Monday, 25 July 2016

Panel Discussion: 22 Jul 16

Panel Discussion: 22 Jul 16


The 7th CPC, as did all previous CPCs, has affected all serving Armed Forces personnel (whether in olive green, Navy Blue or Air Force blue uniforms) and Veterans.

2.      On 22 Jul 16, I was a member of the panel, at the Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP initiative to discuss The 7th Central Pay Commission – Implications on Serving Soldiers and Veterans.

3.       Presciently, I had placed the facts based analysis before the Adjutant General on 06 Apr 2016, who was gracious enough to send the Chairman, Army Pay Commission Cell (APCC) to Bangalore to make a presentation to Army personnel and Veterans on 13 May 2016, to be followed by a one-to-one discussion between the Chairman APCC and myself. As the Chairman APCC was speaking I took down notes and these were placed on the blog under the title ‘Through the Looking Glass, Nothing is What it Seems.”

4.      Unfortunately, it appears that the Chairman, APCC was misinformed by a Lt Col that I had left the venue. So that one-to-one did not take place. Coincidentally, it was repeated on 22 Jul 16 by member(s) of the APCC who was/were in the audience left before I could interact with them/him.  

So for the imperative for truth to prevail

5.       For the panel discussion on 22 Jul 16, and to comply with the moderator allotted time slot, my statements on the issues and the basis for my analysis were condensed and concise. Informed and intelligent readers will realise that I did not agree with 7th CPC, as some sources have led some senior Veterans to believe, but requested that we should use truth to fight perceived injustice by the 7th CPC and we should not use emotions, make-believe, and hearsay.

6.      The extensive notes on the issues I covered in my letter to the AG in Apr 2016 were backed by facts contained in subsequent paragraphs of this post. Most are repetitions and available on earlier posts.

7.       It is important to stress at this point that I have not obtained information from the Air Force PCC, about which some disparaging remarks are allegedly made. The IAF has a highly qualified, specialised, and experienced Accounts Branch (that the IDAS wants to send into antiquity). It is necessary to stress that truth has the same colour and odour irrespective of whether it is spoken or written by Army, Navy or Air Force personnel or Veterans.      

8.      I commenced my part in the discussion on 22 Jul 16, after expressions of my sincere gratitude to the Hon’ble MP and to the experts on the panel and in the audience with the following words, ‘I start with paraphrasing Marc Antony at the Forum on the assassination of Julius Caesar, “I come to bury the myths about the 7th CPC, not to praise CPCs; The evil that CPCs’ do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones, So let it be with 7th CPC.”

Historical Background of Armed Forces pensions

9.      Pensions were introduced by employers - in particular in the armed forces and then the civil service - in order to facilitate the retirement of older less efficient workers so as to make way for younger fitter men. The very existence of such schemes then encouraged employers to recruit younger fitter people who would work for many years before drawing their pensions.

10.     The first pensions appeared in the late 1600s in the public sector. Before then, it was the custom for serving naval, Customs officers etc. to sell their office for a lump sum or annuity. The first known civil service pension was awarded in 1684 when a senior Port of London official became too ill to carry on, and his successor was appointed on a salary of £80 p.a. on condition that £40 p.a. of this was paid to his predecessor. And so began the first 50% pension, paid out of the salary of a younger employee (emphasis supplied).

11.     Significant further developments occurred in the 1760s and 70s when contributions and pensions were extended to junior officers in the armed services etc., and again in the 1847 when the Admiralty decided to face the fact that 200 senior captains were never going to sea again, promoted them to Rear Admiral, and put them on half pay as a form of retirement pension. Shortly afterwards, in the 1850s, Northcote and Trevelyan recommended that "good service pensions" should be extended into "the ordinary Civil branch of the public service" (Northcote Trevelyan Report - see in particular pp 21-22). A Royal Commission reporting shortly after Northcote & Trevelyan then separately recommended that retirement from the civil service should be possible at age 60 and compulsory at age 65. And there were parallel developments in the private sector, as railway, gas and other large companies developed similar schemes to attract and retain better staff (emphasis supplied).
Other References

3rd Central Pay Commission – Villain?

