Monday, 4 January 2016

Part I - File notings of MoD in comments/views/recommendations on JSM

Happy New Year

The 7th CPC sought the views of MoD on the Joint Services Memorandum submitted by TRIPAS. 

This is Part -I of MoD's response of 65 pages. 

Two or Three more parts will follow as fast as I can type, check for typos, correct them and upload. 

Online RTI Request Form Details

RTI Request Details:-
RTI Request Registration number MODEF/R/2015/63089

Public Authority Department of Defence

Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-


Request Details:-
Citizenship Indian

Description of Information Sought


MoD permitted Services HQ a Joint Services Memorandum (JSM) directly to 7 Central Pay Commission (7CPC) , as indicated by MoD in reply to an earlier request for information on the JSM.

7 CPC has requested the views of MoD, being the administrative ministry, for views on certain submissions in the JSM as well as for information related to the same/other submissions in the JSM.

Please provide information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 including file notings, minutes/record of discussions and deliberations, and any other material in connection with the request of the 7 CPC for views of MoD on the Services HQ JSM.

Request for Additional Payment
Dated 8 Dec 2015 and received on 14 Dec 2015

No. 21(1)/2015-D (PCC)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Room No. 215, B Wing, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi, Dated 8th December 2015


Subject: Furnishing of information under Right to Information Act, 2005

          Please refer to your RTI Application No. MODEF/R/2015/63089 dated 13.11.2015 received through RTI Cell of MoD on 23.11.2015 in D (Pay Commission Cell).

2.      Information sought by you consists of 65 pages. You are therefore requested to send Rs 130/- (Rs 2/- per page) in the shape of Indian Postal Order/DD in the name of Accounts Officer (DAD), M/o Defence, New Delhi.
Yours faithfully,
(M.S. Sharma)
Under Secretary (PCC) & CPIO
Telefax: 2301 3314
Copy to:     Section Officer (RTI Cell) for information.
*        *        *        *        *        *

S Y Savur
141 Jal Vayu Towers,
NGEF Layout,
Indira Nagar (PO),
Bangalore – 560038                                                                                                            18 Dec 2015


Under Secretary (Pay Commission Cell) & CPIO
(For Shri M. S. Sharma)
Ministry of Defence,
Room No. 215, B Wing, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011

Payment of Additional Amount for Information


Please refer to MoD (PCC) letter No. 21(1)/2015-D (PCC) dated 08 Dec 2015 and received by the undersigned on 14 Dec 2015.

2.      As desired Demand Draft No. 559089  for Rs 130/- dated 18.12.2015 issued by the State Bank of Travancore, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-560038 endorsed for payment to Accounts Officer (DAD), Ministry of Defence (Civil) at New Delhi is enclosed.

3.      In the interest of saving National resources, you may wish to consider photocopying back-to-back the 65 pages of information that is being supplied.
(S Y Savur)
Encl: Demand Draft as stated above.
Reply dated 22 Dec 2015 received on 02 Jan 2016
 By Registered Post
No. 21 (1)/2015-D (PCC)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Room No. 215, B Wing, Sena Bhawan
New Delhi, Dated 22nd December 2015

 Subject: Furnishing of Information under Right to Information Act, 2005


          Please refer to your RTI application No. MODEF/R/2015/60389 dated 13.11.2015, received through RTI Cell of MoD on 23.11.2015 in D (Pay Commission Cell) and your letter no. nil dated 18.12.2015 sending DD of Rs 130/-. Find enclosed 65 pages of information consisting of file noting and views of Ministry of Defence submitted to 7th Central Pay Commission on certain aspects of the JSM, as asked by you under RTI Act, 2005.

2.      If you are not satisfied with the information, an appeal shall lie with the 1st Appellate Authority who name and address are as under: -
          Shri R Pandiyan
Deputy Secretary (PC + MIS)
Room No. 143-A
B Wing, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi (Phone No. 011 2301 3416)
(M S Sharma) 
Under Secretary (PCC) & CPIO
Telefax: 2301 3314
Copy to: - Director, TRIPAS, Kashmir House, Room No. 116, New Delhi


1.       Secretary, 7th CPC vide letter (FR) dated 24.12.2014 has sought comments of Ministry of Defence on certain issues raised by some stakeholders and the three Services in the Joint Services Memorandum (JSM).

