Monday, 4 January 2016

Part II - MoD's reply to 7th Central Pay Commission

This Part II is minus the Annexes (referred to in Para 15 below) indicating Service, Branch, Corps wise strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force.Though the figures have been disclosed as part of the 65 pages of information, the information is withheld by Aerial View.

Most immediate
By Special messenger

No. 22/S/2014-D (PCC)
Ministry of Defence
(Pay Commission Cell)

Subject: Comments on key issues relating amongst others to pay parity and related issues raised by various segments – regarding

          Reference D.O. letter No. 7CPC/143/MOD (JSM)/2014 dated 24th December 2014 on the above mentioned subject from Secretary, 7th CPC addressed to Defence Secretary.

2.      Comments of the Ministry of Defence on the key issues mentioned in the letter are enclosed.

3.      This has the approval of the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri.

(R. Pandian)
Deputy Secretary (PC+MIS)
Tele: 2301 3416
Shri D K Rai
Seventh Central Pay Commission
Chatrapathi Shivaji Bhavan
B-14A, Qutab Institutional Area
New Delhi – 110016


Para No.
Grant of NFU to Def Forces: In the Joint Services Memorandum, the Defence Services have contended that while the Sixth Central Pay Commission, in its Report, extended Non-Functional Upgradation to organised Group ‘A’ services and the Government, at the implementation stage, extended the benefit of NFU to all organised Group ‘A’ services including IPS and IFS officers, such benefit was not granted to the Defence Officers, which, in their view is an anomaly. It has been contended by the Defence Services that the grant of NFU to organised Group ‘A’ services in MoD which operate alongside the defence forces like MES, Border Road Organisation, Survey of India etc. has created command, control and functional problems. The view of the Ministry of Defence on the issue of granting NFU, in the context of what has been stated by the Defence Services, are sought.
The issue was examined in the Ministry and by a Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary. The Committee in its report which was accepted by 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 to organised Group ‘A’ Services and was extended to IPS/IFS. The requirements related to command and control, the norms for recruitment, promotion and 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 those joining Group ‘A’ Services.

In view of the above, the Committee did not make any recommendations 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, on account of the steep hierarchical pyramid in the armed forces, a large number of officers stagnate and retire at the level of Lt Colonel. 7th CPC may, therefore, devise may to address this issue suitably. One way to achieve this can be, to grant NFU to those personnel who have been stagnating at the same level (say for 3-4 years) after the promotion of their immediate juniors.          
Relativities – Armed Forces, Civilians, CAPFs: The civilian side has six levels starting from Under Secretary up to Secretary while the Armed Forces have nine ranks from Lieutenant to General. Given that some bunching is inevitable, the Ministry’s views on issues of command and control functions/relativities of armed forces vis-à-vis CAPFs and civilians may kindly be shared with the Commission.
In the civilian side in Central Government, there are seven levels of officers in Group ‘A’ (and not six as indicated in VII CPC DO letter) i.e. junior time scale (Assistant Director/equivalent), Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary, Special Secretary/Secretary. The Army (as also the other two Services) being a fighting force have their own command and control functions in their hierarchy and no one-to-one comparison with the civilian side can be made.  
Placement of Lt Generals in HAG+ Scales: Defence Services in their memorandum before the Seventh Central Pay Commission have identified the existing placement of Lt Generals and equivalent as one of the “core anomalies.” They have sought placing of Lt General and equivalent officers in the HAG+ scale (Rs 75, 500 – 80, 000). Considering the overall implications of this request made, the Ministry of Defence may like to communicate their views on the point.
The upgradation of pay scales of Lt Gens/equivalent was not agreed to by the Government before VI CPC. After VI CPC, the matter was reconsidered in April 2009 and it was decided to give the higher pay scale (HAG+ scale) to 1/3rd Lt General/equivalent. 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/equivalent 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.   
Rank Pay – In the Joint Services memorandum the Services have contended that their Grade Pay in the Sixth Pay Commission has been artificially depressed as Rank Pay was not taken into consideration while determining the top of the pay scales of various ranks. It is, however, gathered that the prevailing principle has been that rank pay cannot be merged with pay scales.
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.
Pay to Lt Colonels and Colonels: - The view of the Ministry with regard to the contention in the Joint Services Memorandum that the pay fixation of the Colonel should be done as per Fitment Table for S-25 (of the Fifth CPC) is also sought.
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.
Equal Work and Equal Pay: - Various Defence Civilian Groups and associations in their representations to the Pay Commission have stated that the concept of “Equal work and equal pay” as enunciated by Para 10 pf Army Instruction 1014 dated 4th December 1923 is getting violated in their case while working alongside with Services personnel in various organisations of the MoD as the latter are paid more pay and allowances for executing the same job compared to their civilian counterparts. To reinforce the point it has been pointed out that while Executive Engineer (Senior Time Scale/Junior Administrative Grade) currently draws pay and allowances of Rs 68, 000 per month, his defence counterpart viz Major/Lt Colonel draws pay and allowances of Rs 1, 34, 000 per month while being co-located. They have also questioned financial propriety of getting same work done at higher cost by service personnel. The Commission may kindly be apprised of the facts in this regard and the approach of the Ministry in this regard.
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.
Trade Rationalisation: - The Services, in the Joint services Memorandum to the Pay Commission (in Para 4.1.16 to 4.1.27) have sought upgradation to Group X from revised Group Y on fulfilling either (i) completion of 8/12/15 years of service or (ii) successful completion of diploma of minimum of one year duration or minimum one year of organised training at the level of unit which may be cumulative and not necessarily continuous. What is the view of the Ministry on this pay upgradation proposal of the Services?    
Prior to 5th CPC, trades were divided into five groups i.e A to E. The 5th CPC recommended reduction to four groups i.e A to D. Subsequently, in1997, the Government accepted three pay groups i.e X, Y and Z based on entry qualifications. The 6th Pay Commission recommended merging Group Z trades into Group Y. Accordingly, the trades are at present divided into Group X and Y.

