Grant
of Non Functional Upgradation (NFU)
to Defence Service Officers
6.2.33. In the Joint Services
Memorandum, the Defence Services have pointed out that the VI CPC, in its
Report, extended Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Organised Group ‘A’ Services. Such
benefit was however not granted to the Defence Service Officers, which, in
their view is an anomaly. It has been pointed out by the Defence Services that
the grant of NFU to Organised Group ‘A’ Services in Ministry of Defence which
operate alongside the defence forces like MES, Border Road Organisation, and Survey of India
etc. has created command, control and functional problems.
Analysis and Recommendations
6.2.34. The deliberations in the context of
whether NFU, presently available to Organised Group ‘A’ services, should be
allowed to continue or not have been elaborated in Chapter 7.3. The aspect of
grant of Non-functional upgradation to officers of the Defence Forces was also
discussed at length. After considering the various aspects the Chairman felt
that NFU should be allowed to continue since it has existed for the last 10
years and is being availed by all the Organised Group ‘A’ Services. Therefore
the Chairman did not propose to abolish it.
6.2.35. Further, with a view to ameliorate the
difficulties faced by the officers owing to stagnation at various levels, the
Chairman felt that NFU should be extended to the officers of
the Defence Forces and CAPFs (including ICG) as well. The manner in which NFU
is to be regulated in the Defence Forces is discussed in Chapter 11.22.
6.2.36. Shri Vivek Rae and Dr. Rathin Roy, Members,
Seventh CPC, have not agreed with the views of the Chairman. They are of the
considered view that NFU till SAG and HAG level, granted to Organised Group ‘A’
Services, should be withdrawn. They have also not supported
extension of NFU to Defence Forces and CAPFs, including ICG. The rationale for their views has been elaborated
in paras 7.3.29 and 7.3.30 of the Chapter 7.3 on Central Services, Group ‘A’
and is not being repeated here.
Non-functional
Upgradation
7.3.18 To address the wide disparity existing
between the promotional avenue available to different Organised Group `A’
Services and to bring about some sort of “modified parity” between the IAS and
other Central Group` A’ Service the VI CPC had recommended the grant of higher
pay scale on non-functional basis to officers belonging to batches of Organised
Group `A’ Services which were senior by two years as compared to the batch of
IAS empanelled at the Centre. As per extant orders, whenever an IAS Officer of
any state is posted to the centre to a particular grade carrying a specific
grade pay in Pay Band 3 or Pay Band 4, the officers belonging to batches of the
Organised Group `A’ Services that are senior by two years or more and have not
so far been promoted to that particular grade would be granted the same grade
on non-functional basis from the date of posting of the IAS Officer in that
particular grade at the Centre. Such upgradation is not vacancy–linked and the
benefit in pay is purely personal to the officer.
7.3.19. While this has no doubt afforded a limited
quantum financial upgradation, and a few attendant benefits by way of
entitlement to a higher type of house etc., such non-functional upgradation
does not bestow any right to the officer to claim promotion or deputation
benefits. However, what was seen as a partial curative measure, with the
expectation that the real issue would be addressed through better management of
the various cadres, has not really come about. Instead the situation is that
the demand for grant of NFU has now become a wider chorus, with officers of the
Defence forces and the CAPFs also claiming a like benefit. The demands of the
CAPFs and the Defence forces have been discussed in detail in Chapters 11.22 and
6.2 respectively.
7.3.20. The issue with regard to the grant of NFU
was deliberated in the Commission. The issue was whether NFU presently
available to Organised Group `A’ Services should be allowed to continue or not
and whether it should be extended to the Defence forces and CAPFs or not.
7.3.21. After considering various aspects,
especially the difficulties faced by the officers owing to stagnation at
various levels, the Chairman is of the considered opinion that NFU should be
allowed to continue. Since NFU has been in existence for the last ten years and
is being availed by all the Organised Group `A’ Services,
there is no reason to abolish it. The same will be available not only to all
Organised Central Group `A’
Services
but also members of CAPFs and Defence forces on the basis of respective
residency periods.
