Finally, the Pranab
Mukherjee Report may be made available
(minus the Annexures
mentioned therein)
Online RTI Request
Details
RTI Request Registration number MODEF/R/2016/51506 dated 20/5/2016
Public Authority Department
of Defence
Description of Information Sought
Sir,
In the comments provided by MoD
(D-PCC) to 7th CPC, in Cabinet Secretary Committee Reports 2009 and 2012 etc,
the Pranab Mukherjee Committee report has been quoted as the basis for
decisions.
Please provide information as
defined in Sec 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 on the file notings and deliberations,
discussions in meetings and a copy of the Pranab Mukherjee Committee report so
that the information could be linked by this applicant.
Online RTI Appeal Form Details
RTI Appeal Details :-
RTI Appeal Registration number MODEF/A/2016/60561 dated 12/07/2016
Public Authority Department
of Defence
Personal Details of Appellant:-
Request Registration Number MODEF/R/2016/51506
Request Registration Date 20/05/2016
Ground For Appeal No
Response Within the Time Limit
CPIO of Public Authority approached Details not provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Number Details not provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Date
(Description of Information sought (up to 500 characters)
Prayer or Relief Sought
I file this First Appeal as I am aggrieved that the CPIO
has neither replied not provided information related to my request for a copy
of the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report that has been quoted numerous times in
the Cabinet Secretary Commiee Reports 2009 and 2012 related to anomalies of
Pay, Allowances and Pensions of Defence Forces personnel.
(Second) Online RTI Request Form Details
RTI Request Details :-
RTI Request Registration number MODEF/R/2017/52309 dated 21/09/2017
Public Authority Department
of Defence
Description of Information Sought
Please refer to PMO No. RTI/10099/2017-PMR dated 11.9.2017
addressed to Defence Secretary, MoD with reference to RTI application received
on transfer from MoD dated 01.08.2017.
2. Please take a decision and provide the information.
3. You may wish to consult CPIO of Deptt of Ex-Servicemen
Welfare of MoD, which too, in a similar manner, after much to and fro of my
request between ministries and departments declassified two reports of the
Cabinet Secretary CommiAee of 2009 and 2012 and made them available in 2015.
Online RTI Appeal Form Details
RTI Appeal Details :-
RTI Appeal Registration number MODEF/A/2017/60411 dated 23/19/2017
Public Authority Department
of Defence
Personal Details of Appellant:-
Request Registration Number MODEF/R/2017/52309
Request Registration Date 21/09/2017
Ground For Appeal Any
Other ground
CPIO of Public Authority approached Details not provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Number Details not provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Date
Prayer or Relief Sought
Please refer to the request online MODEF/R/2017/50239 dated
21.9.2017 and CPIO reply No. 35(1)/2015-D(Pay/Services) dated 19.9.2017.
CPIO has been dilly-dallying with my earlier request
MODEF/R/2016/51506 dated 20.5.2016 by transferring it to Min of Ext Affairs and
then to the PMO.
You may also refer to First Appeal MODEF/A/2016/60561 dated
12.7.2016.
MEA intimated the CPIO that a decision is to be taken by
MoD, but the request was transferred to PMO.
PMO directed the Defence Secretary to take a decision vide
PMO OM No. RTI/6184/2017-PMR dated 28.7.2017. Now the CPIO states vide ibid
letter dated 19.9.2017 that the issue has once again been taken up with MEA.
Please pass necessary orders to the CPIO to provide the
information. Otherwise this appellant will be compelled to file a Section 18
complaint citing the delay and the consequent harassment citing a recent
decision of the CIC (attached as supporting document).
(Third) Online RTI Request Form Details
RTI Request Details :-
RTI Request Registration number MODEF/R/2018/50507
Public Authority Department
of Defence
Description of Information Sought
Please refer to the following:
1. MoD D (Pay/Services) F No. 35
(1)/2015-D (Pay/Services) dated 19.9.2017 stating that with reference to PMO OM
No. RTI/6184/2017-PMR dated 28.7.2017, the issue has been taken up with
Ministry of External Affairs.
2. Prior to the above letter the following applications for
information and Appeals were sent online. Please see supporting document for
details.
(a) Application No.
MODEF/R/2016/51506 dated 13.6.2016.
(b) First Appeal No.
MODEF/A/2016/60561 dated 12.7.2016
(c) Repeat application No.
