A Few History Lessons and a Little of Logic

A Few History Lessons and a Little of Logic

On Pay Commissions and the Armed Forces

A page of history is worth a volume of logic

- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr,

(Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in case New York Trust vs. Eisner, 1921),

If history is important, it’s important to get it right. We need to understand what happened on the ground and what it meant then.

 - R. H. Helmholz, Distinguished Service Professor of Law of the University of Chicago Law School

Please Note: - Armed Forces mean the Army, Navy and Air Force of India. May they always succeed, even in the face of overwhelming odds.

The Background

1.       This post owes its thought process to the First Appellate Authority’s order in MODEF/A/2017/60319 in MODEF/R/2016/50746 and MODEF/R/2017/51245 in the quest for information that led to approval and publication of Resolutions 1(E) and 2 (E) dated 5^th September 2016, and to the Additional Secretary, MoD who flagged the issue of increase in stages in the Defence Pay Matrix, and subsequent notes of officers on D (Pay/Services), MoD in particular to Level 13A and Military Service Pay leading to higher emoluments and pensions than those in Levels 14 to 17. 

2.      The persistent complex problem that successive Central Pay Commissions (CPCs/CPC) appear to have faced and still do is how to give the Armed Forces personnel ‘an edge.’ CPCs’ wish to recognise the sacrifices by the Armed Forces in lives, limbs, and decades of lives in the service of the Nation by giving that ‘edge’ usually monetary benefits that changed nomenclature with every successive Pay Commission.

Till 3^rd CPC

3.       There was the Special Disturbance Allowance (SDA) for officers up to the rank of Brigadier and equivalent from the time of the Post War Pay Committee till the 4^th CPC to compensate for the monetary loss due to reduction in pay after World War II. That is what the 3^rd CPC states in its Report, Volume III, Paras 11 to 19 (available elsewhere on this blog).

4^th and 5^th CPC and the Group of Ministers (2005)

4.      The 4^th and 5^th CPC recommended the Rank Pay, again only up to the rank of Brig and equivalents. The 4^th CPC recommended a convoluted procedure for fixation of Basic Pay, which was made more confounding by the 5^th CPC. It needed the honourable Supreme Court to interpret the correct intention of the Pay Commissions, first on 8^th March 2010 (TP (Civil) 56 of 2007) and again on 4^th September 2012 (IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (Civil) 56 of 2007). MoD went on to solicit opinions from the learned Solicitor General (now a judge of the Supreme Court) in September 2012 and Attorney General for India (since deceased) in September 2013 before implementing the order of the honourable Court in July 2014.

5.       The 5^th CPC also brought, in its wake, a few more issues. In its introduction, the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) of 2009 states as follows: -

2.6.   After the Fifth Pay Commission, an Inter-Ministerial Committee was set up in 2003 by the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare to consider the demand of ‘One Rank One Pension.’ The Committee in its report submitted on 24.9.2004 did not favour grant of ‘One Rank One Pension’ but recommended grant of modified parity based on the maximum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1.1.1996 for PBOR.

2.7.    Ministry of Finance did not agree with the proposal of the Ministry of Defence for implementation of the recommendations of the Committee. They observed that any departure from the principle laid down by the 5^th CPC regarding modified parity, would be introduction (through a side door), of the one rank one pension system and the same should not be further modified to redress presumed injustice. The position was brought to the notice of (the) Prime Minister who directed that a Group of Ministers be constituted to consider the demand of one rank one pension. 

2.8.   Accordingly, a Group of Ministers (GOM) was constituted by the Government in January 2005 to look into the issue. After detailed deliberations on various aspects, the GOM felt that One Rank One Pension cannot be agreed to. However, there was justification for improving the pensionary benefits of the Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR), particularly the three lowest ranks.

2.9.   Finally, the GOM unanimously recommended that the pension of pre-1.1.1996 PBOR retirees may be revised with reference to maximum of post 1.1.1996 pay scales. In addition, the weight age of Sepoy, Naik and Havildar rank for past as well as future retirees be increased to 10, 8 and 6 years respectively subject to a maximum of qualifying service of 30 years. The benefit was given only for service pension. The benefit of the above recommendation took effect from 1.1.2006.