Pension Quantum before and after 3rd CPC from Vol III of the 3rd CPC Report obtained from the Digital Library of India

12.     The All India Services (AIS) comprises the IAS, IFS, IPS, and IFoS. In seeking parity with the IAS, a component of the AIS, though our pay and pensions are at par or better than IPS, , Armed Forces HQ appear to forget that traditionally we were never on par with ICS (or IAS), and Services HQ were/are aware as is evident from this extract from Chapter 50, Para 7 onwards: -  

7. In support of their demands, the Services have asserted that in the past their pay scales were fixed on a comparison with pay scales prescribed for the highest civil service. This is not borne out by our examination. We find that the pattern of remuneration adopted for KCIOs differed from that applicable to the officers of the Indian Civil Service and in fact the nexus was between the pay and allowances of British officers serving in the Indian Army and KCIOs. This is evident from the factual information furnished by the Services (emphasis supplied).

8. The Post War Pay Committee had explained that they framed their proposals for Service officers “having regard to the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission and particularly to the scales proposed for the Class I and all-India Police Services.” These proposals were formally approved by Service Headquarters (emphasis supplied). The Raghuramaiah Committee which was appointed after the Second Pay Commission mentioned as follows: -

“We consider that the accepted parallel between Defence Service officers and Class I Service of the Central Government, particularly the Indian Police Service, should be continued.”

We find that on both these bodies the Services were represented and it is evident that the existing relativity between Service officers and the officers of the Class I and the IPS came to be established by bodies on which the Services were fully represented so that the Services Headquarters should be deemed to be parties to the conclusions arrived at….” (emphasis supplied).    

13.     If we harp on traditional parity, then here is the evidence. So my query is being Armed Forces with all the inevitability of loss of life or limb, why don’t we seek a distinct identity, befitting our sacrifices and commensurate compensation?

Partial Deduction from Pension & Provision of Weightages for shorter career spans

14.     The deduction of about 8% from the pension to partially offset payment of DCRG is extracted from Chapter 53 of Vol III of 3rd CPC Report, N E Benefits for Officers

‘6.      Although there are some variations in the age of compulsory retirement and tenure of appointments in a rank among the different groups of officers belonging to the three Services, as can be seen from the above tables and some groups of Service officers are also borne on special scales of pay, the pension rates prescribed are uniform for all Service officers of the same rank. The standard rates of pension for officers of the three Services in force from time to time are given in the table below: - 

(in rupees)

1-6-53 and
17-4-56 and 30-9-61
From 1-10-61
Post DCR Gratuity pension after 10-9-70
2nd Lt/Lieut
Lt Colonel
Maj General
Lt General
900 (975 from 12.10.1970)

The amounts in columns (4) and (5) of the above table are current rates of pension; rates in column (4) pertain to the amount of pension admissible where no DCR Gratuity is payable and those in column (5) to pension admissible in conjunction with DCR Gratuity.

7.       Although the Services favour the continuance of the existing standard rate system, they have pointed out that the pension earned by a Service officer is related to the minimum prescribed for the rank and is not increased if the actual period of qualifying service rendered by him is more. They have also proposed that the rate of earning pension after the provision of the DCR Gratuity in the case of Service officers should be higher than that prescribed for the civilians. The Services have criticised the manner in which the compensatory element for early retirement has been provided in Service pensions and have pointed out that this element fixed in 1953 has not undergone any change despite subsequent revisions in pay scales and pensions.