MODEF/R/2017/52309 dated 21.9.2017, and
(d) Repeat First Appeal No.
MODEF/R/2017/60411 dated 23.10.2017.
3. Even after the PMO sent the
application to the Defence Secretary vide letter dated 28.7.2017, there has
been neither a refusal nor has the information been provided. It is nearing 6
months since the above action was taken but no information has been provided.
As per the RTI Act 2005 and several decisions of the CIC, the onus of providing
information rests on the CPIO to whom the original request was addressed. In
this case the original CPIO, as stated in letter dated 19.9.2017 quoted in Para
1 above is Shri Prashant Rastogi, US D (Pay/Services) in respect of the
original request and the First Appellate Authority is Ms Manisha Bhatnagar,
Deputy Secretary (AG-I).
4. Please provide information as
defined in Section 2 (f) and (i), including file notings and a copy of the
report of the Pranab Mukherjee lead Group of Ministers pertaining to pay,
allowances and pensions of personnel of the Armed Forces.
(Third) Online RTI Appeal Form Details
RTI Appeal Details :-
RTI Appeal Registration number MODEF/A/2018/60132 dated 09/04/2018
Public Authority Department
of Defence
Personal Details of Appellant:-
Request Registration Number MODEF/R/2018/50507
Request Registration Date 06/03/2018
Ground For Appeal No
Response Within the Time Limit
CPIO of Public Authority approached Details not provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Number Details not provided
CPIO's Order/Decision Date
Prayer or Relief Sought
Madam/Sir,
1. I am aggrieved that the lack
of response from the CPIO to a request that I am compelled to repeat because
every reason has been given to deny the information without stating that the
information is denied.
2. As the supporting document, which was also attached to the request shows and is attached herewith for ready reference, the request has not be addressed even after the PMO directed the Defence Secretary to take a decision.
3. Merely denying the information because the Pranab
Mukherjee report is classified shows a lack of knowledge of Sec>on 22 of the
RTI Act, 2005 which reads as:
22. The provisions of this
Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in
force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this
Act.
4. It obviously means that
Official Secret Act 1923 does not affect RTI Act 2005 in any way. Wherever
there is any inconsistency between these two Acts, RTI Act will stand and
Official Secret Act will have no effect.
5. Please pass a detailed
speaking order to the CPIO to provide the information while reminding the CPIO
not to request any additional fee as the time limit of Sec 7 (1) has been
exceeded and Sec 7 (6) mandates that information is to be provided free of cost
as the time limit has been exceeded.
Reply of CPIO dated 5.4.2018 posted on 6.4.2018 and
received on 10.4.2018
(Please se India Post Tracking of ED929841046IN)
Speed Post
RTI Matter
No. 35 (1)/2015/D
(Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 5th
April 2017
To
Shri S Y
Savur
Subject: Seeking information under RTI Act-
2005
Sir,
Reference
your RTI application 6.3.2016 (received in this Section on 14.3.2018) on the
subject mentioned above.
2. The Pranab
Mukherjee Committee Report contains 16 pages. The amount towards cost of
photocopying charges (Rs 2/- per page) may be paid in favour of Accounts
Officer (DAD), Ministry of Defence (Civil), New Delhi as per rules before the
said pages may be sent to you.
3. Regarding file notings leading to the issue of this Report, it
is stated that this Division is not in possession of any file notings and
deliberations, discussions in meetings relating to the above said Report as
this matter was dealt with in the Ministry of External Affairs. In view of
this, this Division is unable to furnish you the same.
4. The
Appellate Authority is Shri B D Barua, Deputy Secretary (AG-I), Ministry of
Defence, Room No. 102, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.
Sd/------------------
5/4/18
(Prashant Rastogi)
Under Secretary & CPIO
Copy for information to: -
1. US & CPIO, RTI Cell
Ministry
of External Affairs
Jawahar
Lal Nehru Bhavan, 2021-A Wing
D-23, Janpath, New Delhi –
110011 wrt MEA (RTI) Cell No. RTI/551/1679/2016 dated 26.4.2017 and MoD OM of
even number dated 19.9.2017 of this Deptt
2. US & CPIO, PMO – wrt PMO
No.RTI/6184/2017-PMR dated 28.7.2017
SPEED POST EK484578216IN
S Y Savur
Cell: +91 8762516278 141
Jal Vayu Towers
Email: sharad10525@gmail.com NGEF
Layout
Indira
Nagar (PO)
Bengaluru
– 560038
Ref: RTI/ MODEF/R-50507/A-60132 12th
April 2018
To,
Shri Prashant Rastogi,
Under Secretary – D (Pay/Services) & CPIO
Ministry of Defence Room No. 103, B Wing, Sena Bhawan, New
Delhi - 110011
Subject: Reply of CPIO No. 35(1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) dated 5th
April 2018 received by Speed Post article ED ED929841046IN on 10th
April 2018 in response to MODEF/R/2018/50507 dated 6.3.2018
Sir,
Enclosed
are IPOs for Rs 40/- (@ Rs 2 per page for 16 pages of information) payable at
New Delhi to Accounts Officer (DAD), Ministry of Defence (Civil).