6^th CPC

6.      The 6^th CPC states in the Preface of its Report: -

Sixth Central Pay Commission is the first Central Pay Commission to be constituted in this century of rapid technological advances and after coming into force of the Right to Information (RTI) and Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Acts. The Government machinery, therefore, has to gear up for better performance under stricter fiscal discipline and delivery mechanisms. These imperatives are reflected in the Terms of Reference of the Sixth Central Pay Commission which made it incumbent on the Commission to recommend systemic changes for, (i) transforming the Central Government organizations into modern, professional and citizen friendly entities that are dedicated to the service of the people; and (ii) harmonizing functioning of the Central Government Organizations with the demands of the emerging global economic scenario (emphasis supplied).

7.       The Govt of India set up the 6^th CPC in 2006 and the Govt and the affected employees and pensioners received the report in March 2008. It was followed by some, till then unprecedented events in the Armed Forces.

8.      The then Chairman, COSC flagged some issues, probably in 2008, with adequate vehemence, to invite the formation of a Group of Ministers (GoM) led by Shri Pranab Mukherjee, then External Affairs Minister (EAM), with Raksha Mantri, and Finance Minister as members.

9.      The Report of the Pranab Mukherjee Committee, as it came to be referred to, must not have assuaged the Armed Forces, because the PMO informed the MoD and the Armed Forces on 27^th December 2008 that it would set up a separate Board or Commission to consider pay issues of the Armed Forces.

10.     So, after the Pranab Mukherjee Report, a Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) of 2009 dealt with issue of Pensions – OROP, Family Pensions, Disability pensions etc. It also quoted extensively from the Pranab Mukherjee Report (illogically (?) still marked CONFIDENTIAL!) to arrive at some recommendations. Those recommendations do not appear to have resolved many issues. But the Armed Forces requested the Govt permission to implement the recommendations of the 6^th CPC subject to resolution of all outstanding issues.

11.     That the Armed Forces were not assuaged is apparent because the Govt constituted the CSC of 2012 which delivered its recommendations in August 2012, the most important of which were (a) that it did not recommend OROP and (b) that it recommends referring pay issues to the next CPC with those momentous words, “the Pay Commission is the expert body set up for this purpose which can examine these issues in a holistic manner” (emphasis supplied).   

12.     One of the main recommendations of the 6^th CPC (Paras 2.3.12 and 2.3.13) was payment of Military Service pay for all ranks up to the rank of Brigadier and equivalent. The 6^th CPC also stated that MSP would be considered as part of Pay and be considered for pension calculation but not for annual increments and status. Resolution of the Govt of India No. 1 (E) dated 30^th August 2008, Annexure I, Part A, S No. 2 states, “….The Military Service Pay shall count as pay for all purposes except for computing the annual increment(s)” and Para 3 (g) of the Special Instructions for the Army, Navy and Air Force No. 2/S/2008 dated 11^th October 2008. So, simply put (logically?) MSP is to be counted for everything including pension except (repeat) increments and status.

13.     Perhaps Justice (retd) B N Srikrishna, the Chairman of the 6^th CPC did not consult Ms Madhulika P. Sukul, IDAS (1982), then Joint Secretary, who was in the Secretariat of the 6^th CPC for her advice based on her expertise in Defence Finance for there isn’t any specific mention, or praise. (Just for information – Justice Srikrishna is Chairman of the Committee on Data Protection.)