xxxxxx       xxxxxx      

13.     After much deliberation, we have reached the conclusion that the most appropriate method of providing a compensatory element in pension rates would be to add a certain number of years of service to the period of qualifying service prescribed for earning full pension for the various ranks and applying for each year of service the rate of 1/80 of the maximum pay fixed for that rank. In the context of our conclusion that the standard rate system for the pension of Service officers should be continues, the weightage of additional years cannot be added to the length of service actually rendered but it has to be added to the minimum period prescribed for earning pension of the rank. Our calculations show that the two benefits in combination, viz., (a) taking the maximum of pay of the rank and (b) adding a period of 5 years, subject to the total not exceeding 33 years, would provide a reasonable degree of compensation (emphasis supplied). This approach can be adopted only for officers retiring in the rank of Brigadier or below. Further, in the case of Lt Colonel, we have found it necessary to give additional weightage in order to maintain comparability in the order of increase proposed over the existing pension rates in the Armed Forces and on the civil side. Thus, we have added an extra year for officers in the rank of Major and two years for officers in the rank of Captain or below. It is to be noted, however, that the chances of a Service officer retiring below the rank of major on a normal pension are remote and these rates have relevance mainly for determining the amounts of disability and invalid pensions. For senior officers, the pension will have to be determined on the basis of reasonable differential because in their case the pay of the rank exceeds the maximum of the emoluments reckoned for pensions on the civil side.’   

15.     And for PBOR extracted from Chapter 53 of Vol III of 3rd CPC Report, N E Benefits for Personnel Below Officer Ranks

38.    The AFPRC had broadly followed the civil pension rules in making recommendations on pensions for personnel below officer rank, without providing any compensatory element in pensions for early termination of career. However, they allowed the full benefit of the civil pension formula to only those Servicemen who were able to complete 25 years or more of colour service. Thus, while they suggested the minimum period of 15 years colour service for earning pensions, the minimum pension was calculated on the basis of 13/60 of emoluments and 15/60. This depression was removed on the recommendations of the Kamath Committee in 1968. Since then, the only change that has taken place is the provision, in September 1970, of the DCR Gratuity on the civilian pattern for the personnel below officer rank also. After the provision of DCR Gratuity, the pension rates have been reduced by 11% to partially offset the cost of providing the DCR Gratuity (emphasis supplied). The emoluments for calculating pensions comprise basic pay and other items reckonable as pay, e.g. good service pay, as also the notional value of the home saving element which varies according to rank. The pension amounts have, however, been worked for each rank in the various pay groups for different lengths of colour service and not separately for individual Servicemen. The Serviceman is entitled to the pension of the rank held by him for at least two years prior to the date of retirement whether in acting or a substantive capacity, but marginal shortages in the qualifying service or in the rank can be condoned.       
xxxxxxxx             xxxxxxx

43.    After detailed consideration, we have reached the conclusion that the right course would be to adopt the same approach for determining the pensions of personnel below officer rank as we have commended in relation to Service officers, viz., adding a weightage of 5 years to the prescribed length of qualifying service, subject to the total length of service reckonable for pension not exceeding 33 years, and applying the formula of 1/80 of emoluments as on the civil side for calculating the pension amount in conjunction with DCR Gratuity. We also proposed that the maximum of the pay scale prescribed for various ranks should be taken into account for calculating the pension of the rank. The addition of 5 years in cases where the period of qualifying service prescribed for earning pension of the rank is less than 20 years is a substantial benefit, which, we feel, provides adequate compensation for the liability to recall and the problems occasioned by early release from the Services, such as the transition from military to civil life, and the attendant uncertainty about securing suitable civil employment. We would again emphasise that the Government’s efforts should be viewed as a whole, and the adequacy of the 5 years weightage should be judged in the light of the package of other measures for the resettlement of released personnel from the Armed Forces.

16.     This extract from the Honourable Supreme Court judgement in D S Nakara & Others Vs UoI shows Armed Forces personnel’s Pensions were not reduced and applicability of Civil Pension Rules to Armed Forces personnel were not introduced by 3rd CPC: -

The First Central Pay Commission (1946-47) recommended that the age of retirement in future should be uniformly 58 years for all services and the scale of pension should be 1/80 of the emoluments for each year of service, subject to a limit of 35/80 with a ceiling of Rs. 8,000 per year for 35 years of service, which the Government of India while accepting the recommendation raised to Rs. 8,100 per year which would earn a monthly pension of Rs. 675 at the maximum.

