[Received on 03 Dec 2015 vide MoD No.
237/RTI/D (P/P)/2014 dated 30 Nov 2015 alongwith CSC No. 9 of 30 Jun 2009]
Typed Copy
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ISSUES RELATED TO
DEFENCE SERVICE
PERSONNEL AND EX-SERVICEMEN
BACKGROUND
Vide orders dated 9th July, 2012
and 12th July, 2012, the Prime Minister constituted a Committee
headed by the Cabinet Secretary and consisting of Principal Secretary to PM,
Defence Secretary, Expenditure Secretary, Secretary (Personnel) and Secretary
(Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare) with the purpose of looking into and providing
suitable recommendations on the following issues of relevance to Defence Service
personnel and ex-servicemen:-
(i)
Issues relating to serving defence personnel and consisting of pay fixation
anomalies related to Sixth Central Pay Commission:
(a) Common pay scale for in-service JCOs/ORs,
(b) Initial pay fixation of Lt.
Colonel/Colonel and Brigadier/equivalent,
(c) Review and enhancement of grade pay,
(d) Placing of all Lt Generals in HAG+ scale,
(e) Grant of non-functional upgradation (NFU)
to armed forces personnel.
(ii) Issues relating to ex-servicemen and
consisting of pension related anomalies
(a) One rank one pension (OROP),
(b) Enhancement of family pension,
(c) Dual family pension, and
(d) Family pension to mentally/physically
challenged children of armed forces personnel on marriage.
1.
The Committee was asked to submit its recommendations within one month.
2.
The Committee held eight meetings to consider the various issues raised.
In the first meeting of the Committee, the Chief of Naval Staff and Chairman,
Chiefs of Staff Committee presented the various issues raised by the Defence
Services. In subsequent meetings, the individual issues raised on pension and
pay were discussed. The three Service Chiefs also interacted with the Committee
in its fifth meeting on 7th August, 2012. Secretary (Revenue) was
co-opted in the Committee and Secretary (Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare)
attended the meetings as a special invitee. The Home Secretary was also invited
to the eighth meeting of the Committee.
3.
At the outset, it would be relevant to mention that the Sixth Pay
Commission submitted its Report in March, 2008. Thereafter, Government has been
considering various issues raised by the Defence Services on pay and pension related
matters and making recommendations thereon. After the submission of the report
of the Sixth Pay Commission, Government set up a Committee of Secretaries under
the then Cabinet Secretary for processing the Pay Commission’s recommendations
after taking into account the views of all stakeholders. Based on the
interactions held in the Committee and after factoring in the issues raised by
the Defence Forces at that stage, certain improvements were made to the pay
structure of the Defence Services and Central Government employees.
4.1. The improvements made for the Defence Services included increase
in the grade pay of middle level officers, increase in the Military Service Pay
(MSP) of JCOs/ORs from Rs 1000 p.m. recommended by the Sixth CPC to Rs 2,000
p.m., grant of 3 MACPs to JCOs/ORs after 8, 16, and 24 years of service against
10, 20 and 30 years of service for civilians, etc. Subsequently, in September,
2008, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, the then External Affairs Minister was asked to
look into four issues raised by the Defence Forces and make his recommendations
regarding them in consultation with the Defence Minister and Finance Minister.
These issues were:-
(a) Higher grade pay for Armed Forces Officers,
(b) Placement of Lt. Colonel and equivalent in
PB-4,
(c) Re-instatement of pensionary weightages for
the JCOs/ORs, and
(d) Providing HAG+ scale to Lt General and
equivalent holding posts of PSOs, DGs, Controllers, etc.
4.2.
Based on the recommendations made
by the Pranab Mukherjee Committee, the following modifications were made in the
case of Defence Forces personnel:
(a) Lt. Colonels in their parent services holding combat or ready to
combat jobs were placed in Pay Band 4 and given the grade pay of Rs 8000. Lt. Colonels
on deputation were to be given this benefit only after return to parent cadre.
(b) Pensionary
weightages for JCOs/ORs were restored.
4.3.
Subsequently, Government decided
to place 1/3rd of the Lt. Generals in the HAG+ scale.
4.4
Further, in 2009, the Prime Minister set up another Committee under the
then Cabinet Secretary to examine issues related to One Rank One Pension. That
Committee made recommendations for bridging the gap in the pension of pre and
post 1.1.06 JCO/OR pensioners, for improvement in disability pension and on the
classification allowance. That Committee also carved out a separate pay scale
for Lt. General/ Additional Secretary/equivalent. Thereafter, Government also
agreed to grant a Military Service Pay of Rs 1000 pm to Non-Combatants
(Enrolled) of the Indian Air Force who were not granted MSP by the Pay
Commission.
5.
While considering the issues
presently raised by the Defence Services, the Committee noted that out of the
nine issues raised, the issues of one rank one pension, grant of common pay
scales to JCOs/ORs, enhancement of grade pay and placement of Lt. Generals in
HAG+ scale have been considered earlier after the Sixth Pay Commission.
Further, the issues of enhancement of grade pay and placement of Lt. Generals
in HAG+ scale were also considered by the Pranab Mukherjee Committee.
6.
The Committee took up the pension related issues for deliberation first.
Accordingly, the recommendations of this Committee on the pension related
issues are presented first.
7.
In the representation related to
the grant of One Rank One Pension (OROP), the following points have been made:
(i)
Ex-servicemen have been raising the demand for several years for grant
of same pension which is granted to current pensioners with same rank and same
length of service, commonly known as OROP. Several Committees/Commissions have
improved the pension of ex-servicemen.
(ii)
Post implementation of the recommendations of the A. V. Singh Committee
in 2004, no Commissioned Officer would retire in the rank of Major. Therefore,
the small isolated group of retired Majors deserve a one-time dispensation to
bridge the gap of about Rs 10,000 p.m. in the pension of the retired officers
of the rank of Major and Lt. Colonel.
(iii)
However, the gap between those
who retired upto 31.12.05 and those retiring after 1.1.06 is quite large due to
improvements in the pay band. Several ranks have been bunched in the same pay
band with a small difference in grade pay. Therefore, ex-servicemen retiring in
several ranks get the same pension with a marginal difference due to grade pay.
(iv)
The difference in pension between a Havildar and Nb. Subedar is
substantial while in other ranks the difference is marginal. Similarly, for
retired officers the difference between various ranks, especially Majors and
Lt. Colonel and Major General and Lt. General is substantial.
(v)
Moreover, the gap between those
who retired before 1.1.06 and those retiring with 5 years of service in the
revised pay band is substantial.
(vi)
It has separately also been stated that that the pension of the past
retirees be determined with reference to notional top of the scale. This
pension be subject to pro-rata reduction for qualifying service less than 33
years. In addition, 50% of MSP be added without any pro-rata reduction. The
pensioner be given an option to choose between notional top of the scale or 50%
of reckonable emoluments.
8.1.