2.      The comments on all these issues were called for from all concerned. The comments received have been discussed with by JS (E) and AS (R). Comments of MoD on the issues raised by 7th CPC are discussed in succeeding paragraphs.

3.      Grant of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Defence Forces: The issue involved is the grant of NFU to Service personnel on the lines it was granted to the Organised Gp ‘A’ Services (including IPS/IFS) after the implementation of 6th CPC.

Comments:      The issue was examined in the Ministry and 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. 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 Gp ‘A’ Services was extended to IPS/IFS. The requirement 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.

Further, in the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report though this particular issue was not considered, it was stated in the Report that for functional purposes, salary cannot be the basis to determine status.

However, it is felt that due to steep hierarchical pyramid, Armed Forces officers are at a disadvantage as compared to Gp ‘A’ services. Since no one-to-one comparison can be drawn between Armed Forces officers and civilian officers, it is felt that 7th CPC may be recommended to devise a suitable mechanism to address this issue.

4.      Relativities – Armed Forces, Civilians, CAPFs: -

Comments:      In the civilian side in Central Government, there are seven levels of officers in Group A (and not six as indicated in VII COC D.O. letter) (i.e. Junior Time Scale (Assistant Director/equiv.), Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary, Special Secretary/Secretary). The Army (as also the other two Services) being fighting forces have their own command and control functions in their hierarchy and no one-to-one comparison with the civilian side can be made.  

5.       Placement of Lt. Generals in HAG+ Scale:

Comment:        Upgradation of pay scales of Lt Gens/equivalent was not agreed to by the Government before VI CPC. After VI CPC, the matter was re-considered in April 2009 and it was decide to give the higher pay scale (HAG+ scale) to 1/3rd Lt Generals/equivalents. This was agreed to by the then COAS. In the light of the above, the present demand of the Services for grant of HAG+ scale to all Lt Generals/equivalents goes against the stand taken by the Services in 2009.  

The issue was also considered by the Pranab Mukherjee Committee. It was stated the COS has already agree to grant Army Commander’s scale (Apex Scale – Rs 80000) on a non-functional basis to certain number of Lt Generals. Lt Generals in Defence Forces are equivalent to Additional Secretaries on the civilian side and prior to VI CPC, both were in the scale Rs 22400-24500. There is no comparison of Lt Generals with officers on the civilian side as those in HAG+ scale had a higher pay scale of Rs 24050-26000 prior to VI CPC. This relativity was not disturbed by the VI CPC and the CoS also did not recommend any change in the matter. Moreover, on the civil side also, all officers do not reach the HAG+ level.   

6.      Rank Pay:                   It has been contended that in the 6th CPC, the Grade Pay has been artificially depressed as Rank Pay was not taken into consideration while determining the top of the pay scale of various ranks.

Comments:      The matter relating to revision of grade pay to officers was examined in 2008 also. The Government after a long deliberation on the VI CPC recommendations decided to increase Grade Pay of middle level Armed Forces Officers (except Lt/equivalent) thereby meeting the demand of the Services, but did not accept its point on the issue of merger of Rank Pay in basic pay. Subsequently, while examining draft Services instructions for pay revision, Ministry of Finance also did not approve the merger of Rank Pay with Basic Pay and observed that pre-revised scale and Rank Pay should be shown distinctly in two separate columns in pay fixation tables. Accordingly, the Service instructions were issue. 

Not merging Rank Pay with Basic Pay was upheld in the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report. It was also emphasised therein that the Central Pay Commission are recommendatory authorities and final decision of the pay scales is taken by the Cabinet, and as such the Cabinet decision is the final word on the subject. Hence the case is not supported.

7.       Pay to Lt Colonels and Colonels

Comments:      The Services have based their case on merger of Rank Pay with basic pay before fixation of pay, VI Pay Commission in their report has recommended that running pay bands on par with those recommended for civilian officers needs to be introduced in respect of Defence Forces as well. The pay of officers in Defence Forces has been fixed in line with that of civilian officers. The basis of this demand i.e. merger of Rank Pay in basic pay was examined in a detailed manner by the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report and the same was not accepted. Hence the case is not supported.   

