Request 50072 and Appeal
60112 – Rank Pay Brief
Online RTI Request Form
Details
RTI Request Details:-
RTI Request Registration number MODEF/R/2016/50072
Public Authority Department
of Defence
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-
Name S. Y. Savur
Gender Male
Address 141, Jal
Vayu Towers , NGEF Layout, Indira Nagar PO, Bangalore
Pincode 560038
Country India
State Karnataka
Status Urban
Educational Status Literate
Phone Number +91-9688782227
Mobile Number +91-9449676278
Email-ID sharad10525[at]gmail[dot]com
Request Details :-
Citizenship Indian
Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ? No
(Description
of Information sought (upto 500 characters)
Description of Information Sought: -
Please
refer to MoD F No. 22/5/2014- D(PCC) quoted in Chapter 6.2 of the 7th CPC with
particular reference to Paragraphs 6.2.29 and 6.2.30 regarding MoD comment on
the Defence Services that pay of officers was depressed to the extent of the
amount of Rank Pay.
D
(Pay/Services) was the primary department that replied to and prepared affidavits,
briefs etc in the Rank Pay case i.e. Maj (retd) A K Dhanapalan Vs UoI
in OP 2448 of 1996, WA 518
of 1998 in the Honourable High Court of Kerala and SLP (C) No. 5908 of 2003 in
the Honourable Supreme Court.
D
(Pay/Services) was again the primary department to prepare briefs, affidavits
etc in Transfer Petition (C) No. 56 of 2007 and IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No.
56 of 2007 which ultimately was decided in favour of Lt Col N K Nair &
Others on 4.9.2012.
Please
provide information as defined in Section 2(f) of the information, brief, file
notings etc that were provided by D(Pay/services) to D (Pay Commission Cell)
for it to prepare the comments for the 7th CPC.
Online RTI Appeal Form Details
RTI Appeal Details:-
RTI Appeal Registration number MODEF/A/2016/60112
Public Authority Department
of Defence
Personal Details of Appellant:-
Request Registration Number MODEF/R/2016/50072
Request Registration Date 07/01/2016
Name S. Y. Savur
Gender Male
Address 141, Jal
Vayu Towers , NGEF Layout, Indira Nagar PO, Bangalore
Pincode 560038
Country India
State Karnataka
Status Urban
Educational Status Literate
Phone Number +91-9688782227
Mobile Number +91-9449676278
Email-ID sharad10525[at]gmail[dot]com
Appeal Details :-
Citizenship Indian
Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ? No
Ground For Appeal Refused
access to Information Requested
CPIO of Public Authority approached Details not
provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Number Details not
provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Date
(Description
of Information sought (upto 500 characters)
Prayer or Relief Sought
Sir,
I
requested D (Pay/Services) to provide me a copy of the brief given to 7 CPC by
the Vide 35(1)/2015/D(Pay/Services) dated 10 Feb 2016, the request has been
declined under Section 8 (i) because the Committee of Secretaries is
considering the recommendations of the 7th CPC.
I
HAVE NOT REQUESTED FOR ACTION/INFORMATION ON recommendation of 7 CPC which I
know cannot be disclosed at this juncture.
I
have requested the comments on Rank Pay case provided by D (Pay/Services) to D
(PCC) and which has been quoted in the Report of the 7 CPC.
Therefore, being
aggrieved, I am filing this First Appeal for orders to the CPIO to provide me
the information requested for.
Reply to Appeal No. MODEF/A/2016/60112
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
No. 35
(1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) New
Delhi, the 4th April, 2016
ORDER
Reference is
invited to the appeal dated 18.2.2016 filed by Shri S Y Savur received vide MoD
ID No. MODEF/A/2016/60112/ D (RTI) dated 3.3.2016 (received on 14.3.2016)
against the reply dated 10.2.2016 by CPIO, D (Pay/Services), MoD in response to
his RTI application dated 7.1.2016.
2. I have considered the aforesaid appeal on
the basis of facts submitted by the appellant and comments furnished by the
CPIO, D (Pay/Services), MoD. The VII CPC recommendations are still under
consideration of Committee of Secretaries. However, I have directed CPIO, D
(Pay/Services), to provide a copy of the inputs given in the issue of Review
and Enhancement of Grade Pay case to D (PCC). The appeal is accordingly
disposed off.