On One Rank One Pension, the
demand of the Defence Forces and Ex- Servicemen Associations is that uniform
pension be paid to the Defence Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with
the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any
future enhancement in the rates of pension be automatically passed on to the
past pensioners. The Committee was informed that the matter had been considered
several times in the past, i.e., by the Estimates Committee (1980-81), a High
Level Committee under Shri K. P. Singh Deo, the then MoS for Defence (1984),
the Fourth Pay Commission, the High Level Empowered Committee under Shri Sharad
Pawar the then Defence Minister (1991), the Fifth Pay Commission, the GoM under
Shri Pranab Mukherjee (2006) and the Sixth Pay Commission. The matter was also
considered in 2009 when a Committee under the then Cabinet Secretary went into
it.
8.2.
While various Committees did not
find ‘One Rank One Pension’ feasible, they did recommend improvements in the
pensions of ex-servicemen. In order to examine the proposal further, the
Committee went into the report of the Committee set up in 2009 in detail. The
historical position prior to 2009 in regard to One Rank One Pension has been
brought out in that Report. It is, therefore, not considered necessary to
repeat the same in this Report. It is, however, noted that the 2009 Committee
did not consider it feasible to recommend ‘One Rank One Pension’ for the
following reasons:-
(i)
Various Committees had considered the matter in the past and not found
enough justification for grant of ‘One Rank One Pension’
(ii)
Successive Pay Commissions had addressed the issue of ‘One Rank One
Pension’ in the past and had not recommended it. Pay Commissions are expert
bodies which look at pay and pension related issues in a holistic manner
keeping all considerations in view.
(iii)
Acceptance of the principle of ‘One Rank One Pension’ had substantial
financial implications estimated at Rs 8000 - 9000 crore per annum.
(iv)
Revision of pay scales at times is accompanied with revision of
educational qualifications/restructuring of cadres/duties attached to the post,
etc., the benefit of which need not be passed on to past pensioners.
(v)
The Supreme Court on the issue of grant of 'One Rank One Pension’ had
ruled in the matter of Indian Ex-Services League Vs. UOI AIR 1991 SC 1182 that
the claim for ‘One Rank One Pension’ is not tenable. The Apex Court in the
decision in K. L. Rathi Vs. UOI 1997 (3) AISLJ 207 held that the claim for same
pension for same rank cannot be accepted.
(vi)
Ministry of Law, which was
consulted, had also opined that the same pension for same rank was not an
acceptable proposition.
(vii)
The matter was also considered by
a Group of Ministers in 2005-06 and this Group did not recommend grant of ‘One
Rank One Pension’, although certain improvements in the scheme of modified
parity were recommended and accepted by the Government.
8.3.
Like some of the earlier
Committees, the 2009 Committee also examined options to further improve the
pension of JCOs/ORs. After detailed examination, that Committee felt that the
best method to improve the pension of pre-1.1.2006 pensioners was to follow the
principle of the GOM award of 2006. In 2006, the GoM which had considered the
matter had recommended the following:-
(a) Calculation of pension of pre 1.1.1996 retirees with reference
to maximum of post 1.1.1996 pay scales.
(b) Increase in weightage for Sepoy, Naik and Havildar ranks for
past and future retirees from 5 years to 10, 8 and 6 years, respectively.
8.4.
The 2009 Committee therefore recommended that the Award of GOM of
2006 may be continued in the following manner:-
(a) By reckoning the pension of all pre 1.1.2006 JCO/OR pensioners
with reference to a notional maximum in the post 1.1.2006 revised pay structure
corresponding to the maximum of pre-Sixth Pay Commission pay scales as per
fitment table of each rank.
(b) By also continuing with the enhanced weightages awarded by the
GOM.
8.5
In addition, taking into account the fact that the trade groups of
Defence Services had been rationalized and pay scales modified from 10.10.97,
the Committee also recommended that the pension of pre 10.10.97 retirees may be
brought on par with post 10.10.97 retirees. As a result of the recommendations
made in 2009, the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCOs/ORs was brought nearly on par with
post 1.1.06 JCO/OR retirees.
8.6
Recently, in December, 2011, the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions has
recommended that Government should implement One Rank One Pension in the
Defence Forces across the board at the earliest and further that for the
future, the pay, allowances, pensions, family pension, etc. in respect of
defence personnel should be determined by a separate Pay Commission.
9.1.
In order to consider the present
demand in regard to ex-servicemen, it is necessary to examine the manner of
calculation of pension of post 1.1.06 JCO/OR retirees. In this connection, the
Committee was informed of the changes made to the pension structure for
JCOs/ORs after 1.1.06. Till Sixth CPC, the pension of JCOs/ORs was calculated
based on the maximum of the pay scale and had a linkage with 33 years of
service. Depending on the number of years of service, pension was
proportionately determined after adding the weightage. The Sixth CPC removed the
linkage with 33 years of service and recommended grant of pension @ 50% of last
pay drawn/10 months’ average emoluments, whichever is beneficial.
9.2.
After the acceptance of the Sixth
CPC’s recommendations, the Services represented that this would lead to less
pension being drawn in some cases compared to the pension drawn by pre 1.1.06
JCO/OR pensioners based on the maximum of pay scale. Therefore, in order to
ensure that the benefit on account of calculation of pension based on maximum
of the scale was continued, the option of stepping up of pension based on the
old method of calculation using the maximum of the pay and linkage with 33
years of service was allowed. Since Sixth CPC had recommended running pay
bands, the maximum of the fitment table was used to determine the notional
maximum of the revised pay scale. Further, since after 1.1.06, JCOs/ORs were on
common pay scales, the best of each rank and group across the three Services
was used for calculation of pension. JCOs/ORs retiring after 1.1.06 were allowed
to draw pension (i) @ 50% of average of last 10 months’ emoluments/last
pay drawn or (ii) the pension as per the option allowed, whichever is
beneficial to them.
9.3.
After the implementation of the
recommendations of the 2009 Committee, the gap in the pension of pre 1.1.06 and
post 1.1.06 JCO/OR retirees exists due to the following reasons:
(i)
Change in pension formula to 50% of last pay drawn/10 months’ average
and higher pension drawn by post 1.1.06 retirees on account of increments
earned after 1.1.06; and
(ii)
Use of the maximum pay of rank and group across the three Services for
determination of the notional maximum of the pay scale in the method allowed as
an option.
9.4.
The gap at (i) above cannot be
easily computed or bridged as personnel in the same rank and group would earn
different number of increments after 1.1.06 and there is, therefore, no single
point of reference with which the pension can be compared. The Committee was,
however, informed that on account of (ii) above, there is a gap in the basic pension
of pre 1.1.06 JCOs/ORs vis-Ã -vis post 1.1.06 JCOs/ORs ranging from Rs 131 to Rs
181 in the case of Sepoys, Rs 122 to Rs 141 in the case of Naiks, Rs 280 to
Rs 664 in the case of Havildars using Army Group ‘Y’ as the reference
and Rs 97 to Rs 140 in the case of Subedar Majors in Group ‘X’.