 

14.     However, whoever advised the 6^th CPC forgot the Ajai Vikram Singh Committee Report. More than a year before the 6^th CPC was constituted in Oct 2006, the Ajai Vikram Singh Committee (AVSC) recommendations for shorter tenures in ranks up to Lt Col (and equivalents) were implemented w.e.f. 16^th December 2004. The AVSC reduced the time frame of promotions as follows: -

Rank	Reckonable Years of Service
	Pre AVSC	Post AVSC
Lt/Sub Lt/Fg Offr	On commissioning	On commissioning
Capt/Lt/Flt Lt	6 years	2 years
Maj/Lt Cdr/Sqn Ldr	11-13 years	6 years
Lt Col/Cdr/Wg Cdr	16-18 years	13 years
Col/Capt/Gp Capt (TS)	N/A	26 years

15.     With, or may be without taking the AVSC time frames into consideration, the 6^th CPC recommended bunching Armed Forces into the following four Pay bands, on the similar lines as Civilian officers. After a few modifications by the Govt of India, the table looked like this: -

Rank	Pay Band	Limits of the Pay Band (Rs)	Minimum Pay (Rs)	Grade Pay	Military Service Pay
Lt/Sub Lt/Fg Offr	3	15600-31900	15600	5400	6000
Capt/Lt/Flt Lt	3	15600-31900	16860	6100	6000
Maj/Lt Cdr/Sqn Ldr	3	15600-31900	19320	6600	6000
Lt Col/Cdr/Wg Cdr	4	37400-67000	37400	8000	6000
Col/Capt/Gp Capt	4	37400-67000	40200	8700	6000
Brig/Cmde/Air Cmde	4	37400-67000	43390	8900	6000
Maj Gen/RADM/AVM	4	37400-67000	60700	10000	Nil
Lt Gen/VADM/AM	HAG	73000-79000	73000	Nil	Nil
Lt Gen/VADM/AM	HAG Plus	75500-80000	75500	Nil	Nil
VCOAS & Army Cdr and equivalents	Apex	80000 (Fixed)	80000	Nil	Nil

16.     It appears that effect of longer residual tenures in the ranks, even using rapid technological advances to have an arithmetical projection of the recommendations, appear to have been ignored. Running the proposed pay band GP, and MSP through a basic (Excel) spread sheet would have thrown up the astonishing effect of their recommendations. The maximum advantage was to three ranks i.e. Lt Col, Col and Brig and equivalents. The maximum detriment was to ranks of Maj Gen, Lt Gen and Lt Gen (HAG plus) and equivalent as the following table indicates: -

Item	Lt Col	Col	Brig	Maj Gen	Lt Gen (HAG)	Lt Gen (HAG +)	Vice Chief
Pay Band (PB)	37400-67000				60700-67000	75500-80000	80000 (Fixed)
Top of the PB	67000	67000	67000	67000	67000	80000	80000
Grade Pay	8000	8700	8900	10000	12000	Nil	Nil
MSP	6000	6000	6000	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Total	81000	81700	81900	77000	79000	80000	80000
Maximum Pension (50%)	40500	40850	40950	38500	39500	40000	40000

17.     Using the same (Basic) Excel spreadsheet (and rounding off to the nearest Rs 10) vis-à-vis the years of service in ranks of Lt Col, Col and Brig & equivalent works out as follows: -

Rank	Lt Col/Cdr/Wg Cdr	Col/Capt/Gp Capt	Brig/Cmde/Air Cmde	Maj Gen/RADM/AVM
Level in Defence Pay Matrix of 7th CPC	12A	13	13A	14
Pay in the Pay Band	38530	46890	49390	50700
Grade Pay	8000	8700	8900	10000
Military Service Pay (MSP)	6000	6000	6000	0
Minimum Pay PB+GP+MSP, if any	52530	55590	58290	60700
Increment/yr	3%	3%	3%	3%
Year in the rank	Promoted in 14th year	Promoted in 18th year*	Promoted in 23rd year*	Promoted in 29th year*
1	52530	55590	58290	60700
2	53930	57260	60040	62520
3	55360	58980	61840	64400
4	56850	60750	63690	66330
5	58370	62570	65610	68320
6	59940	64440	67570	70370
7	61560	66380	69600	72480
8	63230	68370	71690	73000
9	64940	70420	73840
10	66710	72530	76050
11	68530	74710	78340
12	70410	76950	80690
13	72340	79260	81900
14	74330	81700
15	76380
16	78490
17	81000

*        Further, in order in Civil Appeal No. 3208 of 2015 in UoI Vs Lt Col P K Choudhary & Others, the the following time frames for Select promotions have been quoted (Paras 4 and 18 refer): -

To Rank of	Years of service	Age before Command Exit Policy	Age after Command Exit Policy	Age Span
Colonel**	15-31	41-42	36-37	37-53
Brigadier	23-33	50-51	44-45	45-55
Maj Gen	29-35	54-55	51-52	51-55
Lt Gen	34-38	56-57	55-56	56-60

** Retirement ages for Time scale Gp Capt is 57 years (UoI Vs Gp Capt Atul Saxena and Others case in Civil Appeal Nos. 4717-19 of 2013 also refers).