The Second Central Pay Commission (1957-58) re-affirmed that the age of superannuation should be 58 years for all classes of public servants but did not recommend any increase in the non-contributory retirement benefits and recommended that if in future any improvement is to be made, it was the considered view of the Commission that these benefits should be on a contributory basis.

The Administrative Reforms Commission ('ARC' for short) set up by the Government of India in 1956 took note of the fact that the cost of living has shot up and correspondingly the possibility of savings has gone down and consequently the drop in wages on retirement is in reality much steeper than what the quantum of pension would indicate, and accordingly the ARC recommended that the quantum of pension admissible may be raised to 3/6 of the emoluments of the last three years of service as against the existing 3/8 and the ceiling should be raised from Rs. 675 p.m. to Rs. 1000 p.m.

Before the Government could take its decision on the recommendations of the ARC, the Third Central Pay Commission was set up. One of the terms of reference of the Third Pay Commission was 'death-cum- retirement benefits of Central Government employees'. The Third Pay Commission did not examine the question of relief to pensioners because in its view unless the terms of reference were suitably amended it would not be within their jurisdiction to examine this question and on a reference by them, the Government of India decided not to amend the terms of reference. With regard to the future pensioners the Third Pay Commission while reiterating that the age of superannuation should continue to be 58 years further recommended that no change in the existing formula for computing pension is considered necessary. The only important recommendation worth noticing is that the Commission recommended that the existing ceiling of maximum pension should be raised from Rs. 675 to Rs. 1,000 p.m. and the maximum of the gratuity should be raised from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 30,000.

On May 25, 1979, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, issued Office Memorandum No. F-19(3)-EV-79 whereby the formula for computation of pension was liberalised but made it applicable to Government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retire from service on or after that date (specified date for short). The formula introduced a slab system for computation of pension. This liberalised pension formula was applicable to employees governed by the 1972 Rules retiring on or after the specified date. The pension for the service personnel which will include Army, Navy, and Air Force staff is governed by the relevant regulations. By the Memorandum of the Ministry of Defence bearing No. B/40725/AG/PS4-C/1816/AD (Pension)/Services dated September 28, 1979, the liberalised pension formula introduced for the government servants governed by the 1972 rules was extended to the Armed Forces personnel subject to limitations set out in the memorandum with a condition that the new rules of pension would be effective from April 1, 1979, and may be applicable to all service officers who become/became non-effective on or after that date (for short specified date) (emphasis supplied).
17.     From the foregoing it is evident that

(a)     Pensions were not reduced by 3rd CPC.

(b)     Applicability of Civil Rules for Pension was enforced in September 1979 by MoD.

          (c)     Weightages were first introduced by 3rd CPC. May it Rest in Peace.

Point raised by member of APCC at the panel discussion

18.     As the points were also discussed by Chairman APCC in May 2016, it is not exactly as if the member of APCC present in the audience on 22 Jul 16 at the panel discussion heard something different. His point about 3rd CPC Report was that the pension tables, after proportionate deduction of DCRG were incorrect and that he had actuarial evidence to prove it. Many in the audience asked me in over refreshments whether we had gathered to discuss the 3rd CPC or the 7th CPC.  

19.     It is common knowledge that
(a)     Pensions in the 3rd CPC or AFPRC regimes were 50% of the average emoluments in a 36 month period immediately prior to the date of retirement/superannuation.
(b)     In the 5th CPC Regime it was 50% of the average emoluments over 10 months prior to the date of retirement, with pro-rata deduction for service below 33 years.  
(c)     In the 6th CPC regime it was made 50% of last drawn Pay in the Pay Band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay for service more than 20 years.
(d)     7th CPC has not recommended any change.        