9.5.
The Committee also considered additional options for improving the
pension of JCOs/ORs considering the fact that they render much shorter service
compared to their civilian counterparts due to the imperatives of retaining a
youthful profile of the Defence Services. In this context, it was noted that
the decision of the GoM in 2006 to increase the weightage of Sepoys, Naiks and Havildars
for past and future pensioners granted some relief to the Other Ranks. The Committee
felt that further relief could be provided by allowing an additional weightage
of two years to these three ranks so as to mitigate the effect of a truncated
career. This would, however, also need to be applied to post 1.1.06 retirees in
the ranks of Sepoys, Naiks and Havildars for calculation of pension based on
the notional maximum across the Services. An enhancement of the weightage for
higher ranks was not considered necessary as their terms of engagement already
provide them benefit of nearly full service.
10.1.
in the light of the above
discussion, the Committee makes the following recommendations in regard to the
pension of JCOs/ORs:
(i)
The gap in the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR retirees and post 1.1.06
retirees may be bridged by determining the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR
pensioners also on the basis of notional maximum for the ranks and group across
the three Services as in the case of post 1.1.06 retirees. It will, however,
not be feasible to grant a pensionary benefit in comparison with the serving JCOs/ORs
who earn increments after 1.1.06 and opt for calculation of pension at 50% of
last pay drawn/10 months’ average emoluments.
(ii)
Further, the current weightage in
qualifying service of 10 years, 8 years and 6 years in the ranks of Sepoy, Naik
and Havildar may be increased by two years to 12 years, 10 years and 8 years
respectively for pre-01.01.06 retirees. This would also need to be applied to
post 01.01.06 retirees for the purpose of calculation of pension based on the
notional maximum of the pay scale across the three Services.
10.2.
As a result of the above
recommendations, the basic pension of Sepoy in Group ‘Y’ with 17 years of
service is likely to increase by about Rs 500, of Naik in Group ‘Y’ with 22
years of service by about Rs 550 and Havildar in Group ‘Y’ with 24 years of
service by about Rs 800 per month. Dearness Relief would be payable in
addition.
10.3.
With the implementation of the
above recommendations of this Committee, the demand for grant of ‘One Rank One
Pension’ to JCOs/ORs would be largely met.
10.4
The financial implications of these recommendations have been broadly
estimated at Rs 1400 cr. per annum.
It would be appropriate to implement these recommendations prospectively as the
recommendations of the 2009 Committee were also implemented with prospective
effect from 1.7.2009.
11.1
The issue raised in respect of Commissioned Officers has already been
mentioned in the opening paragraphs on the subject of One Rank One Pension. The
Committee found that the formula for calculation of pension of Commissioned
Officers and for civilian employees is the same. Based on Sixth CPC’s
recommendations, modified parity has been granted to pre-1.1.2006 civilians/
Commissioned Officers. To do this, the pension as on 1.1.2006 has been
consolidated by adding the basic pension + dearness pension + dearness relief +
40% fitment benefit on basic pension. If this consolidated figure is less than
50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade pay, the pension is stepped up to this
amount. In the case of Commissioned Officers, this stepping up is done with
reference to 50% of minimum of pay band + grade pay + MSP of Rs 6000. Also, the
Government has allowed reckoning of MSP for calculating pensions of retired Lt.
Generals and Major Generals, which has enhanced their pensions by Rs 3000.
11.2.
The Committee was also informed that the issue was last considered by
the 2009 Committee which stated that, in modification of the recommendations of
the Sixth CPC, the Government placed Brigadiers and Colonels in PB-4 and
enhanced their Grade Pay. As a result, the pension of pre 1.1.06 Commissioned
Officers who retired as Brigadiers and Colonels improved substantially,
Subsequently, the placement of Lt. Colonels in PB-4 also increased their
minimum pension from Rs 14,100 to Rs 25,700. That Committee, however, noted
that there was a significant difference in the pension of pre and post 1.1.06
Commissioned Officers at the level of Lt. Generals. The 2009 Committee,
therefore, carved out a separate scale for Lt. General/Addl. Secretary/
equivalent as a result of which there was a significant improvement in their
pension.
12.1.
The Services in their
representations have referred particularly to the difference in the pension of
Majors and Lt. Colonels and to those between Major Generals and Lt. Generals.
As narrowing the difference in the pension across ranks does not flow from the
demand for One Rank One Pension, the Committee examined the matter from the
point of improving the pension of pre 1.1.06 pensioners vis-Ã -vis post 1.1.06
pensioners.
12.2.
The Committee was also informed
that an increase in the pensionary benefits of Commissioned Officers will have
an impact on civilian pensioners as the pension formula for Commissioned
Officers and civilian employees is the same. There is already a demand from
civilian pensioners for grant of modified parity seeking stepping up based on
the minimum of the fitment table. Further, in an OA No. 655/2010 - filed by
Central Government SAG(S-29) Pensioners Vs UOI wherein the applicants have
prayed that their pension must be fixed with reference to the minimum of the
pay in the pay band as per the Fitment Tables, the CAT, Principal Bench has
allowed the OA vide its judgment dated 1.11.2011. The CAT, PB judgment dated
1.11.2011 is being contested by UOI before the High Court of Delhi. The
Committee was informed that a similar order in favour of Defence pensioners has
been passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal against which an SLP has been filed by
Ministry of Defence.
12.3.
There were, therefore, two options before the Committee -
(a)
to await the outcome of the SLP filed in the Supreme Court; or
(b)
to step up the pension of pre 1.1.06 Commissioned Officers based on the
minimum of the fitment table instead of the minimum of the pay band.
13.1
After detailed deliberation, keeping in view the fact that (a) the
difference between the pension of pre and post 1.1.06 Majors and pre and post
1.1.06 Major Generals is significant, and (b) this difference has been causing
dissatisfaction to the ex-servicemen, the Committee recommends the second
option i.e. to step up the pension of pre 01.01.06 Commissioned Officer
pensioners with reference to the minimum of the fitment table instead of
minimum of the pay band. This dispensation would also be applicable to Honorary
Commissioned Officers. As a result of the stepping up, the minimum pension to
be granted to various ranks of pre 1.1.06 pensioners will be as under:
|
Rank
|
Min
pension
(pre
2006)
|
Min
pension as per Sixth CPC recommendations
|
Min pension (as improved
by Govt based on minimum of the pay band)
|
Proposed Pension of pre 1.1.06 retirees as per
minimum of fitment table
|
Increase
in basic pension* (per month)
|
|
Lieutenant
|
4125
|
13500
|
13500
|
13500
|
0
|
|
Captain
|
5000
|
13650
|
13850
|
15350
|
1500
|
|
Major
|
6400
|
13800
|
14464
|
18205
|
3741
|
|
Lt. Colonel
|
6750
|
14100
|
25700
|
26265
|
565
|
|
Colonel
|
7550
|
14600
|
26050
|
27795
|
1745
|
|
Brigadier
|
8350
|
15000
|
26150
|
29145
|
2995
|
|
Maj. Gen.
|
9200
|
24100
|
26700
|
30350
|
3650
|
|
Lt General
|
11200
|
25100
|
36500
|
36500
|
0
|
* Dearness
relief (DR) would be payable on this amount in addition. The current rate of DR
is 65%.
