MODEF/R/2014/62150
dated 20 Nov 14
Background Notes for
Cabinet Secretary Committee
Online RTI Request Form Details
Public Authority Details:-
*
Public Authority Department of Defence
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-
Deleted
by author
Request Details:-
* Description of Information Sought
Please provide me copy of
MoD ID dated 17.7.2012 which is at Encl 10-A of File No.
22(4)/2012-D(Pay/Services).
Please
also refer to Para 2 of notes 74 and 75 of the
ibid MoD file for clarity, if any, required.
*
Reply dated 08 Dec 14
received by Speed Post on 12 Dec 12
By Speed Post
RTI Matter
No. 35 (1)/2013/D
(Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 08 December 2014
To
-----------
Subject: Seeking information under RTI
Act – 2005.
Sir,
Reference is invited to MoD ID No.
MODEF/R/2014(62150) dated 20.11.2014 (received in this section on 24.11.2014)
forwarding your application dated 19.11.2014 on the above subject.
2. As desired, a copy of MoD ID No.
22(4)/2012 – D (Pay/Services) dated 17.7.2012 alongwith its enclosures is sent
herewith (9 pages).
3. The
Appellate Authority is Shri Pradeep Kumar, Director (AG-I), Ministry of
Defence, Room No. 102, Sena Bhawan, New
Delhi.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-------------
8/12/14
(V. N. Raveendran)
Under Secretary & CPIO
Encl:
as above (9 pages)
(10/A)
Ministry of Defence
D (Pay/Services)
Sub: Constitution of a
Committee under the chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary to look into pay and
pension related issues of relevance to Defence services personnel and
ex-servicemen.
Ref: Cabinet Secretariat’s Order No.
213//2/3/2012-CA.IV dated 13th July, 2012
Background
notes on the individual points for the meeting on 18th July, 2012 at
3.30 p.m. are forwarded herewith.
Sd/--------------
(Naveen Kumar)
Director (AG)
Tel No. 23014036
Encl:
As above
Cabinet Secretariat (Attn: Sh. L. C. Goyal, Additional Secretary)
Ministry
of Defence I. D. No. 22/4/2012 dated 17th
July, 2012
Copy
(with enclosure) to:
(i) Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister
(ii) Defence Secretary
(iii) Secretary, D/o Expenditure
(iv) Secretary, D/o Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare
(v) Secretary, D/o Personnel & Training
(vi) Mrs Ajanta Dayalan, Addl Secy, Cab Sectt
with 7 copies of the Background Notes
(vii) Secretary, D/o AR & PG
Background Note
Common Pay Scales for in-service JCOs/ORs
Background: Prior to VI CPC, JCOs/ORs
(collectively referred to as PBORs) in Defence Forces were placed in three
different groups depending upon the trade groups that represented different
educational, technical and skill requirements. Different pay scales were
admissible to similar trade groups in different Services. The Services in their
Joint Memorandum submitted to VI CPC proposed a common set of pay scales for
PBORs of three wings of Defence Forces. The Pay Commission accepted the demand
and granted common pay scales to PBORs within three Services recruited post
1.1.2006. The Commission also reduced the three Trade Groups (X, Y, and Z) to
two (X and Y) by merging Z Group in Y Group. In order to maintain the edge
enjoyed by Group ‘X’, the Pay Commission recommended grant of an additional
element of Group ‘X’ Pay of Rs 1400/- p.m. This changeover has resulted to (sic) two categories of PBORs i.e. one
prior to 1.1.2006 at separate pay scales and other post 1.1.2006 at common pay
scale as granted by VI CPC. It is noticed that in some cases pay of pre-2006
senior ranks in Y Group has been lowered to junior rank in X Group who are in
receipt of an additional element of Rs 1400 (Group ‘X’ Pay) which goes contrary
to the stand taken by VI CPC (Para 2.3.25). An example is given below: -
Rank & Group
|
Stage in the pre-revised scale
|
Initial fixation
|
Grade Pay
|
MSP
|
‘X’ group Pay
|
Total revised pay
|
Difference in initial fixation
|
Hav
‘Y’ Group
|
3700
|
7050
|
2800
|
2000
|
0
|
11850
|
-
600
|
Sep
‘X’ Group
|
3670
|
7050
|
2000
|
2000
|
1400
|
12450
|
Demand: The
Services demand that common pay scales be also made applicable to all
in-service JCOs/Ors of three Services. The Services have suggested that all
in-service PBORs of ‘Y’ Group and erstwhile ‘Z’ group be first upgraded to the
bext of ‘X’ Group scales for each rank and then the upgraded common pay scale
