Through the Looking Glass, Nothing is What it Seems

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 7^th 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 6^th 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 7^th 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 6^th 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 7^th 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 7^th 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 4^th 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 5^th 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 6^th year.

(d)     On completion of the 6^th 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 9^th year of service. At this stage Major ‘A’ enters Level 12. 

(e)     On completion of 13^th 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 18^th year Lt Col ‘A’ enters level 13A as a Colonel with Grade pay of Rs 8900 (not Rs 8700).

(g)     In the 24^th year Col ‘A’ is promoted to Brig with Grade Pay of Rs 10000 (not Rs 8900) and enters level 14.

(h)     In the 28^th 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 (6^th CPC) GP approved by the Govt of India after consideration of the representation by Defence Forces (who maintain that the GP recommended by the 6^th 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 6^th CPC GP regime.

(d)     The entry pay for Defence Forces officers is correct and higher in the light of the GP actually sanctioned. The 7^th 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 6^th 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 7^th CPC thrust upon the Services and is being misconstrued as an anomaly of the 7^th 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 8^th 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 8^th CPC makes no changes on 1.1.2026 to the Levels, indices, methodology adopted by 7^th 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 4^th CPC the moment they were promoted. Major Generals and Brigadiers (and equivalents) both stagnated on promotion itself in 5^th CPC as the scales of both ranks were overlapping. Similarly in later part of 6^th 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)   7^th 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 14^th and 15^th 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 7^th 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 17^th 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 4^th, 9^th and 13^th 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 4^th CPC as would be proved by the proceedings of the Services Pay Commission Cells. That MSP introduced by the 6^th 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 7^th 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 7^th 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 7^th 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, 7^th 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.     7^th 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 7^th 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, 6^th 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 18^th 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 6^th 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