2. I do not want to miss this opportunity to obtain the
information that I have been attempting to obtain from 2016.
3. Please acknowledge receipt.
Yours faithfully
Encl: IPO
for total value of Rs 40/- [Nos 44F
948294-7 @ Rs 10/- ]
S Y Savur
* * * * * *
Pranab Mukherjee Report
Received by Speed Post
article ED991096589IN on 21.4.2018
Speed Post
RTI Matter
No. 35 (1)/2015/D
(Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 18th
April 2018
To
Subject: Seeking information
under RTI Act 2005
Sir,
Reference
your letter No. RTI/MODEF/R-50507/A-60132 dated 12.4.2018 (received in this
Division on 16.4.2018) alongwith 4 IPOs of Rs 10/- on the subject mentioned above.
2. As desired, a copy of Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report
containing 16 pages is forwarded herewith.
Sd/-------------------
18/4/18
(Prashant Rastogi)
Under Secretary & CPIO
Copy to:
1. AO (Cash) alongwith 4 IPO of Rs 10/- No. 44F 948294 to
948297 for n/a.
2. US &
CPIO, RTI Cell – wrt MoD ID Note of even number dated 5.4.2018
Ministry
of External Affairs
Jawahar
Lal Nehru Bhavan, 2021-A Wing
D-23,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110011
3. US &
CPIO, PMO – wrt MOD ID Note of even number dated 5.4.2018
[1A
Seal Minister
of External Affairs
India
Pranab Mukherjee
No. 13787/EAM/2008 19th
December 2008
Sub: 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC)
Implementation:
Further benefits
requested by the Armed Forces
This
has reference to the meeting taken by you on 27 November 2008 to discuss the
report I had sent on 11 November 2008. While there was general agreement on the
recommendations made, Finance Minister raised the issue regarding the
horizontal relativities of Armed Forces vis-à-vis CPMFs and civilians. It was
agreed that we should further examine the problems relating to Lt Col level
officers on deputation to the Central Secretariat, Intelligence Agencies and
CPMFs.
As
directed by you, I discussed the matter further with Shri A K Antony on 17
December. Since Shri P Chidambaram could not attend the meeting on 17 December,
I sent him a note after my discussions with RM. I received his view this
morning. The substantive portions of Shri Chidambaram’s view have been
incorporated in the revised report which is enclosed. Following recommendations
have been made in the revised report:
(i) The pensionary benefits to all PBORs may be given without
disadvantage to any category and an Anomaly Committee may be set (up)
immediately to address any such cases.
(ii) Lt Cols, who are in their parent service in combat or
ready-to-combat jobs, may be placed in Pay Band-4. Those Lt Col level officers
who are on deputation would be entitled to PB-4 only when they return to parent
service.
:: 2::
(iii) The grade pay for Lt Cols who are in
their parent service in combat or ready to combat jobs, may be fixed at Rs
8000/- against the grade pay of Rs 8700/- for Cols/Directors. Those Lt Col
level Officers who are on deputation be entitled to the above grade pay when
they return to parent service.
(iv) A High-Powered Committee may be set up to resolve the issues
relating to command and control functions/status of armed forces vis-à-vis
paramilitary forces and civilians.
(v) The pay revision of the armed forces should be delinked from
the civilian pay revisions. Separate Board or Commission should be set us to
recommend the pay scales of the Armed Forces in future.