13.2
Further, since the basic principles of grant of pension and modified
parity for Commissioned Officers and civilian employees have been the same, the
Committee recommends that the benefit of stepping up based on the minimum of
the fitment table instead of the minimum of the pay band may also be extended
to civilian pensioners. In this case too, the Committee recommends prospective
implementation.
13.3
The implementation of the recommendations
made by this Committee would address the demand for grant of One Rank One
Pension to Commissioned Officers to a considerable extent.
13.4
The financial implications of the
proposal have been broadly estimated at Rs 302 cr. per annum for Commissioned
Officers and civilians.
14.1.
As per existing provisions,
family pension in cases of death not attributable to military service is
calculated at the rate of 30% of the last pay drawn and is subject to a minimum
of Rs 3500/- p.m. However, an enhanced amount of family pension is granted @
50% of last pay drawn for 10 years after death without any upper age limit in
the case of death in service and for 7 years after death or till the employee
would have reached 67 years of age, whichever is earlier, in case of death
after retirement. Apart from this, there are also rules for Special family
pension in cases of death attributable to service (granted @ 60% of pay last
drawn) and Liberalised family pension in case of death in war or warlike
situations (pension granted @ pay last drawn).
14.2.
For revision of the pension of
pre 1.1.06 family pensioners, based on the recommendations of the Sixth CPC,
the methodology followed for Commissioned Officers has also been followed for
family pensioners. Accordingly, the family pension has first been consolidated
and if this amount is less than 30% (50% in respect of enhanced/special family
pension and 100% in the case of liberalized family pension) of the minimum of
the pay band + grade pay + MSP, the pension has been stepped up to that level.
15.
It has been stated by the Defence
Services that the 2009 Committee on pension had recommended bridging the Gap
between pre and post 01 Jan 2006 pensioners. It recommended pension at the top
of notional pay scale as given in the fixation table of Sixth CPC for
pensioners. However, in respect of Family Pension, no such benefit was
recommended and it continues to be linked to the last pay drawn. It has been
demanded that family pension should also be calculated at the notional top as
is the case with ex-servicemen.
16.
The Committee noted that while
JCOs/ORs have been treated differently from civilians in the matter of
pensions, mainly due to their terms of engagement resulting in a truncated
career, family pensioners of Defence Service personnel and civilians have been
treated alike. Further, while in the case of JCOs/ORs the practice was to
calculate service pension based on the maximum of the pay scale, family pension
(both for civilians and defence personnel) is calculated based on last pay
drawn. Therefore, a differential treatment for family pension of Defence Forces
personnel, particularly where the method of calculation of pension is similar
to that of civilians, is, difficult. However, the Committee has already recommended
that stepping up of retiring pension may be done with reference to the minimum
of the fitment table instead of the pay band in respect of Commissioned
Officers who retired prior to 1.1.06. As a corollary, the Committee also
recommends that the family pension of pre 1.1.06 family pensioners of
Commissioned Officers, Honorary Commissioned Officers and JCOs/ORs may be
stepped up based on the minimum of fitment table instead of the minimum of the
pay band. This may also be made applicable to civilian family pensioners.
16.2
The Committee had detailed discussions on whether there was also a case
for a separate dispensation for JCOs/ORs as far as pre 1.1.06 family pension is
concerned as their pension is calculated in a different manner compared to
other categories within and outside the Defence Forces. In this context,
attention of the Committee was drawn to the general perception among the widows
of defence service personnel that the fair treatment granted to JCOs/ORs by
granting pension to pre 01.01.06 pensioners based on the maximum of the pay
scale had been denied to them. The Committee noted that various Committees in
the past have improved the pension of JCOs/ORs so as to narrow the gap between
past and future pensioners. This has resulted in improvements being made to
JCO/OR’s pension which were not passed on to family pensioners as there was no
specific linkage between the quantum of service and family pension.
17.
The Committee felt that there
would be improvement in family pension of JCOs/ORs if the option of linking
family pension to the pension of JCOs/ORs where family pension became effective
after their retirement, is considered. Normal family pension is calculated @
30% of last pay drawn. Since retiring pension is calculated based on 50% of
pay, family pension would translate to 60% of retiring pension. In this
context, the Committee observed that there are cases where normal family
pension determined on the basis of 60% of retiring pension would be higher than
the stepping up recommended above on the basis of the minimum of the fitment
table. Considering this, the Committee felt that where the family pension is
granted in cases of death after retirement, the family pensioner may be allowed
stepping up of pension based on 60% of the pension that the JCO/OR pensioner
would have drawn now as per the recommendations made by this Committee in para
10.1 on the issue of OROP for JCOs/ORs.
18.
To sum up, the Committee
recommends the following measures in regard to family pension:-
(i)
The pension of all pre 1.1.06
family pensioners (Commissioned Officers, Honorary Commissioned Officers,
JCOs/ORs and civilians) may be stepped up based on the minimum of the fitment
table instead of the minimum of the pay band.
(ii)
Further, the Committee has made
recommendations on the manner in which the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR
pensioners will be revised. Establishing a linkage of the family pension with
the pension of JCOs/Ors in those cases where the death takes place after the
retirement of the JCO/OR since such a JCO/OR drew a pension based on the
maximum of the pay scales, the Committee recommends that 60% of the pension
applicable to JCO/OR pensioners may be granted to the family pensioner in case
of normal family pension calculated at 30% of last pay drawn. Accordingly,
based on the rank, group and length of service of the deceased JCO/OR
pensioner, his pension based on this Committee’s recommendation on the revision
of pension of JCOs/ORs would first be determined on notional basis. The family
pensioners in receipt of normal family pension would become entitled to 60% of
the said pension determined on notional basis and those in receipt of enhanced
family pension will be entitled to 100% of this pension. Similar entitlements
would be determined in the case of special family pension.
(iii)
The family pensioner of the JCO/OR may be granted family pension arrived
at on the basis of the family pension worked out as per the formulation at (ii)
above or the pension on the basis of stepping up with reference to the minimum
of the fitment table, whichever is beneficial. Further, the linkage of family
pension with retiring pension would need to be applied in the case of post
1.1.06 family pensioners of JCOs/ORs also.
19.
The financial implications of the
proposal in respect of family pensioners of JCOs/ORs and others have been
broadly estimated as Rs 342 crore per annum. The Committee suggests that the
recommendations on family pension may be implemented on a prospective basis and
payment made accordingly.