Sd/-----------------
04/04/16
(Pradeep Kumar)
Director (AG-I) & Appellate Authority
Copy of this
order be supplied to: -………..
* * * * * *
Information provided vide MoD No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) dated 04 Apr 2016.
(iii) Rank Pay (Review and enhancement of Grade Pay): The matter relating to 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 (except Lt/equiv) 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 Service Instructions for pay revision, Ministry of Finance also did not approve the merger of Rank Pay and Basic Pay and observed that pre-revised scale and Rank Pay should be shown distinctly in two separate columns in pay fixation tables. Accordingly, Service instructions were issued. The demand in case of PBORs was not part of the issues/anomalies raised by the Services in 2009. However, the matter was raised in 2011 and was not agreed to.
Not merging Rank Pay with Basic Pay was upheld in the Pranab Mukherjee Report. It was also emphaised therein that the Central Pay Commissions are recommendatory authorities and the final decision of the pay scales as well as the parity between various levels/ranks of civilian and armed forces officers is taken by the Cabinet, and as such the Cabinet decision is the final word on the subject.
* * * *
Bravo sir..satyam ev jayate !..
ReplyDeletewhere the mind is without fear, into that heaven of freedom, let my country....................
What should be the correct grade pay in the wake of Rank Pay judgement? Should it be something like this?
ReplyDeleteLieutenant - 5400
Captain - 6600
Major - 7600
Lt.Col - 8700
Col - 8900
Brig - 10000
Maj.Gen - 12000
Lt.Gen - NA, Apex scale
What is your opinion sir?
Please see reply to @Naren below.
DeleteNo inspector/AE MES 8YRS SERVICE IS GETTING RS 10000as grade pay equivallent to IAS REQUIRED OR higher in view of early retirement than them
DeleteCommendable Initiative n persistence.Hope you have recd copy of their comments and input? Can that be a basis for fresh appeal before SC in the Rank Pay case/or at least rectifying the proposed pay bands matrix in the 7CPC ?
ReplyDeleteSir, the Apex Court has laid down a judgment in a case on Concept of Finality, stating that litigation cannot be prolonged or fresh cases filed once a judgement has been delivered.
ReplyDeleteIn the Rank Pay case, the RDOA (aka Lt Col N K Nair) filed a Contempt Petition (C) No. 328 of 2013, which was finally dismissed on 18.8. 2015. RDOA had 90 days to file a Review Petition, if it felt that ends of justice were not served by the dismissal of the CP (C) 328 of 2013. RDOA did not file a case and the matter has achieved the definition of Concept of Finality.
What are the rectifications in the pay matrix of 7 CPC? Please note there are no pay bands!!!!
It is sad that RDOA did not file a review petition which resulted in the dead end for chances of restoring the grade pay and honour. I hope SHQs will fight for pay matrix corresponding to the notional grade pays post Rank pay judgement.
DeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDeleteYes, there are no pay bands in 7th CPC but the pay matrix still has levels (or grades) and pay progression (within each level corresponding to yearly increment of 3% within that level).
The replacement scales as per 7th CPC would be based on existing 6th CPC rates of Basic and Grade pays for different levels/grades. If the grade pays for different AFs officers' ranks are depressed (due to non resolution of rank pay anomaly post favourable verdict by the hon'ble SC) how can one possibly hope for fixation of correct level in the proposed pay matrix? Thus the unresolved anomaly would be carried not only to the 7th CPC but to the grave by the concerned officers as pension is also a function of basic pay. :(
Interestingly when rank pay for us was discontinued (post 6th CPC) it was NOT counted for determining new basic pay in 6th CPC (please recall MoD's boilerplate, " A view has been taken that rank pay for armed forces officers will not form part of basic pay for fixation of new 6th CPC scales.") but then how come ---now that Grade pay is being junked ---it is diligently being carried over into 7th CPC matrix! There must be something grossly wrong with us if, despite mountain of irrefutable evidence, we still cannot get our basic pay fixed correctly!
Similarly no arrears were paid for the MSP on the pretext that it was a new component but Grade pay arrears were happily disbursed.
And how naïve we were to think that if we stayed with the civilians for CPC purpose (rather than having a separate CPC for us) we will automatically benefit. :(
Not that I am a votary of a separate CPC for AFs, I just want to highlight that it is the MALICIOUS INTENT and the CUSSED ATTITUDE of the system (you know who Sir!) that is responsible for ills plaguing us, regardless of combined or separate CPC.
warm regards,
- Harry
Sir,
DeleteThat is an interesting observation.