You may like to approve these
recommendations for implementation.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-----------------
(Pranab Mukherjee)
Dr Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister of India
New Delhi
Copy to:
1. Shri A K
Antony, Raksha Mantri, New Delhi
[1B
Ministry of External
Affairs
EAMO
Sub: 6th
Central Pay Commission (CPC) Implementation:
Further benefits
requested by the Armed Forces
Vide
PMO note dated 29.9.2008, I was requested to look into the issues raised by the
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee for further benefits subsequent to the decisions
taken on the recommendations of the 6th CPC and give my
recommendations in consultation with Defence Minister and Finance Minister. The
four issues raised by the Armed Forces are:
(a) Restoration of pensionary weightages for
PBORs.
(b) A higher grade pay for the Armed Forces
officers.
(c) Placement of Lt Cols and equivalent in
Pay Band -4 (PB-4).
(d) Providing HAG+ Pay Band for Lt Gens and equivalents holding
posts of PSOs. DGs etc.
2. In order to
understand the issues, the following meetings were convened:
(i) On 3.10.2008, a presentation was made by the three Services
Chiefs to explain their points of
view.
(ii) On 4.10.2008, consultation was held with Cabinet Secretary.
Defence Secretary, and Revenue Secretary to clarify issues.
(iii) On 14.10.2008, a meeting was held with
Defence Minister and Finance Minister in the forenoon. This meeting continued in the afternoon when Secretary
(Expenditure) and other MoF officers made a presentation on the issues raised
by the Armed Forces.
(iv) On 29.10.2008, another meeting was held with Defence Minister
and Finance Minister. The meeting was also attended by the Expenditure
Secretary and Advisor to EAM, After discussions it was agreed that Secretary
(Expenditure) will hold another round of discussions with three Services
Chiefs.
(v) On 1.11.2008, Secretary (Expenditure) and other officers of
DoE held the meeting with the Service Chiefs.
The following documents are enclosed (these are not part
of the reply dated 18.4.2018):
(a) U.O. Note dated 22.10.2008 from
Department of Expenditure on the reinstatement of extant pensionary weightages
for PBORs (Annexure I).
(b) Note dated 3.11.2008 from Ministry of Defence on
reinstatement of extant pensionary weightages for PBORs (Annexure II),
(c) Note dated 6.11.2008 from Department of Expenditure on the
issues relating to pay of Lt
Cols/equivalents in regard to implementation of recommendations of 6th
CPC (Annexure III).
After all these consultations
and a careful examination of available facts, my observations and
recommendations are as follows:
3. The Central Pay Commissions (CPCs) are meant to suggest
revision in pay for a broad category of government employees. The CPCs, by no
stretch of imagination are meant to do the cadre management or improve the
service prospects of individual service groups. The CPCs have somehow been
turned into instruments for dealing with inter
se cadre management problems by various services. The question relating to inter se parity, seniority etc have to
be dealt with by respective cadre controlling authorities.
4. All these problems of parity, disparity, comparison with
status of the civilian services and ranks of the Police and Paramilitary forces
have arises after the Central Pay Commissions had been entrusted with the task
of recommending pay scales of the Armed Forces also, which till the 3rd
CPC recommended salary structures of civilian services only. In a democratic
system such comparisons between Armed Forces and civilian services are
undesirable. As is being done for the academicians, medical services, public
sector units etc., in future a
separate board or commission should recommend the pay scales of the Armed
Forces thereby removing the root cause of the point-to-point comparisons
between the ranks of Defence Services and Civilian Services which is
not in the interest of the country (emphasis in the original Report).
Item No. 1: Restoration
of pensionary weightages for PBORs
1.1. The 6th CPC has premised the recommendations for
granting pensionary benefits to Short Service Commissioned Officers of Armed
Forces and PBORs on being laterally absorbed in the CPMFs and CPOs. As a
result, the “weightages based on
rank” on account of truncated careers of PBORs were removed and
substituted by a straight 50 percent of the last pay drawn for calculations of
pensions.
1.2. Since the lateral entry of PBORs in CPMFs has many problems and
is being resisted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is logical that the earlier system of “weightages based on rank”
for pension for PBORs may be restored.
1.3. The matter has now been sorted our. To ensure that no PBORs are
placed at a disadvantage in this process, I have recommended setting up of an
Anomaly Committee immediately under the Chairmanship of Financial Advisor (DS),
MoD to deal with any such cases and other anomalies that may emerge after pay
of post 1.1.2006 retirees has been fixed in the revised pay structure.
The
Government letters for implementing the Sixth Central Pay Commission’s
recommendations for revision of pension/family pension of pre and post 1/1/2006
Armed Forces retirees will be issued shortly.