20.
The Defence Services have brought out that Armed Forces personnel retire
early in life and accordingly their pension from military service is very low
compared to their civilian counterparts who by virtue of their longer service,
promotions, increments etc are entitled to higher pension. When these ex-
servicemen take up a job on the civil side (Govt./PSU etc.) their second
service is also limited as they can serve only upto 60 years and normally enter
civil employment at the age of 40 or more. The two pensions taken together approximate
the pensionary entitlements of their counterparts on the civil side. Defence
pensioners enjoy this benefit as long as they are alive. However, on the death
of the individual the family is eligible to receive only one pension either
from the military source or from the civil source.
21.
As per the present rule position, an ex-serviceman re-employed in a
civil post who has opted to retain military pension and who is also entitled
for civil pension by virtue of his service in a civil post, is required to exercise
an option at the time of applying for pension for civil service either to opt
for civil family pension or military family pension (sub-rule 13-A of Rule 54
of CCS Pension Rules). A conscious choice is, therefore, being presently made
by defence pensioners based on which of the two family pensions - civil or
military, they perceive as being more beneficial to them.
22.1.
The Committee, however, observed
that the CCS Pension Rules are applicable only in respect of such ex-servicemen
in civil employ who have joined the civil side before 1.1.2004, i.e. prior to
the introduction of the ’New Pension System'(NPS). Those who have joined the
civil side on or after 1.1.2004 will, in any case, get the benefit of military
pension plus their accumulations under the NPS in their capacity as NPS
subscribers. Their dependants will get the benefit of the military family
pension and the stream of annuity payments under the NPS (in case they have
opted for such an annuity scheme which would cover their dependents). Further, even
as per present provisions, two family pensions are allowed if the second family
pension happens to be under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995/Family Pension
Scheme, 1971.
22.2.
The Committee also observed that
post 1.1.06, the linkage with 33 years of service for grant of full pension has
been removed and pension is being granted at the rate of 50% of last pay
drawn/last 10 months’ average. There has, therefore, been a liberalisation in
the provisions related to retiring pension as there is no proportionate
reduction in pension for shorter service in this formula. Keeping in view the
general liberalisation in the pension structure and the fact that in the post
NPS scenario, annuity payments would be available to family pensioners in
addition to the family pension from military employment, the Committee
recommends that dual family pension may be allowed in present and future cases
where the pensioner drew, is drawing or may draw pension for military service
as well as for civil employment. Since the provisions for military and civilian
pensioners in this regard are the same, this recommendation would need to be
extended to similarly placed civilian family pensioners.
22.3
Although data on the number of family pensioners who would become
eligible to draw two family pensions based on this recommendation is not
available, using certain assumptions, the financial implications have been
broadly estimated as Rs 240 crore per annum. It is recommended that payment of
dual family pension may be made prospectively.
FAMILY PENSION TO MENTALLY I PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED SON / DAUGHTER OF ARMED
FORCES PERSONNEL ON MARRIAGE
23.
As per the existing provisions, in case the son or daughter of a
Government servant (including Defence Services personnel), is mentally or
physically challenged, so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even
after attaining the age of 25 years, the family pension is payable for life.
Upon marriage of such a physically/mentally challenged son or daughter, family
pension stands disallowed.
24.
The Defence Services have
represented that considering the humanitarian aspects and social obligations,
its continuation even after marriage is considered essential and may be
permitted.
25.
The Committee went into the
matter and concluded that keeping in mind the need to provide for both social
and financial security for such children, the continuance of family pension to
mentally/physically challenged children subsequent to marriage should be
allowed on humanitarian grounds. The Committee, therefore, recommends the continued
grant of family pension to mentally/physically challenged children who drew,
are drawing or may draw family pension, even after their marriage. As far as
the financial implications of the proposal are concerned, while no firm
estimates are presently available, the provision of such an entitlement is not
likely to result in major financial outgo. However, the facility would, given
the reasoning outlined for its extension, also have to be accorded in
respect of similarly placed civilian pensioners. The Committee further
recommends that payment of family pension in such cases may be made
prospectively.
26.1.
In their representation, the
Defence Forces have brought out that JCOs/ORs in the three services with same
entry level qualification since Fourth CPC in the same rank and pay group had
different pay scales. The long outstanding demand to resolve the above anomaly
was accepted by Sixth CPC and it recommended common pay scales for all recruits
in the three Services post but not for in service JCOs/ORs as on 1.1.06. Due to
this position, higher ranks in lower groups have started drawing less pay than
lower ranks in the higher group.
26.2.
Defence Forces have therefore
suggested that in order to make the common pay scales applicable to in-service
JCOs/ORs who joined prior to 1.1.06, JCOs/ORs of ‘Y’ and erstwhile ‘Z’ Gp
should be upgraded to best of ‘X’ Gp scales in each rank. Then the upgraded
common scale be multiplied by the Sixth CPC factor of 1.86 to arrive at new
replacement pay in the pay band in PB-1 and PB-2.
27.1.
The Committee deliberated upon the proposal of the Services at length
and noted that:-
(i)
Prior to the Fifth Pay Commission, JCOs/ORs (Army) were in 5 groups
namely, A to E, which were reduced to four by the Fifth Pay Commission. Navy
and Air Force had 4 groups. With effect from 10.10.97, JCOs/ORs in the Armed
Forces were distributed into three Groups in each of the Se vices. Each Service
had separate pay scales for its three Groups. Thus, prior to the Sixth CPC,
while Army had 18 pay scales for JCOs/ORs, the other two Forces had 21 each.
The Pay Commission gave common pay scales for the three Groups, thereafter
differentiating the X Group by grant of an X Group pay. In effect, the Sixth
Central Pay Commission carried out a merger of the pay scales of various Groups
in the Services. However, while fitting the personnel of different groups in
the pay band, a multiplication factor of 1.74 (revised by Government to 1.86)
was used for application on the pre-revised pay. These fitment tables were part
of the Sixth CPC’s report.
(ii)
A similar approach was followed
by the Sixth Pay Commission in the case of civilian pay scales. For instance,
pay scales of Rs 5000-8000, Rs 5500-9000, Rs 6500-6900 and Rs 6500-10500 have
been merged by the Commission. Similarly, the pay scale of Rs 8000-13500, Rs
9000 and Rs 9000-9550 were also merged and Rs 10325-10975 and Rs 10000-15200,
etc. have been merged. In all these cases also, fitment in the pay band is
based on a multiplication factor of 1.86 which was applied on the existing pay
and the lower scale had not been first upgraded to the higher scale i.e. a
person at Rs 5000 in Rs 5000- 8000 has not been first upgraded to Rs 6500 and
then fitted in the pay band but the multiplication factor has been applied on Rs
5000 only.
(iii)
In other cases also where posts
were upgraded to a higher grade, the benefit of upgradation has been given in
the form of higher grade pay and fitment in the pay band done using the
multiplication factor of 1.86. This includes the upgradation done for various
levels of Para Military personnel, teachers, nurses, etc.
