Through the
Looking Glass, Nothing is What it Seems
Faith: not wanting to know what
is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
[ http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/friedrich_nietzsche.html]
If you
want people to get to believe something really, really stupid,
Just stick a number on it.
- Charles Seife
Proofiness: The Dark Art of Mathematical Deception
(Viking Publishers)
* * * * *
Caution
1. The contents of this post
are based on notes taken down when the Chairman, Army Pay Commission Cell
(APCC) gave a PowerPoint aided description by Services HQ on anomalies in the 7th
CPC Report and on OROP at the ASC Centre & College auditorium, Bangalore on
13 May 16. It was to be followed up with an interaction with this author.
2. As the interaction with Chairman
APCC did not take place, many aspects of
his presentation/talk could not be discussed and clarified/confirmed for a
better understanding of the Services’ perspective. Therefore, this post attempts
to place information as jotted down by this author while Chairman APCC went
through his presentation/talk, and the analysis is based on available information
in the public domain. For ease of reference the source(s) of information have
been quoted in appropriate places.
Summary of
Presentation/Talk
3. Chairman,
APCC summarised his presentation/talk as follows: -
(a) The contents of the
presentation/talk have been discussed with the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri and also
with the Empowered Committee of Secretaries (ECoS),
(b) MSP for Officers is at a
lower percentage than for JCOs/ORs. MSP for JCOs should be higher than for ORs.
[Comment by Aerial View: -
Factually, the Lt gets 27.6% and the Sepoy gets 23.96% of respective Basic
Pay.]
(c) Risk & Hazard
Allowance – there is a gain for junior officers and JCOs/ORs (2 to 5 times).
[Comment by Aerial View: - please see in RHA below.]
(d) Training Allowances – all ranks gain (from 24% for officers to 12%
for JCOs & ORs)
(e) By introducing HRA for all
ranks, there is an all-round benefit for JCOs/ORs.
[Comment by Aerial View: - HRA is paid for all ranks from 6th
CPC onwards.]
(f) Pension calculation
option II is better than Pension calculation option I.
(g) Necessary provision has
not been made for truncated career span and resulting in lesser life-time earnings
for ORs.
[Comment by Aerial View: -
MSP is element for truncated career as stated in th 7th CPC Report.]
(h) Disability benefits for
Defence personnel on the slab basis is less advantageous than the percentage
basis for civilians.
(j) Not Attributable Nor Aggravated
(NANA) clause – onus has been shifted to Authority in all cases.
(k) National Pension Scheme
(NPS) – disinformation is being spread by civilians that it is disadvantageous
because the element of 10% matching contribution by Govt is not being
mentioned.
(l) Separate pay matrix for
Defence personnel is disadvantageous.
(m) Non-reciprocity and lack of
rationalisation in allowances
(n) Incorrect pensionary awards with no weightage and hence adverse
for JCOs/ORs,
[Comment by Aerial View: - Weightage was removed even in 6th
CPC tenure.]
(p) JCOs should have GP of Rs 4200, Rs 4600 and Rs 4800 as they are
Class B Gazetted officers.
(q) Joint Services Memorandum is available on the Army intranet.
(r) In reply to a question,
Chairman APCC stated that rumours that 7th CPC recommendations would
be made applicable to those paid OROP vide MoD letter of 03 Feb 16 only in 2018 is
disinformation spread to vitiate the environment. [Comment
by Aerial View: - Cassandras and Defence experts on TV may like to factor
this into their future comments and TV appearances.]
Core
Anomalies
4. The 5
core anomalies were understood to be as follows: -
(a) Shortened pay matrix for Defence Forces,
(b) Stagnation for middle rank officers in the
above pay matrix,
(c) Depression of Grade Pay,
(d) Non-Functional (Financial) Upgradation, and
(e) HAG+ Grade for all Lt Gens.
Proposal & Analysis
5. Briefly, this is what the
composite Pay matrices up to Col/NFSG (SG) would look like: -
|
Lt
|
Civilian
|
Capt
|
Civilian
|
Major
|
Civilian
|
Lt Col
|
Col
|
Civilian
|
GP
|
5400
|
5400
|
6100
|
6600
|
6600
|
7600
|
8000
|
8700
|
8700
|
EP
|
21000
|
21000
|
22960
|
25350
|
25980
|
29500
|
45400
|
48900
|
46100
|
Lvl
|
10
|
10
|
10B
|
11
|
11
|
12
|
12A
|
13
|
13
|
Index
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.57
|
2.57
|
2.57
|
1
|
56100
|
56100
|
61300
|
67700
|
69400
|
78800
|
116700
|
125700
|
118500
|
2
|
57800
|
57800
|
63100
|
69700
|
71500
|
81200
|
120200
|
129500
|
122100
|
3
|
59500
|
59500
|
65000
|
71800
|
73600
|
83600
|
123800
|
133400
|
125800
|
4
|
61300
|
61300
|
67000
|
74000
|
75800
|
86100
|
127500
|
137400
|
129600
|
5
|
63100
|
63100 (4)
|
69000
|
76200
|
78100
|
88700 (13)
|
131000
|
141500
|
133500
|
6
|
65000
|
65000
|
71100
|
78500 (9)
|
80400
|
91400
|
135200
|
145700
|
137500
|
7
|
67000
|
67000
|
73200
|
80900
|
82800
|
96900
|
139300
|
150100
|
141600
|
8
|
69000
|
69000
|
75400
|
83300
|
85300
|
99800
|
143500
|
154600
|
145800
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
87900
|
102800
|
147800
|
159200
|
150200
|
Numerals in brackets (4), (9), and (13)
indicate the increments on promotion for IAS/IFS (and soon IPS and IFoS)
officers is/will be.