Post 6th CPC trade rationalisation was carried out based on job content, wherein, common trades were merged, obsolete trades deleted and overall trades reduced. Accordingly, number of trades have been reduced from 194 to 123 in the Indian Army. At present only 27 (22%) trades are in Pay Group ‘X.’  However this amounts to approximately 2.86% of JCOs /ORs strength (population) of the Indian Army. The balance 96 (78%) trades amounting to 97.14% population of the Indian Army falls under “Y” pay group.

The personnel in Group ‘X’ are entitled to ‘X’ Group pay of Rs 1400/-. The basis and only criteria for entitlement of ‘X’ group pay is entry education QR of the trade i.e. to have diploma in related field on enrolment or to acquire the same while in service.

Promotional Avenues for Group ‘Y’

(i) The minimum entry of an OR is Sepoy. Subsequently, a Sepoy gets promoted to the next higher rank in the sequence of Naik, Havildar, Naib Subedar, Subedar and Subedar Major subject to availability of vacancies in the trade and on achieving laid QR such as MR std, Edn, ACR, Med, Age, Discipline including promotion cadres where applicable.

(ii) However, promotion of certain trades in Soldier Tradesman category in Group ‘Y’ is restricted upto the rank of Havildar. It is pertinent to mention that there exists no provision of upgradation from ‘Y’ to ‘X’ pay group on promotion.

(iii) The stagnation period for promotion to the higher ranks varies amongst different trades and arms/services. The average period (years) for promotion to the next ranks is given below: -

    (aa) Naik                        8.38

  (ab) Havildar                  12.83

   (ac) Nb Subedar             20.27

    (ad) Subedar                  23.89

    (ae) Subedar Major       27.73  

Functional justification for the proposal

(i) Growth and career progression are severely inhibited by external factors as promotions are based on cadre strength of a trade and there are limited opportunities for specialisation. In addition, there is no provision to move into an upper group after attaining higher qualifications and experience. As such trade rationalisation was necessary to review and restructure existing trades in view of the large number of changes which have taken place since the trades were originally evolved. There was also a need to alleviate existing inter-service disparities.   

(ii) The basic and only criteria for entitlement of ‘X’ group pay is entry education QR of the trade i.e. to have diploma in related field on enrolment to acquire the same while in service. No weightage/considerations are given to other aspects related to the trade such as threat tolife or high risk profile, working environment/difficult terrain, leadership for qualification of ‘X’ pay group.