20.    The fundamental truth lost on the representative of APCC was that the tables reproduced in the 3rd CPC Report were prepared and implemented on the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pension Revision Committee (AFPRC) in 1970 of which Services officers were members. All that the 3rd CPC did was to show that the AFPRC tables showed an average of 8% reduction in pension of officers and state that there was a 11% reduction in pensions of PBOR to “partially offset” the DCRG (Please read actual text in a subsequent part of this narrative). The members of the APCC informed the organisers a day later that they would send the “correct tables.”
21.     Similar vested interests have, in the past too, have taken to vicious personal attacks with no regard to truth even though our National motto is ‘Satyam ev Jayate.’ One such email was from a Naval Veteran, exposing his emotional filled virulence lacking factual knowledge of issues connected with the One Rank One Pension. I posted a reply to his email and a point by point rebuttal with sources of the information. I have not received any acknowledgement from him but some one forwarded his email where he has (purportedly) acknowledged that mistakes have been made by the organisation he owes his fealty to and the agitation has, in the words in the email, made that organisation a ‘pariah.”

7th CPC Issues
Common Pay Matrix

22.    In my opinion a Common Pay matrix is disadvantageous to Defence Forces because 

(a)                There are higher start (Entry Pay) for all ranks in the Defence Pay Matrix (DPM) as compared to Civil Pay Matrix (CPM):–

(i)                          GP 6600 -  Major – Rs 69400; Civilian (JAG) – Rs 67700;

(ii)                       GP Rs 8700 – Colonel – Rs 125700; Civilian (NFSG) – Rs 118500;

(iii)                    GP Rs 8900 – Brig (with RF 2.67) – Rs 139600 – Civilian/DIG -   Rs 131100

(b)        If a Common Pay Matrix is desired for the 40 indices to preclude stagnation, then there would be considerable financial loss for those who have not been superseded and hence will stagnate at the maximum of the level(s) in the DPM.
23.    A CPM would entail financial losses for Defence Forces, particularly officers of the ranks of Captain to Brigadiers (and equivalents) because

(a)     Entry Pay of Civilians will have to be brought up to level of Entry Pay of Defence Forces and therefore higher start


(b)     Entry Pay of the Defence Forces will have to be lowered to the Entry Pay recommended for Civilians.
Stagnation due to lesser indices in DPM

24.    Requirement of 4o indices (stages) must be viewed vis-à-vis lower ages of superannuation for all ranks except Lt Gen & equivalent as compared to civilians. Addition of 2/3 stages on 29 Jun 16 as in the CPM has ensured that. Officers are promoted Col on completion of 17 years i.e in 18th year and Brig on completion of 24 years i.e 25th year of commissioned service

(a)      Stagnation will not take place for Lt Col as he would be promoted to Col (TS) on completion of 26 years of service and the DPM will provide increments from the Entry stage till the Col superannuates at 54 years of age  

(b)      Stagnation will take place only in the last 2 years of service (in the 32nd and 33rd year of service)  for Col if promoted only on Time Scale basis from Lt Col on completion of 26 years of service, and if the recommendations of the 8th CPC in 2026 is to continue with the same DPM, and

(c)       Stagnation take place in last 2 years of service in the rank of Brigadier if he remains in that rank for 7 years is not promoted to Maj Gen 

(d)                Even the IAS/IFS (soon IFoS and IPS?) with 2 increments on completion of 4, 9, and 13 years even an IAS officer not being promoted will stagnate before he/she attains the age of superannuation because the number of indices for GP Rs 8700 (NFSG) and GP Rs 8900 (DIG) are only 21 and 18  respectively and not 40.