I had delved into some aspects of the 7 CPC matrix but chiefly from the point of view of pension parities { details here : https://goo.gl/rfL4j5/}
But I understand that instead of basic and grade pay, levels and index numbers will determine the pay package as stated in this para, "5.2.3 Pay levels have been set out in a pay matrix, separately for civilian and defence forces personnel. The Commission has evolved a fresh approach by merging the grade pay and pay bands into distinct pay levels..".
That seems to indicate there may not be much of a disadvantage in the transition from 6th to 7th CPC. The number of index points are in harmony with 6 CPC pay-band stages. However, the damage, if any, could have been caused at the time of implementing 6 CPC recommendations.
Though there has been some mention of finality regarding the rank pay case, if I remember correctly, the judgement had mentioned an opening for those who felt wronged in fixation of their basic pay in relation to the rank pay matter.
There is still no news whether anyone had taken up the matter.
Last known, the Rank Pay case has had its end. Nobody has filed any grievance, probably with arrears of wef 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012, and OROP and now deletion of 33 years clause wef 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 retirees filling up dry bank accounts!
DeleteSir,
DeleteThat appears to be the case, indeed.
But, those left out of the benefits of deletion of 33 years, especially those who retired after attaining super-annuation before AVS recommendations were implemented, would definitely be expecting, or at least be moderately hopeful of some sort of positive development on the 26 years matter QS or the pensions based on increments issue I had referred to, the latter in the last part of this blog-post : https://goo.gl/2vGZbd .
@Ashwani Sarda
DeleteSir,
The disadvantage of AFs offrs while moving to 7th CPC matrix will still be there, even if we leave aside our 6th CPC depressed GPs for a moment. As per 7th CPC report offrs in PB-4 got higher benefit during 6th CPC era and hence 7th CPC reduced their multiplication factor for pay fixation to 2.57 but the same wise men of 7th CPC gave a higher multiplication factor to a DIG (conveniently forgetting that he was part of 6th CPC era PB-4 as well!)
Secondly please look at the top of the scales (within each level) for Def Pay Matrix, these have been lowered for us in comparison with Civ Pay Matrix.
Harry Sir,
DeleteI am sorry to correct you once again: -
Civilian Level 10, GP 5400, Entry Rs 21000, 7 CPC Start Rs 56100
Defence Level 10, GP 5400, Entry Rs 21000, 7 CPC Start Rs 56100
Defence Level 10B, GP 6100, Entry Rs 22960, 7 CPC Start Rs 61300
No Level 10 B for Civilian
Civilian Level 11, GP 6600, Entry Pay Rs 25350, 7 CPC Start Rs 67700
Defence Level 11, GP 6600, Entry Pay Rs 25980, 7 CPC Start Rs 69400
Civilian Level 12, GP 7600, Entry Pay Rs 29500, 7 CPC Start Rs 78800
Defence Level 12 A, Gp 8000, Entry Pay Rs 45400, 7 CPC Start Rs 116700
Civilian Level 13, GP 8700, Entry Pay Rs 46100, 7 CPC Start Rs 118500
Defence Level 13, GP 8700, Entry Pay Rs 48900, 7 CPC Start Rs 125700
Civilian Level 13 A, GP 8900, Entry Pay Rs 49100, 7 CPC Rs 131100
Defence Level 13A, GP 8900, Entry Pay Rs 52290, 7 CPC Rs 134400.
Dear Sir,
DeleteI had mentioned top (i.e. maximum) of the scales for each level and not bottom or start of the scale. Maybe I conveyed it incorrectly. The top (implying maximum) of the scales are at the bottom of each level and the start of each scale is given at the top.
However, if I may clarify here that the higher start for def offrs (in comparison with 'equivalent' civs) itself is a result of skewed equivalence which has been built over a period of time. Formerly lower civ scales are shown equivalent to higher def scales to show that def offrs are getting more pay (this is how Shri DK Rai got commended by Chairman 7th CPC!)
Earlier a Capt was eqvt to STS but now he has been pushed down a notch and Maj has become equivalent to STS (Undersecy grade).