(iii) Soldiers of combat arms in the Army performing similar type of jobs are the lifeline of battle. Their abilities in terms of skills with weapons/weapons systems, human resource management, administration and leadership in challenging an dangerous situations are unique. Yet, ironically, they have the lowest recognition in the civil vis-à-vis technical/skilled trades. Modern warfare requires intelligence and acumen of high order to be able to operate sophisticated weapon systems. Combat soldiers use weapons with high skill capability and as such there can be no parallel for their trade in the civil. Any effort to find comparison may not yield results and yet these soldiers need to be compensated, as their attrition in war and fatal casualty rates are highest as compared to personnel in other professions.      

(iv) In the Armed Forces there are large number of trades, particularly of combat soldiers, who cannot acquire diploma, as there is no equivalent qualifications in civil. This deprives 97% of soldiers for entitlement of ‘X’ pay group throughout their service even though they continue to sharpen their combat skills and leadership traits by attending courses in schools of instructions, fmn/units and other training curriculum from time to time. Since the JCOs/ORs cannot be spared for training for long duration, structured training events at the level of fmn/units/trg ests and experience gathered over years of service have been considered in the service criteria for upgradation to Gp X at 08, 12 and 15 yrs of service which would qualify JCOs/ORs to be eligible for Gp ‘X’ pay. This proposal will be motivating for combat soldiers and will extend tangible benefits which are commensurate to their counterparts in pay group ‘X.’

Service HQ had submitted a proposal to MoD on this issue, [involving financial implications of Rs 1403.44 crore (one time) and recurring implication of Rs 0.21 crore.] The matter was examined in detail in consultation with Defence (Finance). Defence (Finance) had advised that the Services HQ may take up the case with the next Pay Commission. However, the Services HQ contended that the issue of who should form part of a particular trade or who should move to a higher trade will not get addressed by the Pay Commission and again requested for favourable consideration of the proposal. It was however opined by this Ministry that VI CPC had merged the Y and Z Groups and the present proposal of AHQ is to upgrade eventually from ‘Y’ to ‘X’ Group at various intervals within a span of 15 years, in other words, this tantamount to de facto merger of ‘X’ and ‘Y’ Groups over a period of time. This needs to be examined in detail by the VII CPC as the merger of Y and Z Groups was considered and recommended by the VI CPC.

Thereafter, the proposal was referred to Ministry of Finance. Upon examination of the matter, MoF advised on 03.09.2014 that the matter should be referred to the VII CPC being the expert body for taking a holistic view.

The proposal of the Services HQ to make provision for upgradation of JCOs/ORs from Group ‘Y’ to Group ‘X’ based on Point Rating System and length of service as explained in Para 4.1.22 to 4.1.23 of JSM may help in increasing motivation levels of JCOs/ORs. Accordingly, the VII CPC may like to consider the proposal.         
Common Pay Scale for each service like JCOs/ORs: The Services, in the Joint Services Memorandum to the Pay Commission, have raised the issue of Common Pay Scale for all in service pre-2006 JCOs/ORs of the three services. They have stated that in terms of recommendations of the Sixth CPC there has been a re-organisation of JCOs/ORs in two groups (X & Y) from earlier existing three groups (X, Y and Z) by upgrading the entry level minimum qualification of the Z Group from Matriculation to 10+2 and merging it with the Y Group. Further, Groups X and Y have been given a common pay scale since 01.01.2006 in PB-1 and 2 and same grade pay, with one distinguishing element of pay viz X-pay to X Group. It is stated that the implementation of this recommendation by the Government has resulted in situations where seniors in Y Group earlier drawing more total pay compared to juniors in X Group are now drawing less pay. In order to resolve such cases, the Services have suggested that pay of all Group Y and Z JCOs/ORs who joined prior to 1.1.2006 should be fixed in Fifth CPC scales of X Group and the pay so fixed may then be mapped into Sixth CPC common pay scales. It is understood that the matter relating to Common Pay Scales for in-service JCOs/ORs is a matter that is under the examination of the Ministry of Defence. The final outcome of such examination may kindly be intimated to Pay Commission.    
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.