6. Common Pay Matrix: - This author understood from what Chairman
APCC said that the Services HQ are demanding a common pay matrix in the
following manner: -
|
Lt existing
|
Capt existing
|
Capt prop
|
Major existing
|
Major prop
|
Lt Col existing
|
Lt Col prop
|
Col existing
|
Col prop
|
GP
|
5400
|
6100
|
6600
|
6600
|
7600
|
8000
|
8700
|
8700
|
8900
|
EP
|
21000
|
22960
|
25350
|
25980
|
29500
|
45400
|
48900
|
46100
|
48900
|
Lvl
|
10
|
10B
|
11
|
11
|
12
|
12A
|
13
|
13
|
1
|
Index
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
2.57
|
2.57
|
2.57
|
2.57
|
1
|
56100
|
61300
|
67700 à (I)
|
69400
|
78800 à (II)
|
116700
|
125700 à (III)
|
118500
|
131100
|
2
|
57800
|
63100
|
69700
|
71500
|
81200
|
120200
|
129500
|
122100
|
135000
|
3
|
59500
|
65000
|
71800
|
73600
|
83600
|
123800
|
133400
|
125800
|
139100
|
4
|
61300 (4)
|
67000
|
74000
|
75800
|
86100
|
127500
|
137400
|
129600
|
143300
|
5
|
63100
|
69000
|
76200
|
78100
|
88700 (13)
|
131000
|
141500
|
133500
|
147600
|
6
|
65000
|
71100
|
78500 (9)
|
80400
|
91400
|
135200
|
145700
|
137500
|
152000
|
7
|
67000
|
73200
|
80900
|
82800
|
96900
|
139300
|
150100
|
141600
|
156600
|
8
|
69000
|
75400
|
83300
|
85300
|
99800
|
143500
|
154600
|
145800
|
161300
|
9
|
|
|
|
87900
|
102800
|
147800
|
159200
|
150200
|
166100
|
[Notes:
-
1. Prop - proposed
2. Depression of GP would be corrected by
placing the Major in GP Rs 7600 (Level 12), Lt Col in GP Rs 8700 (Level 13A),
Col in GP Rs 8900 (Level 14) and Brig in GP Rs 10000 (Level 15).
2. à (I) on
completion of (4), à (II) completion
of (9), and à (III) completion of (13) years service indicate
the commonality being sought corresponding increments on promotion for IAS/IFS
(and IPS/IFoS) on completion of (4), (9) and (13) years of service.
3. Chairman 7th Army PCC
elucidated that two different ranked Defence officers can be in the same level “because
in Defence Forces what matters for seniority is Rank, not pay.
Caution:
1. It could not be noted whether Defence
Forces officers will continue in the common matrix with higher Entry Pay (EP)
or EP will be same as in Pay matrix for civilians.
2. The above Common Pay Matrix is an
approximation of what was screened.
3. The above table may not be entirely correct due to inadequate time for this author
to copy down details.]
The proposed implementation of the Common Pay Matrix (as understood)
(a) Lt ‘A’ (and equivalent, hereinafter) enters
level 10 of the Pay Matrix at Grade Pay of Rs 5400 and Basic Pay of Rs 56100.
(b) Lt ‘A’ when promoted to Capt (after 2 years
service) continues down same Level 10 till the 4th year of service and
reaching Basic Pay of Rs 63100 but at this stage his Grade Pay will be enhanced
to Rs 6600 (not Rs 6100, because it is inferred that Grade Pay has been
depressed).
(c) At the 5th years stage, Capt ‘A’
transitions to the next Level 11 and Basic pay of Rs 76500 but retains Grade
Pay of Rs 6600 till completion of 6th year.
(d) On completion of the 6th year, Capt
‘A’ is promoted to Major, and enters remains in Level 11 with an increased
Grade Pay of Rs 7600 (not Rs 6600) till he completes 9th year of service.
At this stage Major ‘A’ enters Level 12.