Also please take into account the No of years of service needed to get to a particular rank for def and compare that with his so-called eqvt civ grade. For example
A Col rank is reached after 16 -18 years (excl trg period) service where as civ NSFG is reached in 13 years (incl probation period). So difference in starting pay is on account of more No of increments for a Col. That a Lt Col should have been in NSFG is the whole point which gets further illustrated by this juxtaposition of def and civ matrices.
Similarly a Brig rank is reached after 26-27 years whereas an IPS needs only 14 years to be a DIG. How can the starting salary of the two be same Sir? Accordingly a Col should be eqvt to a DIG and not a Brig. Please remember that they have used a multiplication factor of 2.67 for a DIG (unlike 2.57 for a Brig) to boost DIG's pay and bring it somewhat closer to a Brig to justify their 'equivalence'.
Sir,
DeleteApart from other comparisons, the chief concern is how the 7 CPC system of increments will actually be implemented.
Though I must admit I have taken a rather narrow view from the perspective of retirees in just one rank and that too for retirees of the pre 2006 era, but the variation in number of increments for the same QS, across the years, seems to be another source for future anomalies : https://goo.gl/F1lnRj
@Harry, how about sticking to putting your comments either here or sending it on email? You are adding to my work as I need to place replies in two places.
DeleteAnd place all your perceptions in one place so that we have a consolidated discussion instead of bits and pieces.
Why are we mixing up the Army Promotion policy and time frame with that of others? What stopped Army from promoting a Col to Brig at 14 years? It is irrational to say A got this in 14 years and now I want you to give A this after 27 years because B gets it then.
@Harry, the final dollop(?)of the top of pay matrix; Pay matrix of Col and Brig is shorter - Index 18 for Col (18 years as Colonel!) as against 21 years for civilian with GP 8700 and Index 14 for Brig (14 years as Brig!) as against Index 18 for Civilian with GP 8900.
DeleteEquivalents for Maj Gen, HAG, HAG+, Apex I and Apex II have the same index.
Before you write, "I told you so," imagine a Col remaining in that rank for 18 years! And a Brig for 14 years!
Suppose A is commissioned at 20 years, promoted to Select Col at 18 years of service (age 38), he would be 56 years of age before he stares at stagnation!
Similarly, a Brig serving in that rank for 14 years? A is commissioned at 20 years of age, promoted Col (Select) at 18 years service (age 38 years), Brig at 24 years service (age 44 years) and serving till age of 58 before he stares at stagnation!
Sir, even if col and brig will retire before stagnation as per timeframe given above, what is the harm in extending the scale for a few more years by adding 3% increment every year to cater for eventualities of earlier (?) promotion in near future. What is the catch here for restricting it to 18 and 14 years for col and brig.
DeleteDrear Sir,
Delete"What stopped Army from promoting a Col to Brig at 14 years? It is irrational to say A got this in 14 years and now I want you to give A this after 27 years because B gets it then."
Now if taking a cue from your statement, Army HQ gets into action and gets reduced service requirements approved from the Govt for Col and Brig ranks a la NFSG (GP 8700) and DIG (GP 8900) on the lines of Civ services --- to attain true current-parity, forget historical --- then are we going to let them rot at top of the scale just because it has been lowered for Def pers in comparison with civs? And if sometime in future, Govt decides to do away with re-emp and instead increase the retirement ages, what happens then?
Harry sir,
DeleteIf, some time in future, when all civ will be covered by NPS, and the Govt decides to lower the retirement ages, what happens then?
Sir, please think. Please think once more that Cols and Brigs retire at lower ages than a civilian who retires at 60 years of age.
There are 18 index levels for Cols i.e one has to be Col for 17 years to stagnate. There are 14 index levels for Brigs i.e. one has to be Brig for 13 years to stagnate. Why are you keeping them if they cannot be promoted to Brig and Maj Gen in 17 and 13 years after they were last promoted, respectively?
You are promoting to Col in 18th year (age 38 or 39). Add 18 years and his age is 56 or 57. What is the Col's retirement age?
You are promoting to Brig in 24th year (age 44 or 45). Add 14 years and his age is 58 or 59. What is a Brig's retirement age?
The next pay commission may be in 2026, ie 9 years 8 months from now. What happens then?
May I suggest you read the Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeal 3208 of 2015 on the Command & Exit policy? Army is obliged to reduce the ages of Arms and Combat Support Arms and that is why Army demanded the AVSC.