(iv)
Demands have already been made by
the Staff Side of the JCM for revising the minimum of the Pay Band 2 using Rs
6500 (instead of Rs 5000) for its determination. There is also a demand for
grant of minimum entry grade pay of Direct Recruits on promotion.
(v)
Personnel in Group ‘X’ of the
Defence Forces have been granted an ‘X’ Group pay over and above the fitment in
the pay band and therefore there are situations where, in terms of total
emoluments consisting of pay in the pay band plus grade pay plus ‘X’ Group pay
plus MSP, those who were drawing lower pay are getting higher emoluments on
account of this ‘X’ Group pay. ‘X’ Group pay has been consciously recommended
by the Sixth CPC to differentiate X group (which is the technical group) from
other groups.
(vi)
The Committee also noted that
even in the pre-revised pay scales of Armed Forces, there were instances where
a JCO/OR in a higher rank drew lower pay than the one in a lower rank in
another Group. Examples of this situation prior to Sixth Pay Commission are as
under:-
|
Army
|
Group X
|
Group Y
|
Group Z
|
|
Naik
|
3700-4975
|
3425-4700
|
|
|
Havildar
|
|
3600-5100
|
3250-4525
|
|
Navy
|
Group X
|
Group Y
|
Group Z
|
|
Seamen-I
|
|
3650-4550
|
|
|
Leading Seamen
|
|
|
3200-4250
|
|
Air Force
|
Group X
|
Group Y
|
Group Z
|
|
LAC
|
4025-4925
|
3650-4550
|
|
|
Corporal
|
4150-5200
|
3900-4950
|
3200-4250
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
3775-5050
|
(vii)
The fitment tables are incorporated in the Pay Commission’s report and
the same method was followed for Defence Services as for other employees. This
is a conscious recommendation of the Pay Commission and such cases are normally
not treated as anomalies. Further, a change in the method of fixation for
JCOs/ORs would have wider repercussions. The Committee was informed that at the
time of consideration of the Sixth CPC’s report, the financial implications of
the proposal of the Defence Forces including its impact on civilians was worked
out as Rs 3800 cr. per annum which would now become almost Rs 6,000 cr. per
annum.
27.2
In view of the above, the Committee noted that the proposal of the
Defence Forces has several complexities and also involves a deviation from the
basic principles adopted by the Sixth Pay Commission for pay fixation of those
in service on 01.01.06. The basic principles followed for JCOs/ORs are the same
as for other Government employees. In the circumstances, the Committee is
unable to make a recommendation on the representation and is of the view that
this issue should be referred to the next Pay Commission as and when it is set
up, for consideration. In this context, in view of the fact that similar
demands have been raised by other sections of employees, its examination will
have to be done on a holistic basis.
28.
The Services have represented that the initial pay fixation of Lt. Colonel,
Colonel, and Brigadier should be done with reference to S-25 scale.
Accordingly, the pre-revised starting scale of Lt. Colonel should be given a
replacement scale of Rs 39,690, Colonel at Rs 17,100 should be given a
replacement scale of Rs 42,120 and that of a Brigadier at Rs 19,100 should be
fixed at Rs 46,050. Similarly, initial pay fixation of Lt. Colonel, Colonel and
Brigadier/equivalent of AMC/ADC/RVC needs to be done after including DA on NPA,
29.
The Committee examined the matter
and found that the S-25 pay scale of Fifth CPC is the pay scale drawn by
Director level officers of the IAS which started two increments higher than the
Director level officers belonging to other Group ‘A’ Services including the
IPS. On the other hand, the fitment table for Lt. Colonel and Colonel are drawn
up with reference to the S-24 scale which was the pay scale for Director level
officers in other Group ‘A’ Services/IPS and Central Para Military Forces and
of Brigadier with reference to the S-26 scale which is the scale of the DIG.
The Committee noted that there is no disparity in the matter of pay scales vis-Ã -vis
the IPS and agreeing to the proposal of the Defence Services would result in
similar demands from Group ‘A’ Services, IPS and the para-military forces.
30.
In the circumstances, the
Committee is unable to recommend any change in the fitment of Lt. Colonel,
Colonel, and Brigadiers.
Review and enhancement of grade pay
31.1.
The Defence Services have represented that the Sixth CPC granted lower
Grade Pay to Service Officers vis-Ã -vis civil officers due to discounting of
Rank Pay from the maximum of the pre-revised scales. As a result, their status
has been lowered below the extant position. Restoration of status by
maintaining parity in Grade Pay has been sought.
31.2
It has, therefore, been represented by the Defence Services that the
Grade Pay of all Officers be raised to the same level as that of similarly
placed civilian officers and that this will be the only method of ensuring
restoration of extant relativities between the two. The Grade Pay sought are as
under:
|
Ser No.
|
JCOs/ OR
|
Amount
|
Officers
|
Amount
|
|
(a)
|
Havildar
|
4200
|
Lieutenant
|
6100
|
|
(b)
|
Nb. Subedar
|
4600
|
Captain
|
6600
|
|
(c)
|
Subedar
|
4800
|
Major
|
7600
|
|
(d)
|
Sub. Major
|
5400
|
Lt. Colonel
|
8700
|
|
(e)
|
-
|
-
|
Colonel
|
9000
|
|
(f)
|
-
|
-
|
Brigadier
|
9500
|
31.3
In the case of JCOs/ORs, enhancement of grade pay has been sought on the
ground that a certain percentage of UDCs have been placed in the Grade Pay of Rs 4200 and the grade pay of Master
Craftsmen has been revised to Rs 4200,
32.1 The Committee examined the
representation of the Defence Services. The position in regard to the issue of
Grade pay is as under:-
(i)
The Sixth Pay Commission in its report (para 2.3.12) had stated that it
was of the view that “running pay bands on par with those recommended for
civilian officers needs to be introduced in respect of the Defence Forces as
well. This is also in conformity with the recommendations of all the three earlier
Central Pay Commissions that had simultaneously considered the pay scales and
related issues of civilians as well as the Defence Forces. The edge enjoyed by
the Defence Forces over the civilian scales will, after suitable enhancement to
meet the genuine aspirations of the Defence Forces, be given as a separate
element called Military Service Pay. Presently the edge enjoyed by the Defence
Forces officers is limited to the rank of Brigadier. This edge will need to be
protected. The edge will be carried to the post of Major General as well
because Military Service Pay shall be taken in account for purposes of fitment
at the time of promotion from Brigadier to Major General.”
