The Pranab Mukherjee Report - answers to a lot of doubts

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 Commi􀆩ee 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 5^th 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                               12^th 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 5^th April 2018 received by Speed Post article ED ED929841046IN on 10^th 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 18^th 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                                                    19^th December 2008

            Sub: 6^th 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

2.         Shri P Chidambaram, Home Minister, New Delhi 

[1B

Ministry of External Affairs

EAMO

            Sub:     6^th 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 6^th 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 6^th 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 3^rd 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 6^th 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 5^th CPC’s S-24 and S-25 bands who were earlier placed in PB-3 by 6^th 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 4^th CPC and shown separately and so recognised by both the 5^th and 6^th 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 6^th 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 5^th CPC is warranted. The 5^th 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 5^th 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 5^th 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 6^th 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 5^th CPC. Post 6^th 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 6^th 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 6^th CPC. This relativity was not disturbed by the 6^th 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

*          *          *          *          *          *