@ Aerial View 25 Apr 2016 at 09:31
DeleteSir,
In response to @ Harry’s comment that,” A Col rank is reached after 16 -18 years (excl trg period) service where as civ NSFG is reached in 13 years (incl probation period).” you observed,” Why are we mixing up the Army Promotion policy and time frame with that of others? What stopped Army from promoting a Col to Brig at 14 years? It is irrational to say A got this in 14 years and now I want you to give A this after 27 years because B gets it then”.
I think @ Harry has point in that post of his. The 7 CPC has assumed that the ‘Residency Period’ for promotion to a Col Post/Rank is 15 Years. They had therefore arrived at the conclusion that
‘Defence Level 13, GP 8700, Entry Pay Rs 48900, 7 CPC Start Rs 125700’
It is for the Services to argue now, that the Col ‘s Entry Level Pay is not 48900 but it is 49590 (42120 Plus 8700) as per the fixation in 6CPC, and it should have been much more, that is (42120Plus 8700) 50820, as per the original demand of the services.!
But the Services could also take a cue from this and start promoting Lt.Col. to Col after 15 years of service.
The start of the Index level has an effect in the pay of those who get their promotion later than the assumed ‘Residency’ period, in that. They get lesser when they are actually promoted.
About the maximum of the permissible pay in each ‘Level’, we may recall that while one may not serve in a given rank till one hits the maximum, but when (probably in future) reverts to Pay Scale system of Pay, then the it is the maximum of the Pay Level that is taken, for determining the equivalents.
The services had short pay scales in each rank, and the government argued that the ‘End of Pay Scale’ decides which Scale is senior, while comparing with the Civil Pay Scales.!
It is therefore necessary to retain higher maximum pay, in each ‘Level’.
Ah, Harry, I missed you detailed comment. Hope all was well.
ReplyDeleteIf RDOA, or anyone else had filed a Review Petition we would have not been as vexed as we are now.
Who and were has any one got arrears of Grade Pay? Except from 1.1.2006? Just like MSP introduced on 1.1.2006? If there is some document that I have missed, please let me have the link so that I will be more enlightened.
When Rank Pay was continued from 4 to 5 CPC it suffered the same fate. Today, Grade Pay + Pay in the Pay Band (because except Armed Forces who got MSP) is the lowest standard just like MSP was not counted for 3% increment!
No, I don't know who in the "cussed system", please let me know.
Have you been reading the 7 CPC Report in detail? I am dropping a bomb in a couple of days (equivalent of an armour piercing shot).
Sir with trepidation and perplexed perspiration, we are awaiting the armour piercing shot !!!!!
DeleteJust re-checking all the figures and the reference number(s) of the source(s) of information.
DeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDelete"If RDOA had filed a review petition...
Yes Sir, valid point but even such a review petition may or may not have helped our cause as we have repeatedly seen how decisions of the courts are actually implemented/ executed on ground. So the final frontier (to borrow Steve Waugh's phrase during Australia's famous India tour of 1998) remains the politico-bureaucratic combine (that also answers your other query about the 'system' Sir!)
"Arrears of grade pay.."
Yes Sir, I also mean to say that arrears of grade pay (which was a new component then) were given to all wef 1 Jan 2006 unlike MSP (akin to basic pay for mil with DA paid on that) which was made applicable only prospectively wef Sep 2008 citing it to be a new component.
Seemingly, sauce for the gander is often not a sauce for the goose!
Sir, I had read the 7th CPC report after it had come out but I was so disappointed that I did not feel like looking at it again. Your ominous hint about forthcoming revelation about 7th CPC only heightens my sense of alarm and trepidation! :(
Warm regards,
- Harry
Arrears of MSP being made effective 1.9.2008 is not one of the anomalies of the 6 CPC raised by Services. It finds no mention in the CSC Reports of 2009 or 2012. The only anomaly about Grade Pay was enhancement.
DeleteAnd no one as yet has approached the AFT or Courts for redress! Which, to a cynic like me, means we were all happy, as happy as can be!
Dear Sir,
DeleteMSP arrears have not been projected by the Services as an anomaly. Accepted.
But it may just be the case that Services had more imp issues to rake (as per their priority) on the CPC anomalies front and decided to leave out this one. Surely we all can think of grievances outside the Services letter as it possibly cannot cover every single issue.
