7th CPC Report vis-Ã -vis Defence Forces
A Few More Anomalies
“Justice will not be served until those
who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are (affected).”
― Benjamin Franklin
“When I hear of an 'equity' in a case like this, I am reminded of a blind
man in a dark room - looking for a black hat - which isn't there.
-
Charles Bowen”
“There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law,......the law of humanity, justice, equity - the law of nature
and of nations.”
- Edmund Burke
* * * * *
I downloaded and watched the Karan
Thapar anchored panel discussion of 16 Feb 16 on the 7th CPC vis-Ã -vis
the Military a couple of days ago. First thing that struck me but where was the
Air Force representative? I thought the Military comprised the Army (represented
by Gen V P Malik), Navy (Adm Arun Prakash), and the Air Force!
Shri Yogendra Narain, former Defence Secretary, Col
Ajai Shukla (of the Business Standard) and Shri Aman Sinha, a BJP leader and
spokesperson completed the panel. Here is my comment.
Risk
& Hazard Allowance (RHA) vis-Ã -vis Special Duty Allowance (SDA)
The first part was devoted to the 7th
CPC’s incongruity terming Siachen as the riskiest and most hazardous area and recommending
as Risk & Hardship Allowance (RHA) for Siachen at Rs 31, 500 for officers
and Rs 21, 000 for JCOs/ORs and then recommending a 30% of the basic pay (of
the new pay matrix) as Special Duty Allowance to incentivise civilian
employees, including the ironically terms All India Services (AIS) spearheaded
by the IAS to serve in Guwahati or the salubrious climate of Shillong or Aizawl,
and less colder than Siachen places like Leh or Kargil.
As 7th CPC appeared to rely on
precedent, I harked back to the 6th CPC Report for enlightenment.
At Para 3.2.1, the 6th CPC stated that All
India Services (AIS) officers i.e IAS, IFS, IFoS and IPS, vide Article 312 of
the Constitution of India, are common to the Union (of India) and the States
(of India, including Union Territories) and at Para 3.2.2, the 6th
CPC elaborated that AIS officers are liable (duty bound?) to serve under both,
the Centre and the States i.e. anywhere in India
But standing that logic on its head, 6th
CPC stated at Para 4.2.14 that Special (Duty) Allowance is recommended to
“offset security environment and the difficult working and living conditions in
the North East Region” and recommends the SDA for all AIS officers and Central
Government employees dispensing with (Para 4.2.25) the All India liability to
transfer and extending it to Ladakh by a princely sum equal to 37.5% of the Pay.
Isn’t that a tragedy (and in the present context,
anti-national) that AIS Officers and Central Govt employees need monetary
incentive to serve in two different, (but some what less developed?) parts of the Union of India?
And the 7th CPC was pleased to ‘rationalise’
the Special Duty Allowance from 37.5% of pay in the pay band of 6th
CPC to 30% of the pay matrix in 2016 i.e 37.5% of Rs 15600-67000 and 30% of 15600-67000
x 2.57 or 2.67 or 2.72!!
Perhaps the expert on defence related pay and
allowances either had no knowledge of the Revised All India Services Rules (Vol I,
II, and III) that AIS officers may be called up on to serve at the Centre, or
the parent cadre State or any other State etc or did not deem it necessary to
inform the Chairman and Members.
Shri Yogendra Narain added, perhaps
unwittingly, to the black humour by stating that Siachen Allowance was placed
above and outside the RHA matrix, may be he was at a loss for words to explain that
the AIS (ahem!) officers would earn Rs 54, 000 for a Joint Secretary and Rs
70,000 for an Additional Secretary (the figures quoted by Karan Thapar) for
serving in the North East or Ladakh!
Then,
there is always the standard obfuscation, which Shri Narain did not refer to,
of the terms & conditions of service for Defence Forces is different. An
excellent opportunity to ensure equity was lost by the 7th CPC!
Extending
the Edge for IAS
When the topic
came up about the Pay matrix being unfair to the Defence Forces, Shri Narain
countered that Defence Forces were being paid MSP. But he did not state that
MSP of Rs 15, 500 per month per officer (and Rs 5200 for JCO/OR) is a fraction
of the Special Duty allowance and the six increments recommended for IAS, IFS
(not excluded, as Ajai Shukla believes), IFoS and the IPS – AIS officers all!
What is this
double increment thrice within thirteen years of service for the IAS officers’?
The 6th
CPC justified at Para 3.2.7 that “the slight edge” in the initial stage for IAS
officers “is necessary and would to an extent neutralise the problems” of small
places, frequent transfers, and the pulls and pressures they have to withstand.
Again the CPC
lost an opportunity to ensure equity because Defence Forces personnel face
identical problems of small places, transfers at least once in two years, and
the pulls and pressures of executing duties outside their normal – law &
order when police cannot maintain it, aid to civil authority in the aftermath
of natural calamities etc.