As it has implications for civilian employees also, this matter may be addressed in a holistic manner by the 7th CPC.
Civilianisation of certain organisations under the Ministry: - It has been brought to the attention of the Commission that certain organisations under the Ministry of Defence or branches therein are carrying out functions which are entirely or to a substantial degree of a civilian nature. Some examples of these are the Military Engineering Service (MES), Accounts Branch of Air Force etc. In this regard the 5th Pay Commission recommended the gradual civilianisation inter alia of the Military Engineering Service, Account Branch of the Air Force. The Commission may kindly be apprised of the view of the Ministry in this regard.
The issue is purely an administrative issue. The Government can take a decision on the manning of the cadres as per operational and administrative requirements.
NFU and One Rank One Pension: - The Non-Functional Upgradation provides that whenever any Indian Administrative Service officer of the State or Joint Cadre is posted at the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific Grade Pay in Pay Band 3 or Pay Band 4, the members of service, who are senior to such IAS officers by two years or more and have not so far been promoted to that grade, shall be appointed in the same grade on non-functional basis from the date of posting of the IAS officer in that particular grade. In the Joint Services Memorandum, the Defence Services have sought granting NFU to Defence Officers. Non-Functional Upgradation will involve upgrading the concerned officer to a scale of pay which is at the next higher level.

The proposed scheme of One Rank One Pension envisages uniform pension to be paid to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement. In this context, has the Ministry taken a view on how the pension of of officers would get regulated if the demand for NFU which entails higher non-functional upgradation over and above the existing (and correspondingly pay of the next higher rank) is accepted?
In so far as the issue of NFU is concerned, the Ministry’s comment are as against Para No. 2 above.

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 of NFU which entails a higher non-functional upgradation, over and above the existing rank (and correspondingly pay of the next higher rank) is accepted.
Participation of Defence Forces in Central Staffing Scheme: - In the Joint Services Memorandum, the Defence Services have sought to include Defence Forces as one of the participating services for appointment to posts of Director and above in Central Government under Central Staffing Scheme, as admissible to All India Services and Group ‘A’ Services. The Commission may kindly be apprised of the view of the Ministry in this regard. 
At the outset it is stated that the issue of participation of the Defence services in the Central Staffing scheme in the Central Government 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 for 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.  
Superannuation age of PBORs: - With regard to PBORs, it has been observed that the age of superannuation in the Army, Navy, and Air Force varies widely in equivalent ranks. Annexe A brings out the position. Is the Ministry engage in any review/rationalisation on the age of superannuation of PBORs for the three Services? What is the existing international practice with regard to the superannuation of similarly placed personnel among the Defence Forces in comparable countries? 
The difference in superannuation ages amongst the three Service stems from the unique roles and operating 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 operational requirements of individual countries.
Lateral Entry of service personnel in Defence Civilian Organisations and CAPFs: - A scheme for lateral shift of defence personnel to Central Armed Police Forces and Defence Civilian Organisations was envisaged in Para 2.4.6 of the Report of the Sixth CPC. In the Joint Services Memorandum , the Defence Services have stated that despite positive recommendations of Central Pay Commissions and endeavours of the Government in the past for lateral movement of defence forces personnel, neither the policy on the subject has been enunciated nor has the implementation been effected. Services in their Joint Services memorandum have demanded implementation of the said proposition and stated that lateral shift would make career of Short Service Commissioned Officers and JCOs/ORs attractive and results in saving to Government on account of training and pension. The Commission may kindly be apprised of the view of the Ministry in this regard.
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.

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.