be implemented by VI CPC factor of 1.86 to arrive at new replacement scales in
PB-1 and PB-2. They have also recommended
a Table of new scales in this regard which is as under: -
Rank
|
Existing ‘Y’ scale
Army/Navy/Air Force
|
Upgraded scale
(best of ‘X’ Group)
|
Corresponding new
pay band as per fixation table SAI/SAFI/SNI 1/S/08
(1.86 multiple
|
Sep/AC/Seaman
II
|
3250/3250/3325
|
3675
|
6840
|
LAC/Seaman
I
|
3650/3650
|
4025-60-4925
|
7490-9170
|
Nk/Cpl/Ldg
Seaman
|
3425/3900/3900
|
4150-70-5200
|
7720-9680
|
Hav/Sgt/PO
|
3600/4320/4320
|
5000-100-6500
|
9300-12090
|
Nb
Sub/JWO/CPO
|
5620/5620/5620
|
6000-125-8250
|
11160-15350
|
Sub/WO/MCPO
II
|
6600/6600/6600
|
6750-190-9790
|
12560-18210
|
Sub
Maj/MWO/MCPO.I
|
6750/6750/6750
|
7400-200-10200
|
13770-18980
|
Justification/Rationale given by
Services: VI CPC granted common pay scales
within three Services for JCOs/Ors recruited after 1.1.2006 but did not grant
the same to JCOs/Ors who were already in Service on 31.12.2005. This has
resulted in two categories/classes of JCOs/Ors i.e. one prior to 1.1.2006 with
separate pay scales and one post 1.1.2006 with common pay scales. This anomaly
can be addressed by upgrading all in-service JCOs/Ors of ‘Y’ and erstwhile ‘Z’
group to the best of ‘X’ group scales in each rank, as the edge enjoyed by ‘X’
Group JCOs/Ors over ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ groups has been compensated by VI CPC by
granting them additional Group ‘X’ pay of Rs 1400/- over and above their normal
fixation. Thereafter, the upgraded common scales can be multiplied by VI CPC
factor of 1.86 to arrive at new replacement scales in PB-1 and PB-2.
Views of MoD: This issue was recommended by the Ministry to the CoS in May
2008. While proposing decisions on CPC recommendations for Central Govt
employees, on certain department specific issues the Note for CoS stated such
issues may be considered by the concerned Ministries/Deptts after due
consultation with Ministry of Finance/DOP &T as the case may be. The matter
is under examination in the Ministry in consultation with Def (Finance).
The Pranab Mukherjee Committee
Report: This issue
was not considered by the Committee.
Financial Implications: Rs 1192
crores
Background Note
Initial pay fixation of Lt Col/Col and
Brigadier/equivalent
Background: Before VI CPC, Armed Forces Officers in the ranks from
Captain to Brigadier/equivalents were receiving Rank Pay in addition to their
basic pay. Rank Pay was part of basic pay. VI CPC recommended running pay bands
with grade pays on par with those recommended for civilian officers along with
Military Service Pay for all officers to the rank of Brigadier/equivalent in
Armed Forces.
Demand: The
Services have demanded that initial pay fixation of Lt Col, Col and Brig should
be done with reference to S-25 scale.
Justification/Rationale given by
Services: Analysis of the replacement scales
granted reveals the following: -
(a) Lt Col to Brig have been fixed lower than S-25 scales, whereas
VI CPC had recommended replacement scales at par with S-25 scales.
(b) Placing
Col/equivalent at Rs 40890 is one step lower than Rs 42120 granted to civilian
officer drawing Rs 17100 in the S-25 scale.
(c) In case of Brig replacement scale is lower even within S-24
scale. A civilian officer drawing Rs 1900 in S-24 scale has been granted
replacement scale of Rs 44700 whereas Brig has been granted only Rs 43390. This
is two increments lower than a civilian officer in the S-25 scale at Rs 19100
who has been granted a replacement scale of Rs 46050.
Accordingly it is demanded that initial pay fixation
of Lt Col/Col/Brig should be done with reference to S-25 scale – with
pre-revised starting scales of Lt Col/Col/Brig should given replacement scale
of Rs 39690, 42120 and 46050 respectively. Similar re-fixation of pay should be
done for equivalent officers in AMC/ADC/RVC after including DA on NPA.
Views of MoD: The Services have based their case on merger of Rank Pay with
basic pay before fixation of pay. Pay Commission in their report has
recommended running pay bands on par with those recommended for civilian
officers needs to be introduced in respect of Defence Forces as well. The pay
of officers in Defence Forces has been fixed in line with that of civilian
officers.