8.      Equal Work and Equal Pay (Armed Forces personnel and Civilians working side by side)

Comments:      The service conditions and nature of the job of Service Personnel and Defence Civilians are totally different. Terms of engagement of service personnel also differ from that of Defence Civilians. Moreover, Service Personnel and the Civilians are recruited through different recruitment processes and examinations. The duties/responsibilities assigned to both the streams are not comparable. Hence, Ministry if of the view that the concept of ‘Equal Pay and Equal Work’ in this case is not feasible. 

Apart from the above, civilian engineering cadres of the Defence Establishments have parity with their counterparts in other Central Government Establishments.

9.      Trade Rationalisation:    The proposal is for upgradation of ‘Y’ Group personnel to ‘X’ Group on the basis of length of service/attaining higher qualification etc.

Comments:      The proposal to make a provision for upgradation of JCOs/ORs from Group ‘Y’ to Group ‘X’ is based on ‘Point Rating System’ and length of service as explained in Paras 4.1.22 to 4.1.23 of JSM may help in increasing motivation levels of JCOs/ORs. Accordingly, the proposal may be recommended for consideration of 7th CPC. 

10.     Common Pay Scales for each service like JCOs/ORs:

Comments:      This issue alongwith other issues was raised by the Services in 2008, after submission of report of the 6th CPC. The matter was then examined in detail in consultation with Defence (Finance). The issue was recommended by the Ministry to the Committee of Secretaries in May 2008. The proposal was, however, not favoured.

Subsequently, Services raised certain issues as an anomaly. This issue was one of them. The matter was examined in consultation with CGDA/Defence (Finance).
Meanwhile as per directions of the Prime Minister, a Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary (with Secretaries of Defence, ESW, Personnel and Expenditure and Principal Secretary (PMO) as its members) was constituted in July 2012 to look into and provide suitable recommendations on certain issues of relevance to Defence Personnel and Ex-Servicemen. The common pay scale for in-service PBORs was one of the five pay related issues.

The Committee submitted its report in August 2012. After detailed examination, in para 27.2 of the report, the Committee noted that “the proposal of 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 01.01.2006. 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 section of employees, its examination will have to be done on a holistic basis.”

After acceptance of the recommendations of the Committee, the matter has already been referred to the 7th CPC.

11.     Civilianisation of certain organisation (MES and Accounts Branch of Air Force etc) under the Ministry:

Comments:      This is purely an administrative issue. The Government can take a decision on manning of cadres as per operation and administrative requirements.

12.     NFU and One Rank One Pension   

Comments:      In so far as the issue of NFU is concerned, the Ministry’s comments are as against Para No. 3 above.

As for regulation of pension once grant of NFU is accepted, it is stated that modalities for implementation of ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) are yet to be finalised. As such it would be premature to take a view as to how the pension of officers would get regulated if the demand for NFU which entails a higher non-functional upgradation, over and above the existing rank (and correspondingly pay of the next higher rank) is accepted.

13.     Participation of Defence Forces in Central Staffing Scheme

Comments:      At the outset, it may be stated that the issue of participation of the Defence Services in the Central Staffing Scheme in the Central Government as admissible to All India Services and Group ‘A’ Central Services involves a conscious decision at the highest level in the Government of India on this concept. While doing so, it has to be kept in view that job requirements of civilian administration and the armed forces are totally different. They are recruited ad trained differently. Apart from this, the armed forces are already facing acute shortage of officers at different levels.

It is added here that central staffing scheme envisages filling up of the posts in the Government of India by borrowing officers from the All India Services and participating Group ‘A’ Services. The cardinal principle being that all officers who are so borrowed will serve the Government of India on deputation and thereafter return to their parent cadre. The raison d’etre of such scheme is the Centre’s need for fresh inputs at senior levels in policy planning, formulation of policy and implementation from diverse sources viz the All India Services and participating organised Group ‘A’ Services.