Ministry of Defence is also requested to furnish the following data/information to the Pay Commission
15 (a)
The sanctioned strength of select ranks of the Army, Air Force, and Navy in the format at Annexe B may kindly be furnished       
Data containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
15 (b)
The sanctioned strength of services personnel as on 01.01.2014 in various branches of the Defence Forces as per format in Annexe C may kindly be furnished.
15 (c)
Field posting period as a percentage of entire service in various branches of Defence Forces as per the format in Annex D may kindly be furnished.
Data containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
15 (d)
In response to Secretary, Seventh Pay Commission’s letter of 2 May 2014 seeking information on personnel, Ministry of Defence has stated that as on 01.01.2014 there are 11.84 lakh personnel in Army, 1.52 lakh personnel in the Air Forces and over 69,000 personnel in the Navy. Posting profile of these personnel (in all groups) in various branches of Defence Forces as on 01.01.2014 may kindly be furnished as per the format in Annex E.
Data containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
15 (e)
Number of permanent moves for Service officers in the entire career as per format in Annex F may kindly be furnished.
Data containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
15 (f)
Defence versus Civilian personnel in various Branches of the Armed Forces as on 01.01.2014 as per format in Annex G may kindly be furnished.
Data containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
15 (g)
List of training institutions in Defence Services by order of importance for tri0services and individually for the Army, Air Force, and Navy may kindly be furnished. Training Institution(s) tasked with training and induction of Officers in each Armed Force may be indicated.
Data containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.


  1. Readers will note that the 'MOD Comments' column states,"A large number of officers stagnate and retire at the level of Lt Colonel. 7th CPC may, therefore, devise ways to address this issue suitably".

    The new table/matrix put up by 7th CPC appears to have provided no solution for this. If they lower the service required to get the Col rank on time-bound basis, presently 26 years, this requirement can be met. However, 7th CPC seems to have made no recommendation on those lines.


  2. Bottom line is just gulp it coz in the name of operational n functional differences between civil n Defence everything can be put under the carpet,jai hind his bless the policy makers

  3. Selection grade Lt Cols did not get Col (TS) if they retd prior to cut off date of AV Comm recommendation as its implementation was also delayed. Whereas Lt Col TS where promoted even though they served for several years under Lt Col Selection Grade. Case of More pay and pension for subordinate work.

    1. Dear Sydney Lobo,

      The issue you have raised may be connected to some cases planned to be filed. You could see if that relates to your specific case

      If you wish, you could raise your concerns on that blog as well.


  4. It's pitiable that Scabbards are becoming Costlier than the Swords. I am afraid such alienated Swords might loose their Cutting Edge over a period. God Bless the Republic!

  5. if everything is negative from MOD and all as per vi pay commission then whats the use of mr modi and mr parikar sitting there and saying NO for everything to ARMED FORCES as if they are suppose to be existing only for giving own life.

  6. 7Th CPC has made recommendations of reduction in pay of military personnel in various ways by comparison with civilians , like, eg. Abolishing technical tier-2 pay to engg offrs of Air force, abolishing interest free advances(taken for official moves), removal of ration for defense personnel, and many more.

  7. 7Th CPC has made recommendations of reduction in pay of military personnel in various ways by comparison with civilians , like, eg. Abolishing technical tier-2 pay to engg offrs of Air force, abolishing interest free advances(taken for official moves), removal of ration for defense personnel, and many more.

  8. 7 CPC is REDUCING PAY & ALLOWANCES OF DEFENCE PERSONNEL ON NAME OF COMPARISON WITH CIVILIAN COUNTERPARTS, eg. Technical tier 2 pay given to engg officers for more than 2 decades, ration , interest free advances(for official moves at remote locations)

  9. GOI has since found suitable alternative and they have already started experimenting with alternative forces(Pathankot case)as a replacement.
    Moreover the government, in my opinion finding it difficult to bear the burden of Armed forces in terms of finances while trying to catch up with 10% economic growth.If the govt feels that they can do away with us and resolve all their issues through Para Military forces ,I think we should cool down and give them the chance to lead the country with Bureaucrats / politicians,Police and Para Military forces.

    1. para mil forces do not come free, subsequently they r going to be much more costlier than the defence forces. Their poor performance increase the cost further, see the result in all ops.

  10. Wow!a classic example of writing of babu to babu,finding all the lacune how defence forces cannot be paid.Mr Rai find conviently only the negetive aspects and builds on his arguements based on orevious denial.My point to Mr Rai is "your appointment to pay commission was to correct these anomalies on behalf of unrepresented soldiers,you not only failed in the assigned job but also with the kind of replies framed it clearly seems that you are out with vengence against armed forces."
    If you clearly see the 7 pay commission report the pay commission majorly is divided into 3 parts
    1- Armed forces.
    2- Military nursing services.
    3- Civillian central government employees.