Please recall it took a certain Maj AK Dhanpalan to shake the whole system. Until he did it, Services were sitting smug then too. ;)
Must be the effect of the suggestion for lifting spirits prior to reading the 3 CPC Report! Services HQ asked for entrancement of Grade Pay but not for arrears?
DeleteMaybe, after your interaction with the AG, you will be Dhanapalan Mk II! He took up Rank Pay 10 years after it was approved; we are in the 8th year (from 2008) of Grade Pay!
Dear Sir,
Delete1 Let them first correct our depressed Grade pays (prior to fixing our new basic pay as per 7th CPC). Seeking retrospective arrears of corrected (if and when done) Grade Pay wef 1 Jan 2006 (i.e. the day when anomaly got created in first place) is the next logical step!
2. Even if we leave out seeking MSP arrears from 1 Jan 2006 to 31 Aug 2008, seeking retrospective arrears of NFU (if and when implemented), from its inception date i.e. 1 Jan 2006 ---at par with civs--- will be another battle ahead in future.
Sir, please read 5.1.20.i and 5.2.9 of the 7 CPC Report which states that there has been a need for moderation of Grade Pay of Rs 8700 for civilians and for Lt Cols and Cols and hence the factor of 2.57!
DeleteNFU! Now that is another kettle of fish! How come we forget withholding DACP even after Apex Court ruling? Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander?
Yes Sir, withholding DACP for mil doctors despite SC ruling (contempt petition WP(C) 957/2014 by Wing Cdr AK Handa (retd) is still under SC's consideration in this case) is equally wrong on the part of our brass.
DeleteAnd Sir I don't much care what 7th CPC says. Please recall that it also says that No Risk and Hardship allowance can be greater than Siachen but then very conveniently, in a different chapter, grants 30% SDA to civ servants posted to places like Shillong, Guwahati, Leh, Srinagar etc.
DeleteAnd finally after reading the blatant lies (based on the contrived data figures fed by Shri DK Rai, IDAS)like AFs officers get higher pay than Civil servants till about 30 yrs of service, I have lost whatever respect I had for the commission.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThrough this blog of yours I want to request the maximum followers and members of our fraternity to sign my petition, linked-below, for needful restoration of AFs status and dignity:-
https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-restore-rightful-status-protocol-dignity-of-armed-forces-ranks-end-perpetual-injustice
Thanks & warm regards,
- Harry
PS: The link could be copy-pasted in a browser address bar for opening and signing.
Maybe this piece will tell us all, like it told me that we are once again in that self-made nightmare of 3rd CPC did us in (cannot use the S or F word, because many might be offended).
DeleteStatus/protocol/dignity, ahem: -
Status based on President's Order (erstwhile King’s Warrant) of Precedence
1. WoP 1937 does not matter. The reason is that India gained independence in 1947 and became a Republic in 1950. Civil Authority and holders of Constitutional Office will inevitably be placed higher in the order of protocol than Defence Forces.
2. And how do our Chiefs fare in the Order of Precedence list compared to some other countries of the Commonwealth and elsewhere?
Our Chiefs are 12th out of 26,same as the Cabinet Secretary;
In Australia, the Chiefs are 40th out of 43 at par with Secretaries of the Australian Public Service;
In Canada, the CDS is 26th out of 31;
In France, the CDS is 9th out of 19;
In Israel, CDS is 7th out of 12; and in
USA, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff is 50th out of 57 and is outranked by the Post Master General!
From your latest update, it is observed that there is no mention of the verdict of the SC on Rank Pay in the note given by the MoD.Purposely hiding the information to manipulate the decision.
ReplyDeleteSir,
DeleteThe reply was given to 7 CPC on 08 May 2015 and the verdict of the Apex Court was on 18 August 2015.
You may wish to correct your impression.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteIf the MoD note pre-dates the verdict, then was any rejoinder sent --- after the SC verdict in rank pay case was delivered on 18 Aug 2015 --- to make due corrections in the submission as required in light of the ruling of the Apex Court?
I did not ask MoD because the stand, to my understanding was the same, in other words, that pay was not depressed to the extent of the amount of Rank Pay.
DeleteAre you aware if the Services HQ placed the Apex Court ruling before the 7 CPC in any additional memorandum?
Negative Sir. I am not aware whether they did it or not. But yes they ought to have done that to buttress their case for enhancement of depressed grade pays.
ReplyDeleteIn civil proceeding, an application for Review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. The said Rule contemplates the following grounds for Review of an order –
Delete(i) The discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the petitioners’ knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made.