(e) On completion of 13th year of
service, Major ‘A’ is promoted to Lt Col and enters Level 13 with a higher
Grade pay of Rs 8700 (not Rs 8000) and Basic pay of Rs 125800.
(f) In the 18th year Lt Col ‘A’
enters level 13A as a Colonel with Grade pay of Rs 8900 (not Rs 8700).
(g) In the 24th year Col ‘A’ is
promoted to Brig with Grade Pay of Rs 10000 (not Rs 8900) and enters level 14.
(h) In the 28th year Brig ‘A’ is
promoted to Maj Gen and continues in level 14 and GP of Rs 10000 with transit
to Level 15 or HAG (presently Rs 67000-79000) to avoid stagnation.
(j) As Lt Gens will be in HAG+, Maj Gen ‘A’s
emoluments will not be impinging on them.
7. Depression of Entry Pay in Defence Pay Matrix: - The following may be considered vis-à-vis anomaly
that entry pay is depressed by the amount of Grade Pay (GP):-
(a) If there is a proposal for factoring
the current timeline for functional promotions in the Defence Services in
preparing common replacement scales, then the present position would contradict
it.
(b) Entry
pay is a function of existing (6th
CPC) GP approved by the Govt of India after consideration of the
representation by Defence Forces (who maintain that the GP recommended by the 6th
CPC was one stage level lower).
(c) Seeking a common pay matrix does not take
into consideration that the GP issue has been settled by the Government after
CSCs recommendations of 2009 and 2012. Therefore, consequent to the disposal of the Defence Forces representation,
there may be no justification for seeking a common matrix based on the 6th
CPC GP regime.
(d) The
entry pay for Defence Forces officers is correct and higher in the light
of the GP actually sanctioned. The 7th CPC has gone by available
evidence and not dictated by what is
demanded by Services HQ. Factually, the entry pay is better for Defence Forces than
for civilians granted the same GP.
(e) So
as long as the GP is not revised and the approved 6th CPC rates prevail, there is no rationale in seeking a
common pay matrix. In fact the Colonels and Brigadiers (and equivalents) are
distinctly higher than NFSG (SG) and DIG levels in the civil side.
(f) Chairman, APCC could not be asked to clarify
(i) Whether
by demanding a common pay matrix, the
Defence Forces would surrender the edge in entry pay for common levels in junior
and middle ranks (Major Rs 630 per month, Colonel Rs 2800 per month).
Unless the intention, unstated of course, is that it will be in just as entry
pay of Maj Gens and their respective civilian counterparts is the same, or
(ii) Defence Forces want to maintain the above Entry pay advantage and seek two increments
on completion of 4, 9, and 13 years.
8. Stagnation and Length or span of Defence Pay Matrix: - The length or span of the Pay matrix (indices)
for Defence Forces needs to be seen in the light of the following: -
(a) Recommendation of every CPC is meant for those
who come into the regime in a steady state.
(b) The new Pay matrix does not take into the
effect those who come to new scales having transited from the previous pay commission
in higher indices i.e. more increments,
(c) The supposed ‘anomaly’ appears to be that
the pay matrix for Defence Forces is faulty as it will lead to stagnation
especially in the senior ranks (Brigs and above). To begin with this is not
something that 7th CPC thrust upon the Services and is being
misconstrued as an anomaly of the 7th CPC. The seniors in any rank, if
not promoted, will stagnate at some point in time as the pay scales are
finite and not meant to obviate stagnation. If that was so, there would
have been no need for stagnation increments at all.
(d) Civilian employees who may continue in
service in levels 1 to 9 even if not promoted to superannuate at age of 60
years. Defence Forces personnel transit
from one level to the next at specified intervals, subject to fulfilling
certain requirements and being in promotable medical category. So they are either
promoted to the next level if found fit, or exit through compulsory retirement
at different, but lesser ages (except for Lt Gens and equivalents who serve
till the age of 60 years).
(e) Thirteen (13) is the maximum number of
years that any Defence Forces officer will hold the same rank (in the case of
Lt Col and equivalent). A Lt Col and equivalent’s Level 12A has 17 indices (increments)
and the NFSG (SG) Level 13, which has 20 indices (increments).
(f) To “stick a numeral” (as disparaged by
Charles Seife), take the example of a Lt Colonel and equivalent (commissioned
at 21 yrs of age; DOB 1.1.1979) in today’s Defence Forces to whom the pay
matrix will be more applicable. Assuming the earliest consideration for promotion
by a Promotion Board may soon be at 16
years of service for Colonel and equivalent, who on promotion will be 37
years of age on say, 1.1.2016.
(g) If he/they is/are not promoted, he/they will
be promoted to Colonel & equivalent (TS) on completion of 26 years of
service (age 47 years; date 1.1.2026) at level 12A, index (increments) 13, BP
Rs 166300.
(g) He/they will enter the Colonel (Time Scale)
and equivalent in Level 13 in index 11, Basic Pay Rs 168900, age 47 years on
1.1.2026 (i.e. probably in the 8th CPC!)