Item No. 2: Placement
of Lt Cols and equivalent in Pay Band – 4 (PB-4)
2.1. According to the Armed Forces, the genesis of the problem lies
in the movement of the officers in 5th CPC’s S-24 and S-25 bands who
were earlier placed in PB-3 by 6th CPC to PB-4. The criteria
followed for fixing the PBs so far has been scale-to-scale movement from the
previous Pay Commissions. While Lt Cols in a scale higher than S-24 (with rank
pay) have been retained in PB-3, all other officers in S-25 and S-24 have been
moved to PB-4. This is not acceptable to the Armed Forces.
2.2. The contention of the Armed Forces is based on the argument
that rank pay has always been part of
basic pay from where it was culled out by 4th CPC and shown
separately and so recognised by both the 5th and 6th CPC
at various places in their recommendations. On this basis, according to them,
the salary being paid to Lt Cols at the entry level is higher than the salary
being paid to Directors. Therefore, Lt Cols should be equated to Directors and
brought up into PB-4 of the 6th CPC.
2.3. It needs to be clearly understood that the Central Pay Commissions are recommendatory authorities. The final
decision on the pay scales as well as parity between various levels/ranks of
civilian and armed forces officers is taken by the Cabinet, and as such the Cabinet decision is the final word.
2.4. In this context a look at the history of the implementation of
the 5th CPC is warranted. The 5th CPC made various recommendations
for improving service conditions as well as pay and allowances of the Armed
Forces personnel. The Cabinet, in its
meeting held on 16.7.1997 accepted the recommendations of the 5th
CPC for the service personnel with certain modifications. Following the Cabinet
decision and issuance of notification thereof, demands for further improvement
in pay and allowances were made by Service Headquarters in October 1997 which,
inter alia, included “(vii) merger of
rank pay with basic pay for all purposes.” Government accepted many of
the proposals made in the Cabinet meetings held on 20.11.1997 except (i) demands for revision of pay scales of
Lt Gens and (ii) merger of rank pay.
2.5. Accordingly, when Government orders were issued, there were
protests from the Armed Forces and the Government set up a High Level Committee
(HLC) under the Chairmanship of then
Defence Secretary, Shri Ajit Kumar, with Vice Chiefs of three services and
Financial Advisor (Defence Services) on 24.12.1997. The Committee submitted its
report on 23.4.1998 to Raksha Mantri who forwarded it to the Prime Minister
with the suggestion that a Group of Officers under the Chairmanship of Cabinet
Secretary along with other officers including the three Services Chiefs may
process the report. This Group of officers constituted on 21.5.1998 deliberated
on the recommendations of the HLC for over a year and submitted its report to
the Government on 5.7.1999
for further action in the matter. The implementation of the recommendations of
the HLC as processed by Group of Officers was considered by the Cabinet on 30.11.1999.
On
the issue of merger of rank pay with pay scales, the Cabinet, inter alia,
approved the following recommendation of the HLC:
“43. After considering all relevant aspects, the
Group of Officers does not recommend the merger of Rank Pay with pay scales.
However, in view of the difficulties being faced with regard to the
interpretation of rank pay, the Group feels that it would be desirable and more
practical to evolve an appropriate definition of Rank Pay so as to clarify its
import. The Group of Officers felt that the following definition of Rank Pay
should adequately clarify the position: -
“Rank Pay is admissible to the Commissioned Officers of the three
Services, holding their rank either in a substantive or acting capacity. It is
that element of their pay identified with their Rank which, in turn, has a
relationship with their scale of pay. It is granted separately in recognition
of the specific needs of their conditions of service and command structure. It
will consequently be taken into account for determining their entitlements to
such of those financial benefits, concessions, etc including retirement
benefits, as are directly related to their basic pay or their pay scales.”
Therefore, as approved by the Cabinet on
30.11.1999, the rank pay cannot be merged with the basic pay for any purpose
other than those clearly indicated in the definition of rank pay.
2.6. There are a large number of MoD orders which clearly bring out
that the hierarchical and pay structures of civilian and service personnel are
vastly different. It is neither practical nor necessary to lay down any formal
equation between all ranks with the respective structures based on pay scales.
However, for day-to-day administrative purposes, there could be a working
equation between officers on both sides relating to their functional
responsibilities. There are orders which clearly state that “the rank pay will not be taken into
account for determination of status.” To that extent, the argument
given by the Armed Forces that their status has been lowered and will adversely
affect the command and control
functions is not correct. The existing system can be streamlined and
executive orders can be issued to redress anomalies.
