Friday, 12 December 2014

Background Notes to Cabinet Secretary Committee - Reply to RTI application

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

          Subject: Seeking information under RTI Act – 2005.


          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,
(V. N. Raveendran)
Under Secretary & CPIO
Encl: as above (9 pages)

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.
(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
‘X’ group Pay
Total revised pay
Difference in initial fixation
Hav ‘Y’ Group

- 600
Sep ‘X’ Group

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: -

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
LAC/Seaman I
Nk/Cpl/Ldg Seaman

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.
Amount of Grade Pay
Amount of Grade Pay
Rs 4200
Rs 6100
Naib Subedar
Rs 4600
Rs 6600
Rs 4800
Rs 7600
Subedar Major
Rs 5400
Lt Colonel
Rs 8700
Rs 9000
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.   

*        *        *        *        *        *        *



  1. Wow!This is India with babugiri at its best & COS seems to be in direct competition with the best of the babus.:(
    I 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 :)

    1. Please read COAS for COS in the post above :(

    2. Sir,

      It 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.

  2. " is not logical to compare the earning of two services..."

    A damning proof of intransigence, hostility and capriciousness towards the armed forces built into the very texture of reasoning in certain sections of the Government.

  3. Dear Sir,
    Thank 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 .

    1. 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.

      But 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.

    2. Dear Sir,
      Thanks. That is the stand that is to be taken.
      Thanks for the response.

  4. Here the judge and the judged are the same person, bureaucrat.