(j) Pay Matrix for Defence Forces at Level 13
has 15 indices. The Colonel & equivalent may stagnate, at index 16, or 5
years after being promoted Col (TS) & equivalent, age 52, date 1.1.2031,
for two years and superannuate at age 54 years on date 1.1.2033 if 8th
CPC makes no changes on 1.1.2026 to the Levels, indices, methodology adopted by
7th CPC.
(k) In the absence of the efficiency bar, other
than just lesser number of vacancies, one also needs to consider the relative efficiency vis-à-vis juniors
who have been considered along with them but are promoted ahead of them in two subsequent
Promotion Boards.
(l) Brigadiers and equivalents stagnated in 4th CPC the moment
they were promoted. Major Generals and Brigadiers (and equivalents) both
stagnated on promotion itself in 5th CPC as the scales of both ranks
were overlapping. Similarly in later part of 6th CPC, despite an
open ended running pay scale, the Major General and equivalent are stagnating
on promotion date itself while today 24
Brigadier and equivalents have progressed to draw more total emoluments than
VCOAS/Army Cdrs (and equivalents). The
Brigs are drawing Pay in the Pay
Band of Rs 67000 + Grade Pay Rs 8900 + MSP Rs 6000 = Rs 81900). And now the Brig & equivalents are
stagnating at the maximum!!
(m) 7th CPC, probably learning from
this experience, has maintained the start and end points of Levels 14, 15 and
16 at the same indices in both Pay Matrices.
9. It is germane that one
considers two Standing Committee Reports to Parliament, which may have a
bearing on stagnation and the way it is being handled by MoD and Services HQ.
A. Standing Committee on
Defence (2008-2009) (Fourteenth Lok Sabha), Ministry of Defence
Thirty Second Report, December 2008 – Recommendation (Para Nos.2.53 and 2.54, page 29): -
“The
Committee note that the Ministry had constituted A. V. Singh Committee with
the representative from Ministry of Defence and Service Headquarters
to look into all aspects of the Service conditions of Defence personnel and
make recommendation for implementation. The Committee further note that the
Ministry have put efforts for Phase-wise implementation of some recommendation
of A. V. Singh Committee. The Phase-I is complete and the Phase-II is under
scrutiny at the Ministry of Defence. The Committee desire that the Ministry
should furnish detailed Action Plan at the earliest for the Phase-II
implementation of the recommendations of the A. V. Singh Committee which is
under scrutiny of the Ministry of Defence. The Committee note that as per A. V.
Singh Committee’s recommendation, an officer shall get the rank of Colonel or
equivalent after putting in 26 years of service. After the post of Colonel,
there are four more ranks available for promotion. If an officer puts in
minimum of three years of service in each rank, he will reach the age of 60
years and it would be difficult to maintain young profile in the armed forces
and shall also result in dearth of officers to lead the Armed Forces. The
Committee, therefore, strongly recommend that the need of the hour is to
examine the whole scheme of promotions (emphasis supplied).
The Committee
desire that the practice followed by neighbouring countries for keeping young
profile at the senior levels of the armed forces should be examined to take a
decision in the matter and the Committee should be apprised in this regard.”
Reply of the Government
A. V. Singh
Committee recommendation regarding the reduction of rank/age profile of
non-select ranks were implemented in the three services w.e.f. December, 2004. For
implementation of remaining recommendation of the report it was desired that
the three Services Chiefs should take a conscious views as to whether they were
seeking implementation of a new proposal or the recommendations as contained in
AVSC Report. The consensus among three Services could not be arrived at as yet
and the matter is under consideration in consultation with Service Headquarters (emphasis supplied). [Ministry of Defence O.M. No.
H.11013/25/2007/D (Parl) dated 05.03.2008]
B. Tenth
Report of the Standing Committee on Defence (2010-2011) (Fifteenth Lok Sabha)
on Ministry of Defence
“D. Time Scale Promotion
Recommendation
(Paragraph No. 15)
15. The Committee had
recommended as under:—
The Committee note that the substantive promotion
upto the rank of Lt. Colonel or equivalent in the three services is made by
timescale on completion of the stipulated period of 13 years of reckonable
commissioned service. However, promotion of the officers to the rank of
substantive Colonel not promoted by selection is made subject to their being
fit, only after completion of 26 years of reckonable commissioned service. The
Committee’s examination has brought out the rank structure in armed forces
being of steep pyramidal shape has little scope for the officers to climb up
the hierarchical ladder. The opportunities for their promotion are further
restricted because of limited availability of training facilities for Higher
Command Course. Needless to say that the officers not selected for promotion or
for Higher Command Course feel de-motivated which ultimately results in adverse
effect on the overall efficiency of the armed forces. The Committee, therefore,
desire that in order to achieve the functional efficiency, combat
effectiveness, and to keep down the age profile of the brigade commanders or
equivalent in the three Services of armed forces, the MoD should take
appropriate measures to introduce a system whereby the strength of permanent
commissioned officers vis-à-vis SSC Officers is gradually brought to level of 30
per cent of the authorised strength in each of the three Services and the time
scale promotions upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent in all the Services
are made by bringing in appropriate reduction in the length of reckonable
commissioned service so as to fulfil the individual career aspirations as well
as to keep the morale of officers high. The Committee need hardly point out
that such a measure would have negligible financial implications consequent
upon implementation of new pay-bands in the armed forces besides going a long
way in keeping the rate of attrition at lower levels.