2.7. Another point raised by the Armed Forces is that the new scales of grade pay for the
rank of Captain, Major and Lt Col have been considerably depressed from their
existing counterparts, bringing about functional disparity. Restoration of Grade Pay to the
recommended levels would be necessary to remove this disparity.
2.8. This stand of the Armed
Forces is not correct. To illustrate the point we may take an example of
the functions of the District magistrate. The administrative head of the
District or a Division (consisting of 5-6 districts) is the District
Collector/District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner, respectively.
Both enjoy a certain degree of statutory authority such as magisterial powers,
arising out of Cr PC. As the functional head of these units, they have at their
command and supervision the assistance of all other parallel functionaries such
as Line Departments including Police, Paramilitary and Armed Forces that are
stationed within these units. The District Collector and the Divisional
Commissioner respectively head all mechanisms that require coordination with
parallel agencies. For example, the District Magistrate heads coordination
meetings, if required, with the Armed Forces which may be led by a Brigadier or
even by a Mjor General, if stationed within his district. In case a Lt Gen is
required, then the Commissioner would be requested to chair the meeting. This
is irrespective of the years of service or the pay scales at the disposal of
the officers concerned, who are required to be available at such coordination
meetings. Therefore, for functional
purposes, salary cannot be the basis to determine status.
2.9. As the matter stands today, the rank pay cannot be merged with pay scales. This well
established principle has to be recognised before taking any decision. We also
have to recognise that the civilian side has six levels starting from Under
Secretary up to Secretary as against Armed Forces’ nine levels starting from
Lieutenant to General. Therefore
bunching has to happen at some level. It is happening at DS/Director level
where Lt Colonel, Colonel and Brigadier have to be adjusted.
(Comment by Aerial View: There would be 7 levels of civilians
– (1) US, (2) DS, (3) Dir (4) JS, (5) Addl Secy, (6) Secy and (7) Cabinet
Secretary; What about the DG and the Spl Secy? Doesn’t that make it 9?)
2.10. A careful examination of the data shows that Lt Colonel is placed
at a level slightly higher than Deputy Secretary even after stripping rank pay.
However, the contention that Lt Colonels were placed in S-25 band in the 5th
CPC is factually erroneous because Armed Forces are building their case on
basic pay + rank pay as the basis for salary band inclusion. As the issue
relating to the merger of Rank Pay with Basic Pay has been settled by the
Cabinet decision of 13.11.1999 followed by departmental orders, it is clear
that the basic pay of Lt Colonels prior to 6th CPC stood at Rs
13500-17100. Therefore, even as this may be higher than the Deputy Secretary
scale of Rs 12000-16500 which corresponds to S-21, there is no identified scale
for Lt Colonels in the 5th CPC. Post 6th CPC, this status
has actually not changed because the Deputy Secretary [erstwhile placed in
S-21] remains in PB-3 and only those who were earlier in S-24 onwards have
moved to PB-4. Therefore, the basic ground on which this issue is being
agitated is erroneously placed, so far as the question of status disparity is
concerned. The issue of the status
has to be decided separately keeping in mind different executive orders issued
from time to time.
2.11. However, in
view of the issues which have been raised by the Armed Forces and the facts
available in the records, there is a
case for recommending the movement of Lt Cols from PB-3 to PB-4 on the
following grounds:
(i) AVS Committee has dealt at length with the issue of the
rising age profile which is blunting the combat ability of the Armed Forces. As
per AVSC recommendations, time based
promotion to the rank of Lt Col is being given after 13 years of service as against 9 years of service needed to become Deputy Secretaries/Additional Commandant and 13 years to become Directors in the civil service. AVS
Committee’s recommendations have been accepted by the Cabinet in September
2008.Granting PB-4 to Lt Cols follows
the spirit of the recommendations which otherwise was being negated by placing
Lt Col in PB-3.
(ii) More than 90% of the officers in the Armed Forces retire in
the rank of Lt Col. Unless we give a suitable scale (PB-4) to the Lt Cols, it
will become extremely difficult to retain officers at this level which is the
cutting edge of the Armed Forces.
(iii) Another reason why Lt Cols should be
included in the PB-4 is their shorter
service span i.e. 54 years as against 60 years for the civil services.