The Pranab Mukherjee Committee
Report: The basis of this demand, i.e. merger of
Rank Pay in basic pay was examined in a detailed manner by the Committee but
the same was not accepted.
Financial implications: Rs
34.48 crores
Background Note
Review and enhancement of Grade Pay
Background: As against individual pay
scales for different categories of personnel, the VI Central Pay Commission
recommended running pay bands with distinct grade pays (sic).
Demand: The
Services have stated that the VI CPC has not taken into account Rank Pay (which
was part of Basic Pay). They have demanded that Rank Pay may be defined in the
services Instructions stating that “Rank Pay forms part of Basic Pay” and other
relevant paras may accordingly be amended. Thus, Grade Pays (sic) may be re-fixed on the basis of pay
which includes Rank Pay. For other personnel, the grade pay should also be
similar to that granted to a civilian employee getting the same pre-revised
pay. The grade pays (sic) sought are
as under: -
S No.
|
JCOs/ORs
|
Amount of Grade Pay
|
Officers
|
Amount of Grade Pay
|
1
|
Havildar
|
Rs 4200
|
Lieutenant
|
Rs 6100
|
2
|
Naib Subedar
|
Rs 4600
|
Captain
|
Rs 6600
|
3
|
Subedar
|
Rs 4800
|
Major
|
Rs 7600
|
4
|
Subedar Major
|
Rs 5400
|
Lt Colonel
|
Rs 8700
|
5
|
-
|
-
|
Colonel
|
Rs 9000
|
6
|
-
|
-
|
Brigadier
|
Rs 9500
|
Justification/Rationale given by
Services: It is stated that while grade pay in
the case of civilian officers is higher than that granted to an officer in
Defence Forces who was earlier drawing more pay. As the grade pay determines
seniority of posts within one’s cadre and not between different cadres, it
cannot be ruled out that the different grade pays (sic) may be subjected to varied and incorrect interpretation by
different organizations in future.
View of MoD: The matter relating (to) revision of grade pay to officers was
examined in 2008 also. The Government after a long deliberation on the VI CPC
recommendations decided to increase Grade Pay of middle level Armed Forces
officers (except Lt/equ) thereby meeting the demand of the Services, but did not
accept its point on the issue of merger of Rank Pay in Basic Pay. Subsequently,
while examining draft Service Instructions for pay revision, Ministry of
Finance also did not approve the merger of Rank Pay with Basic Pay and observed
that pre-revised scale and Rank Pay should be shown distinctly in two separate
columns in pay fixation tables. Accordingly, the Service instructions were
issued.
The demand in case of PBORs was not part of the
issues/anomalies raised by the Services in 2009. However, the matter was raised
in 2011 and was not agreed to. The matter is being re-considered.
The Pranab Mukherjee Committee
Report: Not merging Rank Pay with Basic Pay was
upheld in the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report. It was also emphasized therein
that the Central Pay Commission are recommendatory authorities and final
decision of the pays called as well as parity between various levels/ranks of
civilian and Armed Forces officers is taken by Cabinet, and as such the Cabinet
decision is the final word on the subject.
Financial Implications: Rs 41 crores.
Background Note
Placing of all Lt Generals in HAG+ scale
Background: The upgradation of pay of Lt Gen/equivalent has been engaging
the attention of the Government since 1990s. This issue was rejected by the
Cabinet in November 1997. The matter was further examined by the Committees
post V CPC but no decision could be taken in the matter. The Services took up
this matter with VI Central Pay Commission seeking pay scale Rs 24050-650-26000
for Lt Gen/equivalent. However, the VI CPC did not make any recommendation on
this issue. The Government reconsidered the matter in April, 2009 and decided
to grant HAG+ scale (Rs 75500-80000) to 1/3rd of Lt Gens/equivalents
with effect from 1.1.2006.
Demand: The
Services have demanded that all Lt Gens/equivalents should be placed in HAG+
scale.
Justification/Rationale given by
Services: The Services have cited the
responsibilities of Lt Gen/equivalent in various capacities viz Chiefs of
Staff, Principal Staff Officers, Director Generals (Heads of Arms and
Services), Director General, Corps Commanders and Heads of training
Institutions.
Views of MoD: The upgradation of pay scales of Lt Gens/equivalents was not
agreed to by the Government before VI CPC. After VI CPC, the matter was
reconsidered in April, 2009 (and) it was decided to give higher pay scale (HAG+
scale) to 1/3rd of Lt Generals/equivalents. This was agreed to by
the then COAS. In the light of the above, the present demand of the Services
for grant of HAG+ scale to all Lt Generals/equivalents goes against the stand
taken by the Services in 2009.