16. The
Ministry in their action taken reply has stated as under:—
The A. V. Singh Committee had recommended that the
ratio of Permanent Commissioned officers to Short Service Commissioned officers
should be brought down. The Cabinet has already granted its approval ‘in
principle’, to the reduction in the Permanent Commissioned officers cadre and
corresponding increase in the support cadre (including Short Service Commission
Officers). Specific proposals in this regard, keeping in view the specific
requirements of the three Services, are being examined by the Ministry.
17. With
regard to the recommendation of the Committee to introduce the system of time
scale promotions upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent in all the Services
by bringing in appropriate reduction in the length of reckonable commissioned
service, the Ministry has chosen not to respond to the issue. The Committee
again emphasize that the said initiative would certainly increase the
functional efficiency and keep the morale of the officer high. The Committee
therefore urges the Ministry to take expeditious action on the recommendation
of the Committee” (emphasis in original
report).
10. AVSC in the Command &
Exit Policy. In a recent case (UoI vs Lt Col P K Choudhary &
Others, Civil Appeal No. 3208 of 2015), the objective of a younger Army in
particular (and the Navy & Air Force) was stated to be the reason for the
Ajai Vikram Singh Committee (AVSC) recommendations. The Armed Forces have additional posts in select ranks and
implemented in a 5 year period as follows: -
Rank
|
Present
|
Additional
|
Total
|
Pre-AVSC age
|
Post- AVSC age
|
Army*
|
Lt Gen
|
61
|
20
|
81
|
56-57
|
55-56
|
Maj Gen
|
191
|
75
|
266
|
54-55
|
51-52
|
Brig
|
824
|
222
|
1046
|
50-51
|
44-45
|
Colonel
|
3389
|
734
|
4123
|
41-42
|
36-37
|
Navy
|
|
|
Vice Admiral
|
15
|
4
|
19
|
56-57
|
55-56
|
Rear Admiral
|
43
|
14
|
57
|
54-55
|
51-52
|
Commodore/Captain^
|
418
|
324
|
742
|
40-51
|
36-45
|
Air Force
|
|
|
Air Marshal
|
22
|
6
|
30
|
56-57
|
55-56
|
Air Vice Marshal
|
47
|
27
|
74
|
54-55
|
51-52
|
Air Commodore
|
131
|
61
|
192
|
50-51
|
44-45
|
Group Captain
|
476
|
415
|
891
|
41-42
|
36-37
|
[* From Para 4 of judgment of Honourable Supreme Court dated 15 Feb
2016 in Civil Appeal No.3208 of 2015, UoI & Another Vs. Lt Col P K
Choudhary & Others.
^ Age for Commodore/Captain (IN) extrapolated.]
(a) If that is the reason why almost 1900
vacancies of Colonels and above were sanctioned (with the adverse consequences
of top heavy Services), is it time for the Services HQ to consider their
promotion and retention policies, given that now retirees are entitled full
pension after 20 years instead of the necessity of 33 years as before?
(b) Disproportionate number of vacancies
vis-à-vis number of officers considered in a Promotion Board has been cited as
the main reason for lack of promotional avenues by the Services numerous times.
So if every officer gets 3 chances, but juniors are selected on merit to be
promoted by three successive Promotion Boards over their seniors, does it not mean
that the senior has been comparatively less
efficient?
11. Veterans took to the
streets bemoaning the disregard by the MoD of the Koshiyari Committee Report on
OROP but nobody has mentioned Standing Committees of the 14th and 15th
Lok Sabha and the disregard for the recommendations of the two Lok Sabha
committees for leaner, meaner and younger Defence Forces!
12. If the intention of the
Army HQ proposal which subsequently became the AVSC is to lower the ages of
different ranks, why should Lt Cols (and equivalents) who have not been cleared
for promotion by three (3) successive Promotion Boards, continue to earn
increments and serve 26 years for a time scale promotion to Cols? Why should superseded
General/Flag/Air officers earn increments till superannuation? Isn’t earning
annual increments, even after being passed over for promotion, a sort of
Non-Functional Upgradation?