7.3.22. The NFU should be subject to the completion of the
prescribed residency period in the preceding substantive grade and not linked
to the promotion of an IAS batch. All the prescribed
eligibility criteria and promotional norms including ‘benchmark’ for
upgradation to a particular level would have to be met at the time of grant of
NFU. A screening committee chaired by the Secretary of the Ministry concerned
would oversee the implementation of NFU. The Committee would consist of three
members of at least one level above the level for which upgradation is being
considered. These orders are currently also in existence.
7.3.23. On grant of NFU, the pay fixation of the officer concerned
will happen through a two-stage process:
Step 1: Initially one increment to be added to the existing
pay, which takes the person on to the next cell in the current level in which
he/she resides.
Step 2: The figure closest to this amount is to be located
in the next promotional level and the pay fixed in that step. No fixation in pay will take place when the substantive promotion is
earned in that level subsequently.
7.3.24. Further, to ameliorate the stagnation
in various services, the Chairman recommends that officers drawing NFU would
also be eligible to apply for deputation posts in the higher grade through
empanelment in the Central Staffing Scheme as well as to posts outside the
Central Staffing Scheme.
7.3.25 Shri.Vivek Rae, and Dr.Rathin Roy,
Members, Seventh CPC have not agreed with the view of the Chairman. Shri Vivek
Rae has elaborated the case for withdrawal of NFU from Organised Group `A’ Services as
below:
a) “In order to address the wide disparity in career progression across
different Organised Group `A’ Services (Central Services) and to bring about some parity between the
IAS and Organised Group `A’ Services, the VI CPC had recommended grant of a higher pay scale on
non-functional (NFU) basis as per details brought out in para 7.3.18. NFU is
presently available to IPS, IFoS and Organised Group `A’ Services
till SAG and HAG level after a gap of two years compared to an IAS officer of the
same batch who is posted at the Centre at the SAG or HAG level. The Chairman, Seventh
CPC has proposed to dilute these provisions
by linking NFU with “residency” period and
removing the two year gap vis-à-vis IAS officers. The Chairman, Seventh CPC has
also proposed to extend the NFU dispensation to Defence Forces and CAPFs.
b) After considering the matter
carefully, the undersigned is of the view is that instead of further relaxing
provisions relating to NFU and expanding the scope, NFU dispensation approved
by the Government of India pursuant to recommendations of the VI CPC needs to
be withdrawn for the following reasons: In the normal course, career progression
in a cadre or service depends on the functions assigned to the service, which
in turn dictates the shape of the organization structure, including the
steepness of the pyramid. “An organisation
is a set of roles graded in authority,” and
as the saying goes, “Form follows Function.” Some services have a large base and a steep pyramid, as is the case
with the Defence Forces, the CAPFs and some of the slow moving Organised Group
`A’ Services, especially
the Technical and Engineering services. There are other Group `A’ Services
which have a high level interface with stakeholders and, therefore, enjoy more
rapid career progression in view of a larger number of posts available at SAG
level and above. Such services include the Indian Foreign Service. A cursory
look at the list of 49 Organised Group `A’ Services indicates the wide
variety of roles and responsibilities envisaged for these services, ranging
from the Indian Foreign Service, the Indian Postal Service, the five Accounts
services, Indian Revenue Service (IT), the thirteen Engineering services under
the Railways, CPWD, Telecom, Power, Water and Defence Forces, the Indian Naval
Armament Service, Central Architect Service, Indian Inspection Service, Indian
Ordinance Factories Service, three Health Services, Geological Survey of India,
Defence Aeronautical Quality Assurance Service, Defence Quality Assurance
Service, Survey of India, Group `A’
Service, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service
and Central Labour Service (illustrative list). To strive for uniform career
progression across such a diverse set of services and cadres, with widely
varying functions, violates fundamental management principles relating to
organisational structures. Such a dispensation, with automatic career
progression till HAG level, completely buries the concept of merit based career
progression and undermines considerations of efficiency and accountability. In
effect, the present policy dispensation converts already weak organizational
pyramids in Organised Group `A’ Services into broad cylinders, when in fact, considerations of efficiency
and accountability require that the existing cylinders be converted into steeper
pyramids.