(iv) In IAS and IPS, officers become eligible for Joint Secretary’s
scale after putting in 16-17 years of service. While no officer in the civil
service retires below the rank of Joint Secretary (equivalent to Major
General), very few officers (2 to 3 per cent) reach the Major General’s rank in
the Armed Forces. Therefore, all that the majority of the officers in the Armed
Forces can look forward to is getting some advantage vis-à-vis civil servants
in the rank of Lt Col and Col.
Therefore, a deliberated decision has to
be taken to accord PB-4 to Lt Cols who are in their parent service in combat or
ready to combat jobs. Those who are on deputation should be entitled to PB-4
plus appropriate grade pay only when they return to parent service. That is to
say that as long as they are on deputation, they would not be entitled to PB-4
or the appropriate/enhanced grade pay. This decision will be without any
prejudice to the previously settled principles of not merging basic salary with
rank pay for calculations for placement in the Pay Band and delinking the issue
of the relationship between salary and status.
3.1. On the issue of grade
pays, it is recommended that while moving Lt Cols from PB-3 to PB-4,
the grade pay for Lt Cols may be revised to Rs 8000 to denote their position
above Deputy Secretaries. The grade pay for the rank of Col and Brigadier will
remain Rs 8700 (and Rs 8900). This measure will ensure that Lt Cols maintain
their position above Deputy Secretaries and below Directors.
The
demand of Deputy Secretaries and Additional Commandants in CPMF for placement
in PB-4 is unjustified because these two categories get promoted to these
levels after 8-9 years of service as against 13 years required for Lt Cols.
Regarding the deputation of Lt Cols against the post of Deputy Secretary/Joint
Directors, it can be clarified that executive orders that a Lt Col with grade
pay of Rs 8000/- will be eligible for being posted against these posts.
3.2. To resolve the issues regarding the command and control
functions/status of the Armed Forces vis-à-vis Paramilitary Forces and
Civilians, a High Powered Committee
under the Chairmanship of Defence Secretary with representation from MHA and
DOP may be set up.
4. Grant of HAG+ Grade to Lt Generals:
The
Lt Generals constitute 0.17 per cent of the officers of the Armed Forces. The
CoS has already agreed to grant Army Commander scale (apex scale) on a
non-functional basis to certain number of Lt Gen level officers. This should
satisfy the Armed Forces. Lt Gen in the Armed Forces are equated to Additional
Secretaries on the civilian side and prior to 6th CPC, both were in
the scale of Rs 22,400-24,500. There is no comparison of Lt Gen with the
officers on the civilian side as those in the HAG+ scale had a higher pay scale
of Rs 24,500-26000 prior to 6th CPC. This relativity was not
disturbed by the 6th CPC and the CoS also did not recommend any
change in the matter. There is also no reason to add an MSP of Rs 6000 on
notional basis of pay fixation in this case as it is for others.
5. Even after the discussions, Finance Minister expressed some
reservations regarding the horizontal relativities of Armed Forces vis-à-vis CPMFs
and Civilians. My assessment is that we have very logical reasons to support
the course of action suggested above.
6. To sum up,
the following recommendations are for approval/implementation:
(i) The pensionary benefits of all PBORs may be given without
disadvantage to any category and an Anomaly Committee may be set up immediately
to address any such cases.
(ii) Lt Cols, who are in their parent service in combat or ready
to combat jobs may be placed in PB-4. Those Lt Col level officers who are on
deputation would be entitled to PN-4 only when they return to parent service.
(iii) The Grade Pay for Lt Cols who are in
their parent service in combat of ready for combat jobs may be fixed at Rs
8000/- as against the Grade Pay of Rs 8700/- for Colonels/Directors. Those Lt
Col level officers who are on deputation would be entitled to the above grade
pay only when they return to parent service.
(iv) A High Powered Committee may be set up to resolve the issues
relating to command and control functions/status of Armed Forces vis-à-vis Paramilitary
Forces and Civilians.
(v) The Pay revision of the Armed Forces should be delinked from
civilian pay revisions. Separate Board or Commission should be set up to
recommend the pay scales of the Armed Forces in future.
7. If so desired, Prime Minister may convene a final meeting
with Finance Minister, Raksha Mantri and myself, before announcing these
decisions.
Sd/------------------
(Pranab Mukherjee)
External Affairs Minister
Prime Minister
* * * * * *