13. The 7th CPC has
recommended (in Chapter 5.1.46) withholding of increments of non-performers
after 20 years of service for civil services (which the old Fundamental Rule 25
stated “Where an efficiency bar is
prescribed in a time-scale, the increment next above the bar shall not be given
to a Government servant without specific sanction of the authority empowered to
withhold increments”).
14. Thus, if stagnation
because of the shortened Pay Matrix for Defence Forces is being made out into
an issue, then it will be contradicting its own proposals to AVSC and MoD.
15. Stagnation in the Civil Pay Matrix: - Based on the assumption that
the qualifying service of an IAS officer commences when he/she is 24 years of
age, it will become evident from the Pay matrices that
(a) An IAS officer aged 37 years has 21 indices
in the SAG level and ends at Rs 214100. He/she would be 57 years of age. She/He
would, due to the “2 increments on appointment to SAG” policy, also stagnate
for 4 years, if she/he is not found fit for promotion to Super Time Scale (Jt
Secy) where the empanelment is in the 17th year of service and
promotion in her/his turn.
(b) An AIS officer in GP 8900 (presumed for
this analysis) would be aged 42 and would have 18 indices and he/she would be
aged 6o years and will superannuate.
16. The 2 increments Edge vis-à-vis Military Service Pay Edge: - The Pay Matrices indicate that the Defence
Entry pay scales are higher upto Grade Pay of Rs 8900. Total Pay for Defence
Forces exceeds the edge of two increments (of 3% each) that AIS Officers get on
completion of 4th, 9th and 13th years of
service, if one includes MSP, the edge for Defence Forces, into the
calculation. The argument of lower entry pay of Defence Forces officers may not
stand scrutiny by the Govt as it is not borne out by Pay Matrices in Chapters
5.1 (Civilian) and 5.2 (Defence Forces). As for the argument that the edge of two
increments for AIS officers be brought into the equation for comparison
purposes but not the edge of MSP, will also sound petty.
17. The fact is that MSP is a
replacement for Rank Pay, which was a proposal of the Defence Forces to the 4th
CPC as would be proved by the proceedings of the Services Pay Commission Cells.
That MSP introduced by the 6th
CPC is an edge (X-factor) is also not the full truth as it is more of a
replacement for the Rank Pay in the common pay structure. This is why it is
given only upto Brigadiers and equivalent rank and not granted to Major
Generals or Lt Generals and equivalents, who
did not have Rank Pay ever. If one is to add the MSP element, then the
defence pay is better than the civilians at all levels even after taking into
consideration the two additional increments for the AIS officers on completion
of 4, 9 and 13 years of service.
18. However, if two
increments, i.e. the edge for AIS (Chapter 7.2.38), would result in higher
Basic Pay and therefore higher status, there is neither any rationale nor any
sensible reason why Service HQ should not point out that MSP, the edge for
Defence Forces (Chapter 6.1.31), be added to Basic Pay and the Defence Forces
demand that it be reckoned for status/parity/relativity. After all, both are
‘The Edge’, and the double increments for AIS as well as the MSP are paid out
of the same Consolidated Fund of
India!
Risk & Hazard Allowance (RHA) at Siachen Vs Special Duty Allowance
19. First, the Siachen Risk and Hazard allowance
is paid for a short stay at the glacier
and it has no comparison with the Special Duty Allowance (SDA) being given to
civilians. Second, it is still not final that Govt will grant 30% of BP as SDA
and even if it does Defence Forces can seek parity only on the ground that all
other benefits related to field concessions are being taken away including
field service and CI Ops allowances. The proposal in its present form needs to
be re-examined comprehensively as one needs to consider the feasibility of SDA
in addition to Field Service Allowance for Defence Forces, if that is the case
being made out.
20. The 7th CPC has proposed Rs 31500 and Rs 21000 as
(Siachen) RHA for Defence Forces Officers and JCOs/ORs respectively (Chapter
8.10.64 to 8.10.77). At Chapter 8.17.118, the 7th CPC recommends
that Special Duty Allowance should be paid at the rate of 30% of Basic Pay for
AIS officers and for other civilian employees at the rate of 10% of Basic Pay.
21. Demanding 30%
of Basic (as recommended for All India Services – IAS, IFS, maybe soon for IPS
& IFoS Officers also) as Siachen RHA will
mean a financial
loss as shown below
compared to Rs 31500 for officers and Rs 21000 for JCOs & ORs. But if it is at 10% of Basic Pay as recommended
for others civilian employees, then the financial lost will be immense: -
Rank
|
Recommended
|
Basic Pay
|
30% of Basic
Pay
|
10% of Basic
Pay
|
Colonel
|
Rs 31, 500
|
125700
|
37710
|
12570
|
Lt Col
|
Rs 31, 500
|
116700
|
35010
|
11670
|
Major
|
Rs 31, 500
|
69400
|
20820
|
6940
|
Captain
|
Rs 31, 500
|
61300
|
18390
|
6130
|
Lt
|
Rs 31, 500
|
51600
|
15480
|
5160
|
Sub Major
|
Rs 21, 000
|
47600
|
14280
|
4760
|
Subedar
|
Rs 21, 000
|
44900
|
13470
|
4490
|
Nb Subedar
|
Rs 21, 000
|
35400
|
10620
|
3540
|
Havildar
|
Rs 21, 000
|
29200
|
8760
|
2920
|
Naik
|
Rs 21, 000
|
25500
|
7650
|
2550
|
Sepoy
|
Rs 21, 000
|
21700
|
6510
|
2170
|
Disability Benefits – Percentage Vs Slab Rate
22. In the case of lower ranks the slab rate
disability element is beneficial because
(a) A Havildar will get Rs 12000 from the slab
system while in percentage terms he will get Rs 10320.