c) Linking career progression in
all Organised Group `A’ Services and IPS/IFoS with IAS is based on highly fallacious notions of
parity and fair play. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court has pointed out in Mohan Kumar Singhania versus Union of India
and others in the judgement delivered on 13 September, 1991, “the selection for IAS, IFS and IPS, Group
`A’ services and Group `B’ services are made by a combined
competitive examination and viva-voce test. There cannot be any dispute that
each service is a distinct and separate cadre, having its separate field of
operation, with different status, prospects, pay scales, the nature of duties,
the responsibilities to the post and conditions of service, etc. Therefore,
once a candidate is selected and appointed to a particular cadre, he cannot be
allowed to say that he is at par with others on the ground that all of them
were selected by a combined competitive examination and viva-voce test and that
the qualifications prescribed are comparable. In our considered view, the classification
of the present case is not based on artificial inequalities but is hedged within
the salient features and truly founded on substantial differences. Judged from this
point of view, it seems to us, impossible to accept the submission that the classification
rests on an unreal and unreasonable basis and that it is arbitrary and absurd.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out the
position with great force and clarity.
Seeking uniform career progression for all Organised Group `A’ Services
and IPS/ IFoS on par with IAS on grounds of parity and equal treatment is,
therefore, simply not tenable. Seeking uniform career progression even among
Organised Group `A’ Services till the highest levels in the hierarchy is also not tenable.
The principle of “equality of
opportunity” cannot be stretched to mean “equality of outcomes.”
d) Prior to the VI CPC, the
scheme for time bound promotion was broadly uniform across All India services,
Organised Group `A’ Services and the Defence Forces in that three time bound promotions
were available at Senior Time Scale, Junior Administrative Grade and Selection
Grade in the first 13 years of service. Officers of the All India Services and
Organised Group `A’ Services reached the selection grade (GP-8700) in 13 years while the
equivalent progression in the Defence Forces was till the level of Lt. Col.
(GP-8000) in 13 years. Officers in the Defence Forces were able to reach GP-8700 in the rank of Col. (Selection Scale) in 15
years (“residency” period) with the remaining
Lt. Cols. reaching the Col. (Time Scale) in 26 years. (It may be noted that complete
parity between the Defence Forces and civil services has never been possible because
of the steep rank structure and additional ranks in the officer cadre in the Defence
Forces).
e) All promotions beyond GP-8700
in the Defence Forces and the civil services to higher levels were subject to
availability of vacancies in the respective cadre. This broad parity was
disturbed by granting NFU to IPS, IFoS and Organised Group `A’ Services after
the VI CPC report, without a similar dispensation being extended to the Defence
Forces. Consequently, the Defence Forces officers, who are in no way lower in
status or responsibility than Group `A’ Central Services, though not
classified as such, have fallen steeply behind IPS/IFoS and 49 Organised Group
`A’ Services.
This has undermined the status and morale of the Defence Forces and has been a
matter of serious concern for them over the last decade. As the Defence Forces
have pointed out in their joint service memorandum (JSM), the Defence Forces
face an acute problem of stagnation because of their rank structure, and if there was a case for NFU at SAG and
HAG level, it should have been given to the Defence Forces before anybody else.
In fact, the policy out-come was the reverse, whereby the less disadvantaged
Organised Group `A’ Services reaped the maximum benefit on
untenable grounds of parity withIAS. The undersigned agrees with the view that
exclusion of Defence forces from NFU has been unfair. The gap between career
progression in the Defence forces in comparison with 49 Organised Group ‘A’ Services and IPS/IFoS, which was
already large, has been stretched beyond reasonable limits (emphasis supplied by
Aerial View).