(ii) Some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
In this context, “error ” means “error of law”
Now at this juncture what can be done
ReplyDeleteJustice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice H.L. Dattu of the Supreme Court of India, in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India & Ors., have examined the concept of finality of judgment and how the adversarial system in India is being abused by litigants, and its adverse impact of the administration of justice. While examining various authorities on the subject, the Hon'ble Court has also examined the law prevalent in other countries such as England, Canada, Fiji and Australia. The extracts from the judgment relevant to India are reproduced below;
DeleteFINALITY OF JUDGMENT
114. The maxim `interest Republicae ut sit finis litium' says that it is for the public good that there be an end of litigation after a long hierarchy of appeals. At some stage, it is necessary to put a quietus. It is rare that in an adversarial system, despite the judges of the highest court doing their best, one or more parties may remain unsatisfied with the most correct decision. Opening door for a further appeal could be opening a flood gate which will cause more wrongs in the society at large at the cost of rights.
115. It should be presumed that every proceeding has gone thorough filtration several times before the decision of the Apex Court. The controversy between the parties must come to an end at some stage and the judgment of this court must be permitted to acquire finality. It would hardly be proper to permit the parties to file application after application endlessly. In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of the judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment. Permitting the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of this court by filing repeated interlocutory applications is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have far reaching adverse impact on the administration of justice.
Sir,
DeleteRight at this stage I am not able to access the judgement of Hon'be Supreme Court as there appears to be some server error.
But I remember the HSC had dismissed the contempt petition on rank pay with the rider that for grievances regarding "fixation", affected personnel could approach the appropriate authorities.
To my very limited understanding, the judgement had separated the issue of rank pay from the other issues which, though related, were sort of add-ons.
It is also not known what the issues exactly were.
For instance, my own basic pay was fixed at Rs.3400/- wef 01 Jan 86 in the pay-scale of 3400-100-5100 with a rank pay of 600/- as applicable to a Sqn Ldr. This was revised to Rs. 3600/- from the same date in 2012 after the rank pay matter was resolved, or partially resolved. Till now it has not been clear where exactly the problem was.
The RDOA blog does not make clear whether the pay-scale 3400-100-5100 was incorrect or should pay for Sqn Ldr rank have started at a higher level than 3600/-.
It seems, as per the judgement, the rank pay anomaly had been resolved and for correct fixation, IAF retirees needed to approach DAV at Air HQs. Further legal action could then be contemplated based on response of Air HQ, or of Army and Naval HQs in the case of Army and Navy Officers, respectively.
I have gone over the RDOA blog but have found that details connected with the contempt petition are very sketchy. I find the last time some of the issues related to the case were highlighted in detail by RDOA was on 6th April 2014 on their blog http://rdoaindia.blogspot.in/2014/04/iv-cpc-rank-pay-contempt-petition-gist.html
No one seems to know whether any of those specific issues had been represented on after the judgement, as advised in the judgement, and what the response of Services HQs was.
Then AG (late Goolam Vahanvati)'s opinion was sought on the following issues:
Delete(i) Whether the MoD orders dated 27 Dec.12 have modified the Special Army Instructions 1/S/87 and corresponding Navy and Air Force Instructions in so far as it relates to deduction of Rank Pay and direct to re-fix the initial pay of the concerned officers of the three services in the revised scale (integrated scale) as on 1.1.1986. Whether the term ‘with effect from 1.1.1986’ should be used as given in the Single Bench’s order dated 05.10.98 passed in the High Court of Kerala, instead of using ‘as on 01.01.1986’? What consequences this change in term will entail?
(ii) Whether the minimum pay for each rank given in Para 6 (a) (ii) of SAFI 1/S/87, needs to be re-fixed/changed?
(iii) Whether the Basic Pay ceiling of integrated Scale in IV CPC for officers up to Brig/equivalent, which is Rs 5100/- also needs to be modified to give effect to the Court orders?
(iv) Since the treatment to Rank Pay while pay fixation carried out in 5th CPC was similar to that of the 4th CPC, whether orders of the Apex Court dated 04.09.2012 be applied to all subsequent Pay Commissions i.e. V and VI CPC under such circumstances.
Then AG concurred with Services HQ on points (i) and (iv)but not on (ii) and (iii). This was appealed in the Contempt Petition and the Contempt Petition dismissed.