(ii)
The matter related to revision of grade pay to officers was also
examined in 2008. The Government after a long deliberation on the Sixth CPC
recommendations decided to increase the Grade Pay of middle level Defence
Forces officers. The grade pay granted by the Pay Commission and subsequent
improvements made by the Government after the Pay Commission are listed below:-
|
Commissioned
Officers
|
Civilian
Group ‘A’ Services
|
||||
|
PB-3 for officers from
Lieutenant to Brigadier
|
PB-3 for officers from
Junior Time Scale to DIG
|
||||
|
Rank
|
Grade
Pay (SCPC)
|
Modified
Grade Pay
|
Grade
|
Grade
Pay (SCPC)
|
Modified
Grade Pay
|
|
Lieutenant
|
5400
|
5400
|
JTS
|
5400
|
5400
|
|
Capt.
|
5700
|
6100
|
|
|
|
|
Major
|
6100
|
6600
|
STS
|
6100
|
6600
|
|
Lt. Colonel
|
6600
|
8000*
|
Dy.
Secy.
|
6600
|
7600
|
|
Colonel
|
7600
|
8700*
|
Director
|
7600
|
8700*
|
|
Brigadier
|
8400
|
8900*
|
DIG
|
8400
|
8900*
|
* placed in PB-4
(iii)
The Services have made their demand for higher grade pay based on merger
of rank pay in their pay scales. The issue of increase in grade pay was also
considered by the Pranab Mukherjee Committee and not merging Rank Pay with Basic
Pay was upheld. The Pranab Mukherjee Committee report, inter alia, observed the
following in regard to the issue of grade pay:
(a)
The stand of the Armed Forces that their grade pays have been depressed
is not correct. For functional purposes,
salary cannot be the basis to determine the status.
(b)
Rank pay cannot be merged with pay scales and this well established
principle has to be recognised before taking any decision This issue has been
settled by a Cabinet decision of 1999. The basic ground on which the issue is
being agitated is erroneously placed. However, taking into account the
pre-revised pay scale of Lt. Colonels after stripping the rank pay, enhancement
of the grade pay only of Lt. Colonels to Rs 8,000/- was recommended by the
Pranab Mukherjee Committee.
(c) As far as JCOs/ORs are concerned, the Sixth CPC had compared
them with the Central Para Military Forces and no relativity with the CPMFs has
been disturbed. If there is any change in the grade pay of JCOs/ORs, there
would need to be a similar change in the grade pay of the Central Para Military
Forces resulting in a chain reaction.
32.2
The Sixth Pay Commission had, on a holistic consideration of all
relevant aspects, established equivalence between civilians and defence
personnel compensating them for the hardships of Military life by grant of
Military Service Pay. An enhancement in the grade pay of defence forces
personnel would involve a deviation from the basic philosophy of the Commission
to grant parity and thereafter the edge in the form of the military service pay
and would impact existing relativities. In the circumstances, the Committee
feels the implications of the proposal for enhancement of grade pay are such
that an expert body like a Pay Commission would be better equipped to consider
the matter.
Placing of all Lt Generals in HAG+ scale
33.
The Services have sought
restoration of status of Lt Generals to that of DG Police. It has been stated
that the issue has been partly settled as only 1 /3rd of Lt General/equivalent have been placed in
HAG+ scale against the demand of grant of HAG+ scale to all Lt Generals. The
responsibilities, span of control and length of service of Lt Generals need to
be recognised and all Lt Generals should be placed in the HAG+ scale.
34.
In regard to the proposal for upgrading all Lt Generals to the HAG+
scale, the Committee noted the factual position as under:
(i)
The Lt. Generals of the Armed Forces were in the pre-revised pay scale
of Rs 22400-24500 which was the same as that granted to Additional
Secretaries/AddJ. DGPs.
(ii)
After the Sixth CPC, Government maintained the pre-existing relativities
between Additional Secretaries to Government of India and others like
Additional DGPs, Lt. Generals, etc.
(iii)
Government also accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission that
those Lt. Generals who are otherwise fit to be Army Commanders but overlooked
for want of residual service may be granted the pay scale of Army Commanders (Rs 80,000) i.e., the Apex scale.
(iv)
The pay fixation of Lt. Generals has been done after taking into account
the Military Service Pay of Rs 6000 notionally from 1.1.2006 and actually from
1.9.2008. Therefore, pay fixation is higher than those of Additional
Secretaries drawing the same pre-revised pay. Even in future, higher fixation
due to the impact of the MSP would be available as pay of Brigadiers on
promotion to Major General would be fixed after taking into account the MSP.
(v)
The proposal that all Lt. Generals may be placed in the HAG+ scale of Rs
75500-80000 was considered by the Pranab Mukherjee Committee but was not
accepted.
(vi)
Subsequently, Government placed 1 /3rd of Lt. Generals in the HAG+ scale.
(vii)
Placement of all Lt. Generals in
HAG+ scale implies that the HAG scale would be skipped in the hierarchy of the
Defence Forces, which would have implications outside the Defence Forces.
35.
The Committee, therefore, feels that upgradation of all Lt. Generals to
the HAG+ scale may result in a demand for an overhaul of the hierarchy in the
Defence Forces which would impact the equivalence established with civilian
cadres. Such an exercise is best done by a Pay Commission after examination of
functional and other relativities across cadres.
36.
It has been brought out by the
Defence Services that NFU is based on the recommendation of the Sixth CPC to
provide 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. It has been strongly recommended that Non Functional Upgradation be
extended to Armed Forces Officers.
37.
The Committee 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 admissible to
civilian officers. It is, therefore, not logical to compare the earnings of the
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 the Group A’
Services. No parity presently exists in the career progression of Group A’
Services and Commissioned Officers. In the circumstances, the Committee is
unable to make a recommendation on the issue.
38.
To sum up, the following recommendations are made by the Committee:-
(a) One Rank One Pension
(1) JCOs/ORs -
The 2009 Committee had
bridged the gap between pre and post 1.1.06 JCO/OR pensioners to a large
extent. The difference between pre and post 1.1.06 JCO/OR pensioners presently
exists due to the (a) change in pension formula to 50% of last pay
drawn/10 months’ average and higher pension drawn by post 1.1.06 retirees on
account of increments earned after 1.1.06 and (b) use of the maximum pay of
rank and group across the three Services for determination of the
notional maximum of the pay scale in the method allowed as an option.
In order to bridge the gap
between pre and post 1.1.06 JCO/OR pensioners and as a measure of improvement
in the pension of JCOs/ORs, the Committee recommends the following:
(a)
The gap in the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR retirees and post 1.1.06
retirees may be bridged by determining the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR
pensioners also on the basis of notional maximum for the ranks and group across
the three Services as in the case of post retirees. It will, however, not be
feasible to grant a pensionary benefit in comparison with the serving JCOs/ORs
who earn increments after 1.1.06 and opt for calculation of pension at 50% of
last pay drawn/10 months’ average.
(b)
Further, the current weightage in qualifying service of 10 years, 8
years and 6 years in the ranks of Sepoy, Naik and Havildar may be increased by
two years to 12 years, 10 years and 8 years, respectively for pre-01.01.06
retirees. This would also need to be applied to post retirees for the purpose
of calculation of pension based on the notional maximum of the pay scale across
the three Services.