f) In their JSM, the Defence
Forces have asked that NFU be extended to Defence service officers,
mutatis-mutandis. Prior to extension of NFU to Defence Forces, they have suggested
that the Grade pay of officers be revised as under:
|
S. No
|
Rank
|
Existing Grade pay (₹)
|
Proposed Grade pay
(₹)
|
|
1
|
Lieutenant
|
5400
|
5400
|
|
2
|
Captain
|
6100
|
6600
|
|
3
|
Major
|
6600
|
7600
|
|
4
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
8000
|
87000
|
|
5
|
Colonel
|
8700
|
9000
|
|
6
|
Brigadier
|
8900
|
9500
|
[Spelling mistakes corrected by Aerial View]
g) The matter regarding higher
grade pay for Defence Forces officers has been examined and it has not been
possible to agree to the demand for higher grade pay, as elaborated in Chapter
6.2. Consequently, the grant of NFU cannot be considered, mutatis mutandis. In
their supplementary memorandum, the Defence Forces have further recommended
that the grade pay for Defence Forces officers be determined by delinking it
from rank and linking it with the length of service. Defence Forces have pointed
out that beyond the rank of Col., due to adverse cadre ratio, Defence Forces officers
attain higher grade pay much later than their civilian counterparts. For example,
Defence Forces officers get the GP 10,000/- (Joint Secretary/SAG) at 32 years of
service (0.60 percent officers get this) as against 18-20 years of service in
respect of IAS and Organised Group `A’ Services (100 percent officers get this). Majority of Defence Forces
officers retire at much lower grade pay compared to their civilian counterparts.
They have accordingly proposed that a Defence Forces officer should get the
same grade pay as the civil service officer gets for the same length of
service. This would imply grant of SAG scale for the same batch of Defence
Forces officers on par with Organised Group `A’ Services,
in the same time duration (i.e 18-20 years).
h) The Defence Forces have
stated that they fully meet the attributes of an Organised Group `A’ Service,
promulgated by DoPT, and there is no basis for denying them NFU simply on the
ground that they are not classified as an Organised Group `A’ Service.
i) The Defence Forces have also
highlighted that they have lost status in a multi-cadre involvement with
respect to the following Organised Group `A’ Services
with whom the Defence Forces have a close interface (officers of Defence Forces
are also deputed to these organizations):
i. Indian Naval Armament
Service;
ii. Indian Ordnance Factories
Service;
iii. Indian Defence Service of
Engineers (MES);
iv. Defence Aeronautical Quality
Assurance Service;
v. Defence Quality Assurance
Service;
vi. Defence Research and
Development Service
vii. Survey of India Group `A’ Service
viii. Border Roads Organization.
j) Defence Forces have further
pointed out that while they have time bound promotion till GP 8700 (Colonel),
the glaring difference with the civil services is that the Col. Rank (Selection
grade) (GP-8700) is achieved at 16-21 years of service (even though “residency” period is 15 years) while Colonel (time scale) reaches this in 26 years. In comparison, officers of
Organised Group `A’ Services reach GP 8700 in half the time i.e., 13 years. The pyramid is
much steeper in the Defence services at higher levels.
k) The proposal of the Defence
Forces to delink grant of NFU from rank and link it with length of service can
be considered in several ways:-
i. Option-I: If NFU is granted to Defence Forces officers on par with Organised Group
`A’ Services,
it would imply sanctioning SAG scale to all Defence Forces officers of a
particular batch in the same timeframe as available for officers of Organised
Group `A’ Services.
Consequently, all Defence Forces officers of each batch would get SAG scale in
about 18-20 years, regardless of the “residency”
period for SAG scale. It is only in this manner that
full parity can be established between the Defence Forces and Organised Group
`A’ Services. However,
this would imply that officers of Lieutenant Colonel rank with 13 years of
service and Colonel rank (selection scale) with 15 years of service would get
SAG scale in 18-20 years, thereby resulting in a triple promotion for Lieutenant
Colonels and a double promotion for Colonels(Selection scale). The principle of
merit based selection for Colonel (Selection scale) and also for higher levels
would also be undermined. This would wreak havoc with the rank structure in the
Defence Forces and is clearly not a tenable proposition. In no organisation can
pay be delinked completely from rank.