Moreover, under the Central Staffing Scheme, officers belonging to All India Services and Group ‘A’ participating Organised Services are eligible to be appointed at the level of DS/Director and above. However, in Armed Forces, there is no classification of Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ and only defined classification in the Armed Forces is Commissioned and Non-Commissioned/Junior Commissioned officers. Moreover, the Defence Forces officers are governed by their respective Acts (Army Act, Navy Act, and Air Force Act) and a number of issues relating to discipline, pay & allowances, command & control etc will have to be resolved before armed forces officers are allowed to participate in the Central Staffing Scheme. Further, the move will also have ramifications fr officers of CAPFs who will raise similar demands.    

It is added here that a number of Service Personnel are already serving of deputation in various civil organisations. However, Ministry of Defence has no objection to the intake of limited number of Service Officers under lateral movement based on their expertise in the specific areas. It is, however, mentioned that DOP&T is the nodal Department on such issues. Therefore, DOP&T may take a view on this issue.

14.     Superannuation age of PBORs:

Comments:      The difference in superannuation ages amongst the three Services stems from unique roles and operation environment of these forces. The ages of superannuation has been reviewed periodically over the years based on operational and administrative requirements and modified when required. As regard, practice in foreign armies, it is submitted that there does not exist a standard dispensation and superannuation ages have been tailored to the particular operation requirement of individual countries.

15.     Lateral entry of service personnel in Defence Civil Organisation:

Comments:      Lateral transfer of service personnel into Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) was also recommended by the Kargil Review Committee, GoM on Reviewing National Security System besides the V and VI CPCs. The matter has continuously been pursued with Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). However, the issue remains unresolved for want of favourable response from MHA. As such, MHA has to take a view on this issue.  

As for civil organisations are concerned, SSC are given age relaxation for entry into the civil employment.

16.     The data sought by the 7th CPC regarding strength of select ranks in various branches, duration of posting in field/peace areas etc has also been received from TRIPAS.  

17.     The comments as contained in Paragraphs 3 to 15 above are submitted for kind consideration and approval before submission to the 7th CPC as per statement placed opposite at DFA-I.
(M S Sharma)
Under Secretary
DS (PC+MIS) Sd/----------- 8.5.15

JS (E)                  Sd/---------------8.5.15

AS (R)                  Sd/--------------8/5/15/

Def Secy              Sd/----------------

RM                       Sd/-----------------11.05

AS (R)                  Sd/------------11/5
JS (E)                  Sd/-----------12.5.15     

DS (PCC + MIS) Sd/-----------12/5/15

*        *        *        *        *        *        *


  1. It shows how views of a Babu at the basic level are upheld by all in the chain upto RM. Past committees have been cited as case law in courts. Where is application of mind at higher levels?

  2. Dear Sir
    Off topic .Please remember my earlier promise of providing a proper web/blog site with Rich text capability(tables,pictures,colors etc the works) & most important Search(internal search engine)
    I am glad that i finally hosted such a site at (hopefully ECHS would revamp their web site taking a cue from the site).It can even run youtube videos
    Do have a look at it at your convenience & do let me know if you want such a site for your blog with no strings attached under the coolFauzi domain
    If you want to host it under your own domain you may do so & i will give the necessary inputs
    This is only a small tribute to the yeoman services that you are doing

    1. Dear Colonel, I am happy the way things are and most grateful for your offer. Happy New Year.

    2. Well Sir.I kept my promise & as I said choice is always yours
      It will be interesting to see how RM views the recommendation of Maj Navdeep to allow Commanders to blog

  3. what is the authenticity of this blog? could you please amplify.

    1. Sir, you may wish to check with MoD if an RTI Online request number quoted above was received, if MoD asked for Rs 130 as payment by DD, whether MoD received Rs 130 by DD of SBT (number quoted above) and provided 65 pages of information with each page CTC and signed by US & CPIO, Shri M S Sharma. His telephone number given in his forwarding letter is 23013314, with office address Room 215, B Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. Hope you will take the trouble. It will be just 1% of the effort that I am putting in

    2. Oh, yes. Don't hide behind "Unknown." Be proud of your name and use it.

  4. It shows how service hq and ministry think different. This is case in all cases integration is need of time

  5. Instead of being grateful for this blog,Mr.Unknown is questioning the authenticity of this blog.Very sad.