/pension fixation, there could be several layers and everything may not be totally black and/or white.

    There is a sense that anyone who makes it through the promotion board has an automatic inclination to keep intact the differential created between himself and those left behind. This mind-set permeates thinking at all levels.

    It can extend to even little things such as why should a Col (TS) wear the same collar tags as "us, the genuine Colonels"! The higher people go, the more marked this tendency. Not everyone can be as objective and balanced as the author of this blog. I say that with the utmost sincerity.

    So, the very fact that NFU has moved so sluggishly, on account of not having received an unreserved push forward from the services HQs, could be based on such a way of thinking. Besides, there appears to be a flawed approach in the rumored assumption that means of denying parity act as means of obtaining "conformance" and obedience from those lower in the pyramid.

    I have often said, just the ability to get an Officer superseded by one. two, three or more years is more than enough "power" with those placed higher. NFU should never have been considered a threat to "good order".

    But the sluggishness with which the concept has moved could partly be on account of the reservations at some levels based on the reasons I have outlined above.

  2. @Dhoop,

    Thank you and not as a reverse compliment, in my opinion you and @sunlit have been the most erudite and learned commentators. Therefore I write the subsequent paragraphs with some trepidation but from my own experience in the Air Force.

    I was promoted in the first consideration in every Promotion Board (PB) - 3, 4, Special Board (for Air Ranks). I was also member of several PBs and President on one.

    When I was given the command of Air HQ Comn Sqn (VIP Sqn), the Flt Cdr (VIP) till a day earlier became my No. 2 but neither he nor I had any problem of "genuine and whatever."

    The members and/or the President of the PBs changed almost on a regular basis for reasons of objectivity and due to promotions/superannuations.

    In none of the PBs did my coursemates whom I left behind were in consideration. So

    Therefore the assumption that "them and us" occurs is wrong.

    Secondly, I have dug into the NFU issue to obtain 3 different responses - on 08 Oct 13, that MoD had "decided to wait,." on 30 Dec 13 that the matter had been referred to Govt for approval, and finally on 07 Sep 14, that it was referred to 7 CPC because the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) considered NFU for the Armed Forces a 'complex issue." All there disclosures are on this blog and I would gladly send scans of them to any one who still feels that the seniors are denying parity for reasons stated in your comment.

    The reservations, I am anguished to state, have nothing to do with reasons outlined.

    Any way, the smog of who did what to whom will be dispelled when I get and place the 70 pages of MoD's file notings and subsequently the CoS report from the MoF, DoE.

  3. Dear Sir
    I tried to see the issue in a different way & a question that came to my mind was why are we not able to come up with proposals with are sound & would stand the test of time & more important easily implementable with out any fuss
    While the collective view may be that babus are the stumbling blocks ,it does seem that we are laying our own mine fields & getting stuck with in it
    The only feeling that i get is that the Services need to redesign the pay & allowances independent of the pay commission & work with the government to implement it.
    I know what would be the reaction.It would be 'It is a waste of time'.But i find no other way to rectify the situation specially in understanding faults with in the pay & allowances system in a well documented way .Once we have a properly designed system,changes to it would become easier in the long run & more important the side effects would be better understood.It would help every one in the long run including pensioners(since it would be easy to administer)
    The Services also need to give more importance to their data & try to keep it one place which would enable quick decisions & deal with the political class in a better way
    Sad to say we have gone with the same mind set in creating ECHS with out a proper design & is functioning with all faulty data(due to manual reporting ) & processes which has made the system opaque resulting in shocks to the patient(as that happened to many Bangalore patients who were refused treatments by empaneled hospitals.I am also aware that due to your efforts the issues get resolved some what)
    Another question that comes to mind "Are the civilians more smarter than us that they thought of NFU (with out us even knowing about it)& implemented it before we could even get the OROP sanctioned "
    Our slips are showing too much & we need to redeem the situation & that would come when the best brains are allowed to reach the top echelons of the pyramid & more important they are groomed in all matters relevant to the military
    Time starts now:)

  4. @Venkatesh VT: "..proposals with are sound.."; I agree with the view that there is a need to focus on issues that have been clearly identified and listed.

    What I have observed is there is a tendency by stake holders to forget about what is already on-going and launch new campaigns or online tirades for something new.

    The invaluable information generated by the RTI campaign on this blog serves so many related petitions and litigation. Similarly, the RDOA blog had listed out in great detail the issues that needed to be addressed, in addition to the rank-pay case or matters in conjunction with it. Unfortunately, developments on the initiatives undertaken by RDOA are not now available for all stake-holders for inspiration or joining of efforts, but the fact remains that existing issues are well known.

    The constant addition of newer issues deflects from efforts to keep a track of which authority, be it Services HQs or MOD or the political class is doing about unresolved issues. It is a sort of mechanism, intended or un-intended, that tends to bury unearthed facts and issues with the dirt of fresh digging on newer things.

    For instance, has there been any concrete discussion or fact-finding about where the OROP matter stands at present? There are just rumors that Hon'ble RM said this, that or the other. I think NFU is yet another issue that is likely to follow the same pattern.

  5. Sir,

    Pl ignore the comments of an individual named pka71 on the chatroll. I wanted to comment on the chatroll but unfortunately unable to do so. The person is definitely not from Inf but has been using the war cries of various regiments.

    We can pray to God to forgive him as he does not know what he is doing.



    1. I have read his posts on Chatroll.

      It is good to know that some one does wants me work harder to make him understand the issues at hand.

      Like Aerial View is not a pseudonym but the name of the blog. My profile includes all particulars.

      Three updates on NFU provided as replies to RTI requests (08 Oct 13, 30 Dec 13 and 09 Sep 14) did not mention that Services HQ had refused to implement it.

      In fact it has been adjudged a complex issue by Committee of Secretaries.

  6. I opted out of the chatroll long ago as it seemed to contribute very little to the subjects covered in the Military Benefits blog. Sometimes the "chats" seemed to be working overtime to tarnish the lustre of the main blog.

    Other than making repeat posts of news links not related to any "military benefit" or constantly harping on old views, most chatters there had little to offer.

    It is much better to discuss subjects in regulated chat rooms where Admins can ensure some rational exchanges.

  7. @corona8 I don't know if opting out of chatroll was best decision. It can be useful for exchanging information. But I do agree sometimes the exchanges do not really serve to enhance the blog of Maj Navdeep, as I had stated here