The Pranab Mukherjee Committee
report: This issue was considered by
the Committee and it was stated that the COAS has already agreed to grant Army
Commanders scale (Apex scale – Rs 80, 000) on a non-functional basis to a
certain number of Lt General level officers. This should satisfy the Armed
forces. Lt Gens in Defence Forces are equated with Additional Secretaries on
the civilian side and prior to the VI CPC, both were in the scale of Rs
22400-24500. There is no comparison of Lt Gens with officers on the civilians
side as those in HAG+ scale had a higher pay scale of Rs 24050-26000 prior to
VI CPC. This relativity was not disturbed by the VI CPC and the CoS did not recommend
any change in the matter.
Financial implications: Rs 0.83 crore.
Background Note
Grant of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Armed Forces
personnel
Background: Non
functional upgradation is based on the recommendation of VI CPC. It provides an
opportunity to all organised Group ‘A’ Services to reach higher scales of pay,
two years after the same is granted to IAS officers at the Centre. Though the
Pay Commission recommendations have been extended to IPS, IFS, the same has not
been done for Defence Services. This benefit has also been extended to some
Group ‘A’ Services like MES, BRO, Survey of India etc who operate alongwith
Armed Forces in a supporting role.
Demand: The
Services have demanded that non functional upgradation be extended to Armed
Forces Officers.
Justification/Rationale given by
Services: The service conditions in Armed Forces
are more stringent and harsh as compared to those in other Organised Group ‘A’
Services. Armed Forces are stated to fulfil all attributes of Organised Group
‘A’ Services. Grant of Non Functional Upgradation to those operating alongwith
Armed Forces in a supporting role has created serious command and control and
functional problems.
View of MoD: The issue was examined in the Ministry and it was felt that the
service conditions of Armed Forces are quite different when compared to
civilian employees. Ample benefits in the form of Military Service Pay and
various allowances are available to the Armed Forces officers which are not
admissible to civilian employees. Therefore, it is not logical to compare the
earning of two services. Moreover, the Government orders are for organised
Group ‘A’ Service and Armed Forces do not have such set up.
The Pranab Mukherjee Committee
report: Though this particular issue was not
considered by the Committee, it was stated in the report that for functional
purposes, salary cannot be the basis to determine status.
Financial implications: Rs 69 crores.
* * * * * * *
Wow!This is India with babugiri at its best & COS seems to be in direct competition with the best of the babus.:(
ReplyDeleteI think even the serving may need RDOA very soon since Courts courts seem to be the only savior for a Service which has no union or lobbying power
On a random thought why are armed forces called "Services" since the word "services" has a poor connotation in the armed forces.
Only Army seem to be correctly named with a prefix of Arm :)
Please read COAS for COS in the post above :(
DeleteSir,
DeleteIt is CoS (Committee of Secretaries) and not COAS. Please do not confuse yourself and others.
You are hurting the intention of this blog to be of complete integrity.
"...it is not logical to compare the earning of two services..."
ReplyDeleteA damning proof of intransigence, hostility and capriciousness towards the armed forces built into the very texture of reasoning in certain sections of the Government.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for obtaining what the Service HQ had projected and what MoD thinks of the demands by the Services are.
I have a doubt.
Should the Service HQ asked for, in the 'Initial Pay Fixations' fixations in the scales of S-25, S-26 and S-27 respectively for Lt..Col,, Col., and Brig., instead of in S-25 Scale for all the thre ranks?
If pay fixation is asked for in one single scale for all the three ranks, the next demand, that is for 'Enhancement of Grade Pay' will not have the same force.
The central argument of Service HQ was that Rank Pay is to be merged with the Basic Pay.This could have been kept constant in all arguments .
The central issue, in my reckoning, is that pay for officers has once again been reduced by bringing in that impugned deduction of Rank Pay in another way. Given that the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the Rank Pay case of 08 Mar 10 was challenged and the judgment in IA No. 9 of 2010 came on 03 Sep 12, there may be reason to understand the same.
DeleteBut now that both the judgment as well as the opinion of the late AG is for restoration of Rank Pay, Services HQ need to take a swing for not deducting Rank Pay when the pay in the pay band for Lt Cols, Cols and Brigs & equivalents was "re-designed" by MoD/Def (Fin) in SAI 2/S/2008.
Dear Sir,
Delete<>
Thanks. That is the stand that is to be taken.
Thanks for the response.
Here the judge and the judged are the same person, bureaucrat.
ReplyDelete