ii. Other options: The other options available will not serve to bring Defence Forces
officers on par with Organised Group `A’ Services. For instance, if grant of NFU is linked with “residency” period,
(i.e) qualifying service in the next lower post, then Lieutenant Colonels (time
scale) would get Colonel’s scale in 26
years, as they presently do. They would not be eligible for Brigadier’s scale
since only Colonel (selection scale) is eligible for promotion as Brigadier, a
position for which Lieutenant Colonel (time scale) has not been found fit. All
Colonels (selection scale) would be eligible for pay scale of Brigadier after
23 years on completion of the “residency” period. This would obliterate the distinction between Colonels selected for the
rank of Brigadier on substantive basis from Colonels overlooked, and would
undermine the principle of merit based progression in the armed forces. Similarly,
all Brigadiers would get SAG scale in 25 years after completion of the “residency” period, while only a select few would
pick up the rank of Major General in about 32
years. This would again undermine merit based promotions in the Defence Forces,
and create a false sense of parity based on pay scales. From the above, it is
evident that the earliest a Defence Forces officer can get SAG scale is in 26
years (that too for a select few) compared to 18-20 years in Organised Group `A’ Services
(sought to be further reduced to 17 years). Grant of NFU to Defence Forces officers, keeping in view the rank
structure and “residency” period would, therefore,
continue to perpetuate the disparity between Defence Forces officers and Organised
Group `A’ Services.
This disparity can never be bridged unless option-I is considered. The same
logic applies to CAPFs.
l) The special problems that the
Defence Forces face with regard to the eight Organised Group `A’ Services,
with whom they have a close interface, also cannot be resolved under the
existing NFU dispensation. At the same time, the dissonance between the Defence
Forces and these 8 Organised Group `A’ Services, as well as the adverse impact on command and control, is
clearly an undesirable and unacceptable outcome which has lowered the morale
and status of Defence Forces officers. Such a situation cannot be allowed to
continue. The only way in which some semblance of parity can be restored is by
withdrawing NFU from Organised Group `A’ Services.
m) It is clear that the idea of linking NFU for the
Defence forces with the “residency” period does
not bring the Defence forces on par with Organised Group `A’ Services. Even otherwise, the idea of linking NFU with the
“residency” period is untenable. In the case of CRPF (CAPF), the “residency” period
for IG scale is 24 years. On this basis,
officers in CAPFs will pick up the SAG scale in 24 years as compared to 25
years for Defence Forces. In the case of IAS/ IPS/IFoS, the residency period
for SAG scale is 16 years/ 18 years/18 years. For HAG scale the residency
period is 25 years. In the case of Organised Group `A’ Services,
the residency period is 17 years for SAG scale, 20 years for HAG scale, 21
years for HAG+ scale and 22 years for Apex scale, as per DoPT O.M. dated 12
March, 2010. Consequently, an officer in a fast moving Organised Group `A’ Service
could well get HAG scale in 20 years compared to 25 years for IAS/IPS/IFoS.
Since empanelment under CSS is proposed to be linked with “residency” period, officers of fast moving Organised Group `A’ Services could also claim to be empanelled at HAG level in 20 years.
None of the above outcomes is acceptable on the basis of well established
relativities of the civil service structure. The basis for fixing “residency” period is arbitrary across
services, and bears no relationship with actual career
progression in different services. Even otherwise, the “residency” period only indicates the minimum
qualifying service required to move to the
next level. It can by no means be construed to be an automatic trigger for
moving to the next level. The concept of “residency”
period therefore cannot provide a valid basis
for grant of NFU.
n) The main impact of NFU on
Organised Group `A’ Services has been accelerated financial progression by delinking pay
scale from rank. The case for this accelerated financial progression beyond the
level of NFSG (Director) is weak, considering that Director level functionaries
across all services, including the Defence Services and CAPFs, were the biggest
gainers from the pay hike announced by GoI after submission of the VI CPC
report. Director level functionaries received a pay hike of 56.3 percent compared
to Deputy Secretary (16.4%) and Joint Secretary (7.5%). This was a veritable
bonanza awarded by GoI at the Director level (GP-8700). In addition, GoI sanctioned
a liberal regime for increments at the rate of 3 percent per annum (compounded)
within expanded pay bands. This regime enables Director level functionaries to
reach the SAG scale through passage of time, even if they do not get any
further promotion. In this situation, there was no case for further financial upgradation
in a time bound manner through NFU, till the level of SAG and HAG (emphasis by Aerial View).