You may wish to write to RDOA for the affidavit but.............
Best Wishes
Sir,
DeleteThank you for that background.
My feeling was the case for rank pay needed to be separate from the the issues at (ii) and (iii) that you have listed.
If someone has the background data, and the will to go through the cycle of representations, followed by legal action if need be, on points (ii) and (iii) then they could do so without linking these to the rank pay order of 2012.
That is the impression I got from the HSC order.
Best regards.
@Harry,
ReplyDeleteI regret I an unable to publish your comment due to the language, tone and tenor of your most recent comment.
@Harry, I do not do calculations for individuals. Please send an email with details including what is your present pay in the pay band + GP so that we can arrive at the correct entry point. Then we can go on to the top of the pay matrix for Lt Cols.
ReplyDeleteJust an aside - I was told that 'Prince' who attended the AG's address is a Veteran by 28 NDA course-mates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Wonders never cease!
@penmil,
ReplyDeleteSir, the actuals are as follows: -
Start as post 1.1.2006 [without any increment i.e pre-1.1.2006 Lt Col start at 38530 which includes once increment on moving from 5 to 6 CPC] commissioned or promoted (Lt 15600 + GP 5400 x 3% annual increment) without rounding off: -
Captain (2 years) – Pay in the Pay Band 16860 + GP 6100 = 22960 x 2.67 = 61303
Major (6 years) – Pay in the Pay Band 21630 + GP 6600 = 28230 x 2.67 = 75374
Lt Col (13 years) – Pay in the Pay Band 37400 + GP 8000 = 45400 x 2.57 = 116678
Col (Select) – Pay in the Pay Band Rs 40200 + GP 8700 = 48900 x 2.57 = 125673
Brig – Pay in the Pay Band Rs 43390 + GP 8900 = Rs 52290 x 2.57 = 134385.
@ Taaza Khabar 29 April 2016 at 13:27
ReplyDeleteSir,
Thank you.
Yes, I agree. The figure 48900 for Col. Was arrived at by considering a ‘Residency Period’ of 2 Years for Lt.Col to get a promotion to Col.
(45400* 1,03) **2 +(8700-8000)=48900.
But it is for the Service HQ to argue that the residency period will varies across the Arms and Services and across Army, Navy and Air Force and therefore assuming a hypothetical ‘Residency Period of 2 Years is very less and unrealistic etc., etc.,
During the migration from V to VI CPC, Col pay was fixed at four stages above the S-24 Scale start Pay in V CPC and then migrated to VI CPC.
(Please recall that Lt.Col’s pay itself started two stages above the S-24 Scale and hence one increment as you noted).
There is no reason now, to start Col. Pay at two stages above S-24 Scale.
That was my opinion.
Correction : At Line 5, for 'will varies" Read "will vary/varies".
DeleteI regret the error.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteConsidering all the cogent arguments put forth above, it is only fair to seek upward revision of level tops in case of defence pay matrix.
@Penmil
ReplyDelete"But it is for the Service HQ to argue that the residency period will varies across the Arms and Services and across Army, Navy and Air Force and therefore assuming a hypothetical ‘Residency Period of 2 Years is very less and unrealistic etc., etc."
Sir, perfectly legitimate expectation but capabilities of our Services HQ in these matters are very well known to all of us, if we go by historical evidence. :(
Dear Original Harry,
ReplyDelete“but capabilities of our Services HQ in these matters are very well known to all of us, if we go by historical evidence.”
To be fair, the Service HQ did make a demand as early as in 2012.
Please read, Para 28 of the Report of the Cabinet Secretary’s Committee of 2012,” http://sharad10525.blogspot.in/2015/12/cabinet-secretary-committee-report-no.html?”
I reproduce the extracts for your easy reading here, with my emphasis on Col’s Starting pay: -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial pay fixation of Lt. Colonel/Colonel and Brigadier/equivalent
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-à-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What to do if the argument is rejected?
@ Penmil
ReplyDelete" Original Harry"
100% correct obsn Sir. We have been around for fairly long periods of time transending CPCs!
"What to do if argument is rejected"
That is the whole point Sir. Is that end of story? No escalation beyond secys? If an armed-to the-teeth org can be ridden roughshod over in such a manner then we can hardly blame anyone else for our predicament. In that case we fully deserve to be in the sorry state that we are in. We need not blame others for it.