18.     The consequence of the above pay band and Grade Pay, and MSP for Brig & equivalent and below has resulted in the following (information obtained through RTI from ref No. LW/SS/AT/RTI/45/Vol-V dated 29^th August 2017 from PCDA (O), No. DCA/Pen-1/RTI/Vol II dated 9^th August 2017 from JCDA (AF) and telephonic message from Air HQ (Dte of Account) where junior officers (feeder ranks/grades) are drawing more emoluments than their senior who are not entitled to MSP: -

         

Serving Officers as on 31.12.2015	Army	Navy*	Air Force
Lt Col & equivalent PB 67000+GP 8000+ MSP 6000 = 81000	Nil	Nil	Nil
Colonel & equivalent PB 67000+GP 8700 +MSP 6000 = 81700	124	Information Awaited	150
Brigadier & equivalent PB 67000+GP 8900 + MSP 6000 = 81900	113	Information Awaited	77

*information awaited from Naval Pay Office

Retired Officers as on 31.12.2015	Army#	Navy#	Air Force
Lt Col & equivalent PB 67000+GP 8000+ MSP 6000 = 81000; Therefore Pension 40500	Nil	Information awaited	57
Colonel & equivalent PB 67000+GP 8700 +MSP 6000 = 81700; Therefore Pension 40850	124	Information awaited	91
Brigadier & equivalent PB 67000+GP 8900 + MSP 6000 = 81900; Therefore Pension 40950	113	Information awaited	37

# Information awaited from PCDA (P) and PCDA (N) in reply to First Appeals under the RTI Act, 2005

Two illogical questions: -

(1)     So the maximum pension for Lt Col, Col and Brig & equivalent would be Rs 40500, Rs 40850, and Rs 40950 not as given in Circular No. 555?

(2)     Will Circular 555 be amended as the average pensions as in 2013 is reflected and are to be enhanced periodically??

(3)            Is a judgement of the honourable Supreme Court required to be cited?

19.     History also records the honourable Supreme Court judgment in the UoI Vs SPS Vains & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5566 of 2008 decided on 9^th September 2008 which was pithily summed up by the Bench of the High Court of Bihar with Judicature in Patna in UoI vs MMS Sinha as follows:

Writ Jurisdiction case No. 10757 of 2010 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna  in Shri MMP Sinha vs. Union of India judgment dated 18^th May 2015: -

A simple but ticklish issue arises in this writ petition. The issue is whether a person retiring from a higher grade can receive pension less than a person retiring in the lower grade. Is it not arbitrary and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs S P S Vains and Others since reported in (2008) 9 SCC 125, the person in the higher grade would have to be stepped up accordingly.

As the petitioner had retired in 1992, as per Railway Board’s notification, petitioner’s notional pay was fixed at the minimum of HAG (S-30) being Rs 67,000 without Grade Pay. The result was his pension was then fixed at 50% thereof being Rs 33, 500. On the other side, a person in (SAG) Grade S-29, which is an inferior and feeder grade for S-30, the Pay Band is Rs 37,400-67,000 but there is a Grade Pay entitlement of Rs 10,000/- Accordingly, petitioner points out the maximum of pension that can be paid in Grade S-29 would be Rs 67000+10000= 77000/- and half of it (50%) would be Rs 38500/-….

                                 Xxxx                          xxxx                              xxxx

          Hence, having considered the matter, the facts not being in dispute, as noted above, and the law not being in dispute, as noted above, the result is that the writ petition must succeed and the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has to be set aside. It has to be held that the basic pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 has to be stepped up to Rs 38,500 to avoid discrimination…..”   (Emphasis supplied).