o) In the view of the
undersigned, it was a mistake to grant
NFU to 49 Organised Group `A’ Services, IPS and IFoS till HAG level
on untenable grounds of parity with IAS. Exclusion of Defence forces
and CAPFs only aggravated the mistake. This mistake will be further
aggravated by extending NFU to Defence forces and CAPFs as proposed by Chairman,
Seventh CPC in para 7.3.21. The domino effect of such a dispensation on unorganised
Group `A’ Services,
Group `B’ Services
and Group `C’ Services would follow, with demands for NFU already being raised by
some of these groups. Further, it would not be long before the last bastion
(i.e.,) Apex scale is breached by the NFU juggernaut on grounds of parity with
the IAS. This would certainly merit
mention as a world record for career progression in government bureaucracies
(emphasis by
Aerial View).
p) The rationale for rejecting
grant of NFU till SAG and HAG level to Defence Forces has been explained by Ministry of Defence as:
“The
issue was examined in the Ministry by a
Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary. The Committee in its report which was
accepted by the government has noted that the service conditions of Defence Forces
are quite different from those of civilian employees. Benefits in the form of Military
Service Pay and various allowances are also available to the Defence Forces officers
which are not available to civilian officers. It is, therefore, not logical to compare
the earnings of two services. Further, Defence Forces officers are covered by a
separate time bound promotion scheme upto the level of Colonel. The scheme of
non-functional upgradation is applicable only for Organised Group `A’ Services
and was extended to IPS/IFS. The requirements related to command and control,
the norms for recruitment, promotion and the rank structure of the Defence Forces
are not identical to those of Group
`A’ cadres. The average age of entry of Commissioned
Officers is lower than that of those joining Group `A’ Services.
In view of the above, the Committee did
not make any recommendation on this issue.”
The above rationale applies equally to 49 Organised Group `A’ Services
who have been extended NFU. The requirements related to command and control,
the norms for recruitment, promotion and the rank structure in the 49 Organised
Group `A’ Services can
vary widely, depending on the functions performed by each service. These 49 Organised
Group `A’ Services
simply cannot be painted with the same brush. The rationale for rejection of
NFU for Defence Forces, therefore, applies equally to the 49 Organised Group `A’ Services.
Further, the average age of entry has no bearing on this matter since the vast
majority of officers of Defence Forces also retire much earlier (emphasis by Aerial View).
q) After careful consideration
of the matter and evaluation of various options, the undersigned is of the view
that NFU at SAG and HAG levels should be withdrawn from all Organised Group `A’ Services
and the status quo ante prevailing prior to the VI CPC restored. All promotions
beyond NFSG (Director) level (Grade pay 8700) should be based on availability
of vacancies and there should be no non-functional upgradation in any service
beyond this level. Each service must progress as per its cadre structure and
senior level positions and pay scales should not be available to everybody as a
matter of course. Cadre reviews should be undertaken in respect of services
which face slow career progression beyond NFSG level, and the problem addressed
through better cadre management. In no organisation can pay be delinked completely
from rank, with officers claiming entitlement to the highest pay scales without
occupying the corresponding rank.
r) At best, Housing and Travel
entitlements at SAG level should be given across the board to all services
including Defence forces, CAPFs and unorganised Group `A’ Services, on
completion of 25 years of service, in case SAG scale has not been granted on substantive
basis by then. This will provide some relief to slow moving services like the Defence
forces, CAPFs, and Technical Group
`A’ Services, which are the most disadvantaged because
of their steep pyramidal structures. Existing beneficiaries under the
prevailing NFU dispensation may be allowed to avail the higher entitlements to Housing and Travel on a “personal” basis. Their
salary may be fixed in the new pay matrix as per the relevant “fitment” factor (to
ensure pay protection), but in replacement
scales equivalent to scales they were drawing prior to grant of NFU. The other
option is to give replacement scales based on NFU scales. GoI may take a view in
the matter, as appropriate.”