(b) A Lieutenant will get Rs 27000 in slab
system compared to Rs 21480 @ 30 %of BP.
(c) A Maj with BP + MSP of Rs 84900 will get Rs
27000 in slab system while he will get only Rs 25470 if paid @30% of BP.
(d) The losers, if one may term it that, due to
slab rates will be the General/Flag/Air ranks.
23. At
Chapter 10.2.41, the 7th CPC avers “Armed forces personnel
retired with disability attributable to or aggravated by such service and
assessed at 20 percent or more are awarded disability pension. Those invalided
out with any disability attributable to or aggravated by such service are also
awarded disability pension.”
24. At
Chapter 10.2.54, 7th CPC states “While the number of officers
retiring with disability element has shown a significant increase at levels of
Brigadier and above in recent years, it is notable that since 2010-11, no
officer in these ranks has been invalided out.”
25. 7th
CPC’s analysis is flawed in its concept as it betrays a lack of the Pay Commission’s reputed holistic view for
the following reasons: -
(a) Invalidment is as per
the Guide to Medical Officers issued by DGAFMS. It applies uniformly to all
affected personnel, especially as there is now recourse to the AFT and higher
Courts for redress.
(b) As per Chapter III,
Regulation 58 (b) of the Army Pension Regulations, “low medical category
personnel who are retired/discharged for want of alternative employment
compatible with his low medical category is eligible for invalid pension.” So, why
should the Armed Forces invalided out those who are otherwise fit for
alternative employment?
(c) Further, Chapter IV, Regulation 82 gives
examples like heart and renal diseases, prolonged illness, accidents while on
leave etc and,
(d) Regulation 85 holds that award of
disability element of pension otherwise admissible may be withheld or be
granted at a reduced rate …..if the personnel unreasonably refuses to undergo
an operation or other medical treatment which in the opinion of the service medical
authority would cure or reduce the disablement” (emphasis supplied).
(e) Surely it is not imputed that a Brig or Maj
Gen, even Lt Gen with, say heart or renal problems or psychological bi-polar
disorder and unfit for alternative employment, is not invalided out while an OR
or a JCO with the same disability is? And worse, there has been no appeal by
OR(s) or JCO(s) with the same affliction who has/have been invalided out?
26. Let us look
at just the disability but not invalided out category for officers including
and above the rank of Lt Col for year 2013-14 (apropos statistics provided by
CGDA), at Chapter 10.2.51 & 10.2.52: -
Rank
|
Strength
( from CDM
except ORs/JCOs )
|
Disability
and superannuated (%)
|
Actual number
with disability but superannuated
|
Lt Gen & equivalent
|
132
|
14.3
|
19
|
Maj Gen & equivalent
|
284
|
16.5
|
47
|
Brig & equivalent
|
1176
|
17.6
|
207
|
Colonels & equivalent
|
4100
|
21.1
|
865
|
Lt Col & equivalent
|
6776
|
20.8
|
1410
|
JCOs/ORs & equivalents
|
13,19, 481
|
7.2
|
95003
|
27.
Nowhere, right from Chapter 10.2.40 to 10.2.55, there isn’t any mention of any
call for information and taking of such evidence from Director General, Armed
Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) who provides, guidelines to Armed Forces
Medical Officers for deciding disability, reviews and approves or rejects the
recommendations.
28. That begs
the question affecting the larger number of ORs/JCOs who are entitled to
disability benefits - just because a larger proportion, but lesser number, of
senior officers with disabilities is not invalided out, does the 7th
CPC seek to punish the ORs & JCOs by introducing the slab basis?
29. However, the silver
lining in the case of lower ranks is that the slab rate disability element is
beneficial.
(a) A
Havildar or equivalent in the slab will get Rs 12000 while in percentage terms
only Rs 10320.
(b) A
Major or equivalent with BP + MSP of Rs 84900 will get 27000 in slab system
while he will get only Rs 25470 if paid @30% of BP.
(c) A
Lieutenant of equivalent will get Rs 27000 in slab system compared to Rs 21480
@ 30 %of BP.