[Note: - There is a bit of a ticklish issue in the implementation of the Order in the Vains case. It has been made applicable by MoD vide F No. 4 (140/2010/D(Pen/Legal) Vol II dated 10^th August 2015 to 106 petitioners of the Army, Navy and Air Force, one amongst whom is Maj Gen Satbir Singh.]

And History Marches into the Seventh CPC

20.    The CSC of 2012 states in its Report dated 22^nd August 2012

41.     In the circumstances, the Committee recommends that the pay related issues may be specifically referred to the next Pay Commission for its consideration as the Pay Commission is the expert body set up for this purpose which can examine these issues in a holistic manner(emphasis supplied). 

21.     The then Chairman, COSC took a decision on 13^th September 2013, as noted in the MoD’s file, declining a Separate Board or Commission to resolve pay issues of the Armed Forces in reply to the offer of 27^th December 2008 from the PMO: -

3.       In the aforesaid letter dated 13.09.2013, Chairman, COSC has brought out that revision of emoluments of the armed forces by a Central Pay Commission was taken up for the first time by the III Pay Commission in 1973. Prior to this, emoluments of armed forces were revised in piecemeal by Departmental Committees. These Committees were drawing reference from the award of I and II CPC actually depressed the pay, DA and CCA for conditions which were unique to the Services. Analysis of the experience of Departmental Committees vis-à-vis Central Pay Commissions indicates that a separate Pay Commission may not necessarily benefit the Services as anomalies invariably are bound to arise in both the cases. The fact is that non-resolution of anomalies or ex-parte resolution of anomalies that leads to dissatisfaction may have led to an inference that Armed Forces should have a separate Pay Commission.

22.    History has recorded that then Chairman COSC declined a separate Board or Commission to consider Pay issues of the Armed Forces but that was preceded by a judgement of the honourable Supreme Court (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 491 of 2010) in which the setting of the Armed Forces Grievance Redressal Commission was later rescinded in November 2011.

23.    Then came the 7^th CPC and its expert on Defence Finance from the IDAS. MSP, hitherto being taken into consideration as part of Pay, except for calculation of increments and status and for pension was dropped from calculation of entry pay for the computation of the Defence Pay Matrix. No reasons are found in the 7^th CPC, which is a voluminous tome, all of 800 pages or so! Ergo, the solution – simple, unclear and obviously wrong.   

24.    A reading of the 800 odd pages of the Report of the 7^th CPC dated 19^th November 2015 brings out certain aspects germane to this discussion. They are as follows: - 

         

(a)     The enthusiastic and generous praises heaped on Shri D K Rai, IDAS by the Chairman, 7^th CPC with specific mention of the “deep insight in financial matters, especially the Defence” and, “a young officer from Accounts and Finance stream who had a deep insight into the financial matters especially, the defence. His knowledge about defence finance has been of great help to this Commission in determining the pay structure for the defence forces….” (page (iv) of the Acknowledgement part of the Commission’s Report).

(b)     One may decide if such fulsome praise was deserved, especially as none of the orders of honourable Courts delivered on pay and pensions such as in UoI Vs SPS Vains, UoI vs Lt Col N K Nair & Others, UoI Vs Gp Capt Atul Saxena  & Others, has found mention in the chapters concerning pay, allowances and pensions for Armed Forces (Chapters 5.2, Chapter 6, and Chapter 10.2 et al) up to 19^th November 2015, the date the Report was handed over to the Finance Minister.  It also appears that Shri D K Rai was unaware or was not provided information that the 6^th CPC pay bands, Grade Pay and MSP were already tearing apart the settled law that seniors cannot be paid lesser emoluments than juniors. 

(c)     Contrast this with the strong defence mounted by Shri Vivek Rae, Member of 7^th CPC and retired IAS officer, on why the IAS must retain an edge over others. He mentioned in fair detail the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India order and judgment in Mohan Kumar Singhania and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors delivered on 13 September, 1991 (Para 7.2.20 on page 151 to 157 of the Report).