At Para 3.2.8,
the 6th CPC gave that an edge the financial determination – additional increments at the Senior Time
Scale (STS), Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) and the Non-Functional (sic)
Selection Grade which, the 6th CPC estimated would amount to each
IAS officer getting an extra Rs 650, Rs 750 and Rs 800 at the STS, JAG, and
NFSG levels. They were also rewarded with a higher Grade Pay – Rs 6500 for STS,
Rs 7500 for JAG, and Rs 8300 for the NFSG.
The Indian
Civil and Administrative Service (Central) Association demanded continuing of
the increments, and the 7th CPC recommended it by justifying the
extra increments at 4 (STS), 9 (JAG), 13 (SG) years of service for IAS &
IFS, (see 7.2.6 to 7.2.24 and 7.3.9) for the reason that it was necessary because,
in the words of Karan Thapar, “(AIS) were doing complex, difficult, or critical
jobs.”
What
about the Section Commanders, the Platoon Commanders, the Company Commanders,
the Battalion commanders, even Brigade Commanders & equivalents? Did the CPC
feel that their jobs are simple, easy, and insignificant to deserve just Rs 15,
500 or Rs 5, 200, as the “incentive” to place lives and limbs at risk in the
face of the bullets, shrapnel, and mortar rounds being fired at them?
AIS
Entrance Examination & Interview vis-Ã -vis Pilot Aptitude Battery Test
The expert, whose depth of knowledge on pay and
allowances of Defence Forces, drew the following (unstinted?) praise from the
Chairman 7th CPC, no less, for having a “deep insight into the financial matters
especially, the defence. His knowledge about defence finance has been of great
help to this Commission in determining the pay structure for the defence
forces. He is a young man and hold (sic) a long career before him
and his insight into the financial intricacies of the pay structure of the
defence service will take him to great height (sic). I wish him great success, a bright future awaits him” (re-produced
verbatim from the 7 CPC Report).
It would not have occurred to the aforementioned honourable
expert, for it might have been one of the things not in his domain of knowledge
to bring it to the notice of the Chairman, the ex-IAS Member, or the eminent
economist, when the edge for the IAS was being justified, that
A candidate for IAS
has 6 chances or till the age of 32 years in the General category, 9 chances or
35 years of age for OBC candidates and 37 years of age for SC/ST candidates to
appear for and pass and qualify for All India Services.
[The candidate who
passes preliminary and Main examinations is then interviewed by members of the
UPSC for determining (what the Kothari
Committee defined requirement) his/her clarity of expression, grasp of narrative and
argument, reasoning ability, appreciation of different points of view, etc and
qualities of leadership, integrity and honesty. Like most interviews, the
result is subjective and depends on the knowledge of the Chairman and Members
of the UPSC as much as that of the candidate.]
On the other hand, a candidate opting for joining the Air Force as a
pilot through the NDA or through CDSE has only one chance in the Pilot
Aptitude Battery Test (PABT) designed by DIPR – Defence Institute of
Psychological Research, of DRDO.
If he/she fails the PABT test, then he/she is
permanently disqualified from joining the Flying branch of the Air Force.
Therefore, advancing the same argument (precedent?) of the
CPC about the AIS entrance examination, all officers of the Air Force’s Flying
Branch (and Army Aviation Corps and Naval Aviators) should be entitled to pay advantage, or an ‘edge’ at three grades, viz.,
the Senior Time Scale (Flt Lt & equivalent), Junior Administrative Grade (Squadron
Leader & equivalent) and Selection Grade (Wg Cdr & equivalent) in the
form of two additional increments @ 3 percent each, over and above the
promotional increment, at 4, 9 and 13
years of service.
Equity?
The CPC would have ensured equity (a term the CPC has used
profusely in the Report to justify reduction of pay, increments, and allowances
to the Defence Forces) if, just like the Indian Civil and Administrative Service (Central) Association was allowed to express its views, CPC had invited the
Ex-Servicemen organisations (IESL, AFA, Naval Foundation) to express their
points of view, since the Defence Forces are forbidden, by the Army, Navy, and
Air Force Acts, from forming an
Association to represent their grievances.
In the discussion on the usefulness of an Empowered Group
of Secretaries (minus Defence Forces representation), Shri Yogendra Narain
conceded that not all anomalies consequent to the 5th and 6th
CPC were addressed by the Cabinet Secretary Committees (CSCs). It might have
been useful to the 7th CPC’s expert on defence pay and allowances,
if he was aware and has apprised himself and the CPC that the recommendations
of the two CSCs were as follows: -
Summary of Recommendations by CSC of 2009:
-
“8. To sum up, the following recommendations
are made by the Committee: -
Personnel
Below Officer Ranks
(i) The
proposal of Ministry of Defence to bring pre 10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners on par
with post 10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners may be agreed to. Since this is a new
concession aimed at improving the pension of PBORs, the benefit will be given
prospectively and no arrears are to be given. The financial implications for
the proposal would be Rs 470.66 crore per annum.