Non-Functional
(Financial) Upgradation
30. In one fell swoop, 6th CPC wrote off inefficiency and
FR 25 and the bureaucracy embraced the NFU. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its
judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3208 of 2015 has quoted (Para 4) that the
intention of implementing the AVSC was to reduce the ages of officers for
attaining the next rank. Presuming that an Army officer is commissioned at 21
years of age, Defence Forces should have a situation as follows: -
S No.
|
Rank
|
Pre-AVSC
(age in
years)
|
Years of
Service
|
Post AVSC
(age in
years)
|
Years of
Service
|
|
|
1
|
Colonel
|
41-42
|
20-21
|
36-37
|
15-16
|
2
|
Brigadier
|
50-51
|
29-30
|
44-45
|
23-24
|
3
|
Maj Gen
|
54-55
|
33-34
|
51-52
|
30-31
|
4
|
Lt Gen
|
56-57
|
35-36
|
55-56
|
34-35
|
31. It is common knowledge that Colonel (Select) are promoted in the
18th year of service (almost the same time-frame as an IAS officer
being promoted to the Super Time Scale or Joint Secretary). The Colonel would
be 39 years of age, a marginal improvement from before 2004! It is not out of
place that the 6th CPC rewarded
inefficiency by removing the efficiency bar and recommending non-functional
financial upgradation, it itself a paradox of being financially upgraded
while being non-functional. Perhaps the (black) humour was lost on the ‘wise’
bureaucrats, and for a decade they have been laughing all the way to respective
bank accounts, unfettered by the Efficiency Bar!!
HAG+:
Lt Gens vis-à-vis Directors General of Police
32. Vide Para 4 (a) (ii) of SAI 2/S/2008, Lt Gens who are fit for
promotion as Army Cdrs, but overlooked due to lack of residual service of 2
years are granted scale of Army Cdrs (Apex Scale of Rs 80000 – fixed).
33. The factual position is as follows: -
(a) Vide GoI, Min of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DoP & T No. 14021/3/2008-AIS-II
dated 27 Sep 2008, published as GSR 692 (E) in Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
Part II, Rule 3, Section D is as follows: -
D Super
Time Scale:
(i) Additional
Director General of Police – Pay Band Rs 37400-67000; plus Grade Pay Rs 12000;
(ii) HAG+: Rs 75500-annual increment @
3%)-80000; Grade Pay: nil;
(iii) Apex Scale: Rs 80000 (fixed); Grade
Pay: nil (by upgradation of one existing post of Director General of Police as
head of police force in each State cadre);
Note 2: The
post of Director General of Police in the apex scale shall be filled by
selection from amongst the officers holding the post of Director General of
Police in the State cadre in the HAG+ scale of Rs 75500 (annual increment 3% -
80000.
34. Re-produced below is an extract from a post on the blog of Maj
Navdeep Singh (Veteran) dated 30 Apr 2009, with his approval: -
Myth: Only 33% of
Lt Generals and equivalent would be promoted to HAG+.
Reality: Wrong. It is not that only 33% of Lt
Generals and equivalents would be able to attain HAG+. The fact is that at any
given point of time, only 33% of total number of Lt Generals (excluding Army
Commanders and equivalent) and equivalents would be placed in HAG+. As the top
Lt Generals & equivalents retire, the Lt Gens lower in the chain shall get
placed in HAG+ by seniority. Hence ultimately, in the present situation (wef 01
Jan 2006), most of the Lt Generals & equivalents (approximately 90%) would
retire in HAG+ and the percentage should further go up with time.
Myth: HAG+ is
applicable only to Lt Generals of the Arms.
Reality: There is no
discrimination between Arms, Support Arms, and Services. All Lt Generals shall
be placed in HAG+ by seniority.
Myth: The 6th CPC
had lowered the status of Lt Generals & equivalents and the placement of
33% of Lt Generals & equivalents in HAG+ is a rectification of that
anomaly.
Reality: The 6th CPC
had not tinkered with the status of Lt Generals & equivalents. Even after
the 5th CPC, Lt Generals & equivalents were lower than DsGP in pay. The
following was the pay equation of Three Star officers of the IPS and the
Defence Services post-5th CPC which was continued by the 6th CPC:
Indian Police Service
|
Defence Forces
|
Addl Director General of Police
|
Lt Gen & equivalents
|
Director General of Police
|
|
Selected DGP (one per CPO and one for each State
cadre)
|
Army Commander & equivalents
|
After placement of 33% Lt Gens & equivalents in
HAG+
|
Addl Director General of Police
|
Lt Gen & equivalents
|
Director General of Police
|
Top 33% of Lt Gen & equivalents
|
Selected DGP (one per CPO and one for each State
cadre)
|
Lt Gen (Army Commanders) and Lt Gens & equivalents including Corps
Commanders who are not placed as Army Commanders due to lack of residual
service.
|
E & O E