25.    7^th CPC recommended a Pay Matrix for the Armed Forces (Chapter 5.2) which was improved by the Govt piecemeal –

On 5^th September 2016, the MoD modified the Index of Rationalisation (IOR) for Brigadiers & equivalent (Level 13A) from 2.57 from 2.67, and added 2 more stages in the Level 13A and 3 stages each in Levels 12A (Lt Col & equivalent) and 13 (Col 7 equivalent).

On 5^th May 2017, MoD issued the Army Pay Rules 2017, Air Force Pay Rules 2017 and Navy Pay Regulations 2017 separately for Officers and PBOR. However, the Defence Pay Matrix was set with IOR for Lt Col, and Col and equivalent at 2.57 instead of 2.67. 

On 6^th July 2017, the MoD issued Army Officers Pay Rules (Amendment) 2017, Air Force Officers Pay Rules (Amendment), and Navy Officers Pay Regulations (Amendment) 2017 correcting the IOR to 2.67 for Lt Cols and Cols and equivalents. 

26.    At this point it is fair to pause and ponder over what Hegel, the German philosopher is supposed to have famously said that, “We learn from history that we never learn from history.” How true!

27.    The 7^th CPC, in this realm of technological marvels, has relied on the staple food of Precedent, but with a minor change in the menu. Pay Bands and Grade Pay are now in Pay Matrices. MSP remains as a dessert but only for officers below the ranks of Maj Gen & equivalent, even though higher IoR for Maj Gens and equivalents and above has been justified on the grounds that these officers have (i) a significantly higher degree of responsibility and accountability... and (ii) (these Ranks) are those which are involved if policy formulation” (in 7^th CPC Report at Para 5.2.8 – Rationalisation).

28.    Therefore, the 7^th CPC has not recognised a fact that juniors must not draw more emoluments and pensions than seniors but they do as the table below show: -

Rank	Level in Defence Pay Matrix	Basic Pay in the Defence Pay Matrix	MSP	Range of Total emoluments	Pension at 50% of column 4
1		2	3	4	Minimum	Maximum
Lieutenant	10	56100-177500	15500	71600-193000	35800	96500
Captain	10B	61300-193900	15500	76800-209400	38400	104700
Major	11	69400-207200	15500	84900-222700	42450	111350
Lt Col	12A	121200-212400	15500	136700-227900	68350	113950
Colonel	13	130600-215900	15500	146100-231400	73050	115700
Brigadier	13A	139600-217600	15500	155100-233100	77550	116550
Maj Gen	14	144200-218200	Nil	144200-218200	72100	109100
Lt Gen (HAG)	15	182200-224100	Nil	182200-224100	91100	112050
Lt Gen (HAG+)	16	205400-224400	Nil	205400-224000	102700	112000
VCOAS	17	225000	Nil	225000 (Fixed)	112500	112500

29.              The following procedure extracted from Air Force Pay Rules for Officers, 2017, Part II, Section 4, Page No 19

12.     Fixation of Pay on Promotion or Upgradation on or after 1^st  day of January, 2016 – The fixation of pay in case of promotion or upgradation from one Level to another in the revised pay structure shall be made in the following manner, namely: -     

         

xxxx                                        xxxx                                        xxxx

(iii)   In case of promotion of an officers from Level 13A to Level 14, increment shall be calculated on the pay in Level 13A being drawn immediately prior to promotion and the sum of the pay in the Level 13A plus the amount of increment for promotion plus Military Service Pay shall determine the pay in the Level 14 and the figure so arrived at will be located in the next higher Level 14, and if such an identical figure corresponds to any Cell in Level 14, the same shall be the pay in the revised pay structure and if the identical figure is not available in Level 14, the pay in the Pay Matrix shall be fixed at the immediate next higher Cell in Level 14 of the Pay Matrix. 