Non-Functional Upgradation

25.    “Steep pyramid” is an incorrect statement. The facts are as follows: -

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


Major General
Lieutenant General
Total Army Officers


Rear Admiral
Vice Admiral
Total Naval Officers

Air Force

Gp Capt
Air Cmde
Air Vice Marshal
Air Marshal
Total Air Force Officers


Pay Scale
Lieutenant General
Vice Admiral
Air Marshal
Apex Scale

And from the Honourable Supreme Court

26.    Army HQ has submitted an affidavit and therefore Para 18 of Civil Appeal 3208 of 2015 in the Honourable Supreme Court, inter alia, states: -

          (a)     Annually,

(i)      354 Colonels will be considered for 129 Brig vacancies,

(ii)    129 Brigs who will be considered for 31 Maj Gen vacancies,

(iii)   31 Maj Gens will in turn be considered for 21 Lt Gen vacancies.

          (b)     In a 10 year span,

(i)      4857 Colonels would be considered for 1157 vacancies of Brig,

(ii)    1157 Brigs who in turn will be considered for 322 Maj Gen vacancies, and

(iii)   322 Maj Gens will be considered for 84 Lt Gen vacancies.

Whether there is a steep pyramid, is self-evident

Implementing NFU – the contradictions
27.    I raised a concern that NFU was granted in 2009 to Org Gp A Officers. Till date, Services HQ have not placed on record how will the Defence Forces implement the NFU or what will be the inter-Services and intra-Services modalities would be.

28.    I have utilised information from the Army HQ’s Command Exit policy (from ibid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court refers) which classifies promotion of Officers commissioned on the same date, i.e 01 Jan 1987

(a)     Zero year (meaning first year of consideration for officers from Arms), i.e 2005,

(b)     +1 year (meaning a year later first consideration for officers from Arms Support) i.e. 2006, and

(c) +2 years for officers of Services i.e AOC, ASC etc (meaning two years after the Arms officer is considered for promotion) i.e 2007.  

29.    Queries: -  

(a)     What are the criteria for grant of NFU to Armed Forces Officers?

(b)     If course of year 1987 officers from the Arms are promoted to rank of Colonel in 2005, will Lt Cols of 1985 batch of Arms Support or Services be given Pay in the Pay band + Grade Pay of Col of Arms of 1987 course, even before the AOC/ASC Officers are considered for promotion to Colonel (Select)?

(c)     Will the officers of 1985 and 1987 have to be

(i)      From the same Arms (or Regiments i.e. Armd, Inf, Arty) or same Combat Support Arms (ADA) or same Services (ASC or AOC) to qualify for NFU?

(d)     Both are in the Army (within the cadre); one is Lt Col of 1985 drawing same Pay and Grade Pay as a Col of 1987. Won’t there be a Command & Control issue, which is being used to deny DACP to AFMS officers?  

(e)     Isn’t the Lt Col considered but not promoted in 1985 and 1986 because he did not achieve the criteria for promotion?   

(f)      Time frames for promotion to Col & equivalent are different in Army, Navy and Air Force. How does one determine the 2 years gap – intra-service or inter-services?

30.    My suggestion in the panel discussion was that Principal Personnel Officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force must meet and propose a Cadre Review and Common Promotion Policy (CPP) to take full advantage of NFU, if it is sanctioned by the Govt.  There were no questions or inputs from the members of the Army PCC.

31.     Which brings us to three existential Questions vis-à-vis NFU: -

(a)     How do we justify non-implementation of Dynamic Assured Career Progression for Armed Forces Medical Services Officers who are from Army Medical Corps – the inconvenient truth of a Writ Petition (No. 957 of 2014) for which the Hon’ble Supreme Court is yet to schedule a hearing after Dec 2015.

(b)     Para 1, Note 2 of GoI Resolution approving 6th CPC that states Grade Pay will determine seniority of posts only within a cadre’s hierarchy and not between various cadres. So why isn’t it being quoted/ by Army HQ to MES etc? 

(c)     While Army Cdr equivalents draw Rs 80000 (+DA), the DGAFMS draws Rs 85000 (+DA) has there been any incident of Command & Control issue?   