(2)
Commissioned Officers
At
present, the pension of pre 1.1.06 Commissioned Officers is stepped up with
reference to the minimum of the pay band + grade pay + Military Service Pay.
The Committee recommends that stepping up of the pension of pre 1.1.06
Commissioned Officers may be done with reference to the minimum of the fitment
table for the rank instead of the minimum of the pay band. This would also be
applicable to Honorary Commissioned Officers.
(b)
Enhancement of Family Pension
The
Committee recommends the following measures in regard to family pension:-
(i)
The pension of pre 1.1.06 family
pensioners (Commissioned Officers, Honorary Commissioned Officers, JCOs/ORs)
may be stepped up based on the minimum of the fitment table instead of the
minimum of the pay band.
(ii)
Further, the Committee has made
recommendations on the manner in which the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR pensioners
will be revised, Establishing a linkage of the family pension with the
pension of JCOs/ORs in those cases where the death takes place after the
retirement of the JCO/OR since such a JCO/OR drew a pension based on the
maximum of the pay scales, the Committee recommends that 60% of the pension
applicable to JCO/OR pensioners may be granted to the family pensioner in case
of normal family pension calculated at 30% of last pay drawn. Accordingly,
based on the rank, group and length of service of the deceased JCO/OR
pensioner, his pension based on this Committee’s recommendation on the revision
of pension of JCOs/ORs would first be determined on notional basis. In cases
where death of JCO/OR took place after retirement, the family pensioners in
receipt of normal family pension would become entitled to 60% of the said
pension determined on notional basis and those in receipt of enhanced family
pension will be entitled to 100% of this pension. Similar entitlements would be
determined in the case of special family pension.
(iii)
The family pensioner of the
JCO/OR may be granted family pension arrived at on the basis of the family
pension worked out as per the formulation at (ii) above or the pension on the
basis of stepping up with reference to the minimum of the fitment table,
whichever is beneficial. Further, the linkage of family pension with retiring
pension would need to be applied in the case of post 1.1.06 family pensioners
of JCOs/ORs also.
(c)
Dual Family Pension
As per present provisions,
a pensioner who gets second employment in the Government after military
employment is entitled to draw two pensions. Upon his death, however, the
family is entitled to only one family pension. The Committee recommends that
dual family pension may be allowed in present and future cases where the
pensioner drew, is drawing or may draw pension for military service as well as
for civil employment.
(d)
Family pension to
mentally/physically challenged children of armed forces personnel on
marriage
Under the present
provisions, the family pension granted to mentally/ physically challenged
children stops on their marriage. Considering the demand made in this regard
sympathetically, the Committee recommends the continued grant of family pension
to mentally/physically challenged children who drew, are drawing or may draw
family pension, even after their marriage.
(e)
The recommendations made for
pension and family pension of Commissioned Officers, dual family pension and
continuance of family pension to mentally/physically challenged children on
marriage may also be extended to civilian pensioners in view of the similarity
of the present provisions.
(f)
The above recommendations made on
pensions may be implemented from a prospective date and payment made
accordingly.
39.
The Committee deliberated at
length on the pay related issues raised by the Defence Forces. It was noted
that the pay related issues are complex and have ramifications across the
Government, including on para-military personnel. The proposals made by the
Defence Forces in many cases are at variance with some of the principles
followed by the Sixth Pay Commission. Some of the proposals have already been
considered subsequent to the Sixth Pay Commission.
40.
In this context, the Committee
also noted that the next Pay Commission’s recommendations would be likely to be
implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2016. If the Thirteenth Finance Commission’s
recommendation that structural shocks such as arrears arising out of Pay
Commission awards should be avoided by making the pay award commence from the
date it is accepted is implemented, the next Pay Commission would need to be
set up in the second half of 2013 or in early 2014.
41.
In the circumstances, the
Committee recommends that the pay related issues may be specifically referred
to the next Pay Commission for its consideration as the Pay Commission is the
expert body set up for this purpose which can examine these issues in a
holistic manner.
Financial Implications
42.
The total financial implication
of the proposals in regard to pension is broadly estimated at around Rs 2300
crore per annum.
43.
It is expected that the
recommendations made by this Committee on the issues of One Rank One Pension,
Enhancement of Family Pension, Dual Family Pension and continuation of family
pension to the mentally/physically challenged children of Armed Forces
personnel after the marriage of such children, would largely meet the demands
of the Defence Forces on these matters.
Sd/------------------------ Sd/----------------------
S Chatterjee P
K Misra
Secretary
(Ex-Servicemen Welfare) Secretary
(Personnel)
Sd/------------------------ Sd/----------------------
Sumit Bose R
S Gujral
Secretary (Revenue) FS
& Secretary (Expenditure)
Sd/------------------------ Sd/-----------------------
Shashi Kant Sharma Pulok
Chatterjee
Defence Secretary Principal
Secretary to PM
Sd/------------------------
Ajit Seth
Cabinet Secretary
Blood boils on reading this.
ReplyDeletejust see these samples for instance.
When defence forces ask for better pension, committee says;
"12.2 The Committee was also informed that an increase in the pensionary benefits of Commissioned Officers will have an impact on civilian pensioners as the pension formula for Commissioned Officers and civilian employees is the same. There is already a demand from civilian pensioners for grant of modified parity seeking stepping up based on the minimum of the fitment table."
When defence forces ask for parity in NFU with civilians, the committee says;
"37. The Committee noted that the service conditions of Defence Forces are quite different from those of civilian employees."
what a pre-conceived notions. A committee not worthy of its name!
@Ajith Kumar: Its a classic adaptation of Aesop's fable of "The Wolf and the Lamb".
DeleteBut, the sad part is, it is also equally reminiscent of the manner in which the Services HQs deal with their own cadres.
The considerations n recommendations r very artful manipulation which has been done by IAS cadre for ages. There r two sets of minds have been working one separately for commissioned offrs by equating them with civ employees n IPS officers as suits them n the other for JCO/OR with CPMFs as suits them n finally even below other cl A officers for commissioned offrs. The IAS officers have been kept as a class apart as they r still from British India n all others r native Indians. Just great recommendation n 7 CPC has gone a step ahead by taking back of what ever was given by this committee.
ReplyDeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information.
The two reports, Report N0.9 of 2009 and No.12 of 2012, throw a lot of light on what had been proposed by the Service HQ and how they were treated.
Some conclusions were not as per common perception.
In Report No. 12, the Committee recommended,
“10.4 The financial implications of these recommendations have been broadly estimated at Rs 1400 cr. per annum. It would be appropriate to implement these recommendations prospectively as the recommendations of the 2009 Committee were also implemented with prospective effect from 1.7.2009.”
This is not completely true.
The recommendations of the Report no.9 were implemented with effect from 01 January, 2006, itself for PBOR retired after 01/01/2006.
PCDA(P) Circular No. 471 refers.