7.3.26 Dr. Rathin Roy, Member, Seventh CPC has further elaborated
the case for withdrawal of NFU as below:
a. In para 7.3.6 of the Chapter 7.3, the
Commission noted that “there is pervasive feeling of inequity which is leading
up to a sense of disenchantment.” To address this, a number of recommendations
have been made by different Central Service Group `A’ associations on pay,
career progression, employment etc. One of these pertains to Non- Functional
Upgrade (NFU). The Chairman’s views on the subject have been recorded in
paragraphs 7.3.21 to 7.3.24.
b. I, along with my colleague Mr. Vivek Rae, am in
dissent with this view. While in complete agreement with his views on the
matter, I wish to make the following additional observations to clarify the
reasons for my dissent:
1. “The Group-A Central Service officers as well as All India Service
Officers are recruited at an entry level which corresponds to junior
management. Through efflux of time, in 13 years, all officers so recruited who
fulfil minimum performance and ethical standards and maintain discipline are
guaranteed promotion to a level equivalent to the substantive rank of Director
in the Government of India. Such time-bound and speedy career progression to
upper middle management grade is extremely rare, if not unique, in Civil
Services worldwide.
2. Over and above this rapid
promotion, all Central Service Group-A officers are presently entitled to the
same pay and allowances that a Joint Secretary to Government of India is
entitled to, within two years of the substantive attainment of that rank at the
centre by an officer of the IAS through NFU. The Chairman proposes to further
extend this NFU from the senior administrative grade to the higher
administrative grade for officers who put in requisite number of years. In practice,
this would mean that all officers who have joined government sufficiently early
would secure non substantive pay and allowances equivalent to the current HAG
grade.
3. In my opinion the granting of
NFU at the upper middle and upper levels of the civil service is detrimental to
both efficiency and incentive based career progression. It is right and appropriate, as in the case of Armed Forces, that some
pyramidal structure be maintained so that the pay and allowances drawn by officers
are accorded for occupying a substantively higher level of responsibility.
Selection for higher levels necessarily needs to be merit based, not seniority
based. The NFU concept completely negates this (emphasis by Aerial View).
4. Most Group `A’ Central
Services are already highly cylindrical in nature and therefore it is not the
case that there exist limited opportunities to aspire to substantive promotions
to HAG grade within these services. In any case, the appropriate instrument to
design a career structure, and to allow for suitable career progression
opportunities at the senior level consistent with the needs of the jobs done by
different Group-A personnel, is the cadre review mechanism on which this report
has deliberated at some length.
5. Common recruitment for
different services does not mean an automatic entitlement to equity in career
progression. In my view, there is no automatic entitlement or benchmarking of
promotions in any specific service relative to any other service, whether Group-A
Central Service or All India Services. If the above principle were not
maintained, then in the interest of equity, it would be unacceptable to apply different
principles to the Civil Services, Armed Forces, CAPFs and other Central paramilitary
organisations. Indeed, the consequence
of the Chairman’s recommendation is the automatic
extension of the NFU to these branches of government as well. I strongly feel
that this would be hugely detrimental to the efficiency of government and to
improving the effectiveness and accountability of a system which is already
facing severe challenges on this score, not least at the senior level. Since I
agree with the principle of equality elaborated by the Chairman in paragraph
7.3.21, I cannot also support the continuity of the existing NFU for Group `A’ Central
Services.
6. Based on this reasoning I
join the dissent of my colleague Mr. Vivek Rae and recommend that NFU at the
Group `A’ level be
completely done away with. 7. Given the relatively lower grade of entry at the
Group `B’, and `C’ levels and limited
opportunities for substantive promotions, I would like to emphasise that non-functional
career progression opportunities like MACP and other systems recommended in
this report be continued and this dissent be read as applied solely to Group `A’ Central
Services officers, All India Services officers and officer cadres in the Armed
Forces, CAPFs and paramilitary organisations.”
* * * * * *