[Sting in the Command & Control issue: - 26 Brig equivalents draw Rs 81900 (+DA) at Rs 67000 top of PB-4, Rs 8900 as Grade Pay + Rs 6000 as MSP.] 

Allowances, Disability Benefits and Anomalies

33.     Finally, as the Govt has constituted Committee to determine allowances, and resolve anomalies I recommended that Armed Forces must insist on traditional equivalence in Pay and Allowances with IPS (an All India Service) and not CAPF (an Org Gp A Service).      

In Conclusion

34.    Therefore there is an urgent need for all three Services to be on the same thinking level rather than indulge in turf war by sending their personnel to influence opinion makers and decision takers. 


  1. Sir,

    Am I to understand that whoever that officer from APCC was had no comments on your comments on 7 CPC but spoke about 3 CPC of 1970s when he might not have been in service?

    These are planted disruptive elements.

  2. You have said "There are higher start (Entry Pay) for all ranks in the Defence Pay Matrix (DPM) as compared to Civil Pay Matrix (CPM)" in the 7th pay commission recommendations!

    Firstly, are the Maj, Col & Brig supposed to GP 6600, 8700 & 8900? What about Lt.Col? If 6th pay commission anomalies are ignored, your analysis is correct. I feel these observations will negatively impact any decision on rectification of existing anomalies.

  3. Sir,
    Happy to learn the history of justice. The issues, as learnt are
    (a) major GP 6600
    (b) colnels Gp 8700
    (c) NFU
    (d) coordinated efforts by defence Forces
    Simple question? Do we now, atleast, know that some time in past we were equated with IPS?
    Thanks for clearing doubts, as to stages in level.
    Hope we understand.

  4. @Veterans & @radhey govind,

    In 2005 UoI SLP (5905 of 2003) against Maj Dhanapalan was dismissed by the Apex Court and he was paid Rank Pay arrears though his BP pay was not increased by the amount of rank pay.

    In 2012, in UoI vs Lt Col N K Nair and others, the Apex Court agreed with the order in the Maj Dhanapalan case and arrears were paid for deducting rank pay.

    In Dec 12, Services HQ raised 4 points with MoD - (1) Change as on 1.1.1986 to wef 1.1.1986 as decided in the Court order (2)is the Apex Court order applicable to 5 CPC and 6 CPC, (3) minimum of the integrated pay scale for Capts should be increased by the amount of Rs 200 to Rs 3000, and (4) the maximum of the integrated pay scale for Brigs should be increased by Rs 1200 from Rs 5100 to Rs 6300.

    The Attorney General's legal opinion was sought on the above points. In Sep 13 he opined (1) yes, the effect should be w.e.f 1.1.1986 and (2) yes, deduction of rank pay, wherever it was paid should be restored i.e 5th CPC. He gave a NO (3) on the increase of the minimum of Capt's pay to Rs 3000, and (4) a No to increasing integrated pay scale from 2300-5100 to 2300-6300.

    This was accepted by Service HQ but the RDOA challenged it in a Contempt Petition filed before the opinion of the AG was available.

    In its order, the Apex Court dismissed the Contempt Petition. No Review Petition was filed within the time laid down. Hence the situation rests there.

    Therefore, it is reasonable to understand that some of us insisting that there should be an increase in the integrated pay scales in 4th CPC, and persisting that our pay in the 5th CPC should be increased by the amount of Rank Pay, and using that as the basis for increases in Grade Pay is not correct.

    Consequently, holding a position that is incorrect will only add to the agony of ill-feeling and we can shout and do more but to what effect?

    You may want to pause and ask yourself whether in the acceptance of the OROP if anyone has brought up that OROP should be based on higher Grade pay of Majors to Brigadiers retiring in 2013? If not, why hasn't that been a point in addition to the 5 points (definition, implementation, annual equalisation, automatic increases, and enforcement in perpetuity), been raised in the heated OROP discourse?