Illustration

1	Level in the revised pay structure  Level 13A	Levels	13	13A	14
2	Basic Pay in the revised pay structure: 171700	1	125700	139600	144200
3	Promoted to Major General in Level 14	2	129500	143800	148500
4	Pay in Level 13A after promotion increment: 176900	3	133400	148100	153000
5	MSP: 15500	4	137400	152500	157600
6	Adding S No. 4 and 5 192400
7	Pay fixed in Level 14: 193800	5	141500	157100	162300
		6	145700	161800	167200
		7	150100	166700	172200
		8	154600	171700	177400
		9	159200	176900	182700
		10	164000	182200	188200
		11	168900	187700	193800
		12	174000	193300	199600

30.    And this is the amendment in Air Force Officers Pay (Amendment) Rules dated 6^th July 2017 issued on MoD F No. 1(8)/2016-D (Pay/Services) Part I and similar Amendments in Army Officers Pay Rules 2017 and Navy Officers Pay Regulations 2017

2.      In the Air Force Pay Rules, 2017: -

         

(a) In Rule 3, in clause (g), the following Note shall be inserted, namely: -

Note: “In an kind of calculation which attempts to work with the maximum pay of a particular level the last figure of the Level shall not be calculated and the end-points of the Level, representing the possible highest and lowest pay in that level, may not be treated as the maximum and minimum of any closed pay scale, as used to prevail prior to the implementation of the 6^th CPC.”

31.     However, the whole principle and procedure has been stood on its head as shown by the following live example: -  

Modified Illustration in case of Air Vice Marshal XXXX F (P). The amounts are extracted from pay matrix in Air Force Officers Pay (Amendment) Rules dated 6^th July 2017 issued vide MoD F No. 1(8)/2016-D (Pay/Services) Part I: -

1	Level in the revised pay structure  Level 13A	Levels	13	13A	14	15	16
		1	130600	139600	144200	182200	205400
		2	134500	143800	148500	187700	211600
		3	138500	148100	153000	193300	217900
		4	142700	152500	157600	199100	224400
		5	147000	157100	162300	205100
		6	151400	161800	167200	211300
		7	155900	166700	172200	217600
		8	160600	171700	177400	224100
		9	165400	176900	182700
		10	170400	182200	188200
2	Basic Pay in the revised pay structure: 187700	11	175500	187700	193800
3	Promoted to Major General in Level 14; Pay in Level 13A after promotion increment: 193300	12	180800	193300	199600
4	MSP: 15500	13	186200	199100	205600
5	Adding S No. 4 and 5 208800	14	191800	205100	211800
6	Pay fixed in Level 14: 211800	15	197600	211300	218200
7		16	203500	217600
		17	209600
		18	215900

32.    The astonishing result is that all serving Air Marshals of Flying branch have been upgraded to Level 16. (CGDA UO No. AN/XIV/14114/RTI/Vol XI dated 21^st August 2015 and Note 10 below Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 also refers)

In Conclusion

33.     The illogical part of this paper is the hope that someone will learn from history of the 6^th and 7^th CPC and the subsequent Govt approvals that: -

          (a)     There must be one or more Armed Forces representatives as Members of the CPC. They should be conversant with prevailing promotion policies, procedures and rules. Expertise in accounts and audit should be mandatory.

(b)     Rank/seniority/designation should not determine who these Armed Forces Members should be.

          (c)     Arithmetic of every proposal and recommendation must be run through a pre-audit procedure to determine if the arithmetic is correct and what the consequences would be. 

(d)     Illogically, but not disappointingly, CPCs’ are definitely not expert bodies, who use technology and available software to assist them to take a holistic view of something as abstract as pay, allowances and pensions of Armed Forces personnel. Why else would 7^th CPC recommend a Special Duty Allowance, i.e. additional 30% of Basic Pay, for All India Services (and 10% for all other Central Govt employees) to serve in Ladakh and North Eastern States, which are part of India? It has been reduced to 10% of Basic Pay for all Central Govt employees vide MoF No. 11/1/2017-E.II(B) dated 18^th July 2017, which also states that separate orders will be issued by MoD for Armed Forces.

Or will future Pay Commissions, without qualified Member(s) from the Armed Forces, prove how right H L Mencken was when he said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

*        *        *        *        *