    Isn't it ironical that al components are only from last kinds,thus bias towards own kinds is but obvious.

    Mr Rai in all his arguements has mentioned that there is no comparison between armed forces and civillian counterparts thus it is very much obvious that the gentleman is not at all aware of the working conditions of armed forces. We in armed forces are competent enough to handle our affairs so can we decide our pay panel or any bureaucrat who firms part of pay panel must serve 10 years in field with armed forces as combatants to actually comprehend the working condition to strike semblence with equality of work-if govrnment deems it necessary to keep armed forces i.e uniformed personnel out of pay pannel.

    I also wonder what happened to seprate pay pannel for armed forces.Also a point to ponder is that are these gospels under MoD Comments final? If the answer is yes then god save the nation and its armed forces.

  11. Every time Army is being betrayed in Every aspect be it pay or material. High time top army boss i.e.3 chiefs must put their foot down

  12. The babus of the MoD and the 7th PC have Not addressed the anaomolies nor given Justice to the Service Personnel, sooner or later this will blow up in the face of the babus and GOI, THEY ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE..BEWARE..

  13. The MOD comments are a litany of prejudiced and perverted logic of selective reasoning/precedents/presentation of distorted facts. This has been done with a single pointed and vitiated anti-military intent and purpose. This is a travesty of fairness or justice of the most vile kind. It is a sick mind's work unworthy of a point by point rebuttal.

  14. Nothing better could be accepted from the babu's from MoD. The MoD sits on the three services to axe their rights and ensure a continuous downgradation of services vis a vis the civilians. A very dangerous bent of mind is seen in the communique I.e to scuttle every ounce of respect. The services have bigger enemy within....I.e the MoD.

  15. What emerges from the stand taken by the Govt through DK Rai is "Say NO first on each point and then justify through jugglery of words. Yes Minister.

  16. If all post 2006, both retired and serving officers join Col Mukul Dev as impleaders in NFFU case in AFT Delhi, then only will the govt understand the implications. Till then MoD will keep def forces in the lowest rung.

  17. ANDHA BANTE SIRNY MUR MUR APNE KO DE. That's exactly happening in this country? Who decide our cases in MOD, same people who sits in the CPC n vis-versa. So how we can get any justice, they do not wish to recognize out training system though it train one for the war which is most dangerous n difficult profession. Let us face one fact that there r a limited resources in form of finances which has to be distributed among all Govt employees as a % of total availability/ budget n the first priority certainly goes to to the one who is handling the resources n that's the bureaucrats. So we can never get what we want or due to us. These ready made answers will continue till the time we have a wise n dedicated politicians to handle the issue keeping the defnce forces on priority. All committees ordered on defence matters take feed back from the MOD n the secretary is always a bureaucrats than how can we get any justice.

  18. Judiciary is the LAST & ONLY resort... If and only when armed forces personnel (retired AND serving) flood the courts with petitions will this insensitive govt machinery stir. Truth be said, there is still no guarantee of any justice but such mass (legal) action could (hopefully) stir the conscience of the nation. Every single rebuttal by MoD in the above reply are "text-book" cases of avoid, obfuscate, delay, deny and refuse. These letters could be ideal case-studies in IAS training academy at Mussourie, National Police Academy at Hyd and various other training centers of Gp A services... And as regards my above suggestion of taking legal recourse against the financial and administrative injustice to armed forces by the State, of course, by the time these cases would be heard / disposed, quite a few of us would have had the "Last Post" sounded in our memory too... Pity !!!!

  19. "Rank pay is part of basic pay" is the decision given by highest court of the land i.e. HSC. But these babus have the audacity to blatantly show contemp to that by putting it in writing in the 7th CPC report that Rank pay is not part of basic. They think no one can touch them, not even HSC. I request HSC to take this contemp very seriously and give them an exemplary punishment so that no such Idiot ever thinks of making contemp of any court, leave alone HSC.

  20. every thing for officers n they think about them.
    no one is worried about jawans and ldc