(ii) The
proposal of the Ministry of Defence to reckon the enhanced rate of
classification allowance w.e.f.1.1.2006 on notional basis for the purpose of
calculation of pension (as in the case of reckoning MSP for determination of
pension) may be agreed to. This recommendation would benefit around 88, 000
PBORs who retired between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008. The average increase in
pension of these PBORs is estimated to be Rs 60 p.m. in Basic Pension. The
financial implications for this proposal will be Rs 7.73 crore per annum. This
proposal emanates from Sixth CPC’s recommendations and may be implemented w.e.f
1.1.2006. Accordingly, arrears will be paid.
(iii) In order
to reduce the gap between the pensions of pre and post 1.1.2006 PBOR
pensioners, it is proposed to follow the principle of the Award of GOM of 2006
in the following manner: -
(a) To reckon
the pension of all pre 1.1.2006 PBOR 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) Also to
continue with enhanced weightage awarded by the GOM.
This
dispensation, which will be applicable to service pension as in the case of GOM
award of 2006, will result in average monthly increase in pension of pre
1.1.2006 PBORs in the range of Rs 800 to Rs 1400 for Group Y depending on the
rank and years of service. This will benefit approximately 12 lakh pre-1.1.2006
PBOR pensioners. The financial implications on account of this proposal would
be Rs 1636 crore per annum. Since this is a new concession aimed at improving
the pension of PBORs, the benefit will be given prospectively and no arrears are
to be given.
Commissioned
Officers
(iv) The
proposal to remove the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying
service w.e.f 1.1.2006 instead of 1.9.2008 in the case of Commissioned Officers
may be agreed to. A similar dispensation will have to be extended to civilians
who have retired between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008. This recommendation would
benefit around 1100 Officers (Army) whose pension would increase by about Rs
3000 p.m. In the case of civilians, this dispensation will benefit only those who
have taken voluntary retirement after rendering 20 to 28 years of service. The
number of such personnel is not likely to be significant. The financial
implications for this proposal will be Rs 4.83 crore per annum. This proposal
emanates from Sixth CPC’s recommendations and may be implemented w.e.f
1.1.2006. Accordingly, arrears will be paid.
(v) In order
to address the issue of disparity in the pension of pre and post 1.1.2006
pensioners at the level of Lt General/equivalent/Additional Secretary & equivalent
civilian categories, a separate pay scale starting at Rs 67000 and going up to
Rs 79000 may be created and all officers of the level of Lt General/Additional
Secretaries/equivalents may be fixed in this scale. As a result of this, the
pension of pre 1.1.2006 Lt Generals will get fixed at Rs 36500 and those of
Additional Secretaries at Rs 33500. This will benefit roughly 4000 officers.
The financial implication for this proposal will be Rs 25 crore per annum. The
proposal emanates from Sixth CPC’s recommendations and may be implemented w.e.f
1.1.2006. Accordingly, arrears will be paid.
All
Defence Pensioners
(vi) It is
proposed to agree to broad-banding of percentages of disability/war injury
pension for pre-1.1.1996 disability/war injury pensioners. The financial
implications of the proposal will be collated by Department of Expenditure from
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Department of Pensions, and Ministry of
Home Affairs.
(vii) It is
proposed to remove the cap on war injury element of pension in the case of
disabled pensioners belonging to Category E. This will also be applicable to
civilian personnel, including those belonging to Central Para Military Forces.
The financial implications of the proposal will be collated by Department of
Expenditure from Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Department of Pensions,
and Ministry of Home Affairs.
9. The financial implications of the above
proposals from (i) to (v) at a glance are as under: -
|
Sl No.
|
Proposal
|
Annual Implications
(crore)
|
|
(a)
|
Inclusion
of classification allowance for PBORs from 1.1.2006
|
7.73
|
|
(b)
|
Removal
of linkage of full pension with 33 years from 1.1.2006
|
4.83
|
|
(c)
|
Revision
of Lt General pension after carving out a separate pay scale for them
|
25
|
|
(d)
|
Bringing
parity between pension of pre and post 10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners
|
470.66
|
|
(e)
|
Further
improving PBOR pensions based on award of GOM 2006
|
1636
|
|
Total
|
2144.22
|
Financial
implication on account of arrears of (a), (b) and (c) = Rs 164.5 crore
Summary of Recommendations
by CSC 2012
“To
sum up, the following recommendations are made by the Committee:-
Issues relating to
ex-servicemen and consisting of pension related anomalies
(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
(a) the 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.
(i) 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.
Issues relating to serving defence personnel
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 (emphasis supplied).
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.
* * * * *
