By Speed Post
EK096841693IN
Ref: SYS/Personal/2019 15th
July, 2019
To,
Shri Rajnath
Singh, MP
Honourable Raksha
Mantri
Ministry of
Defence, Government of India
South Block, New
Delhi – 110 011
Subject: Major Generals
and above Granted Less Pay & Pension than Junior officers
Honourable Raksha
Mantri,
Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha (retd), then
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee (CoSC) and Chief of Air Staff (CAS) has in
his letter No. C/7206/VII CPC/TRIPAS dated 8th September 2016 to
what he termed as Legacy Core Concern drawn
the attention of then Raksha Mantri, Shri Manohar Parrikar. The Legacy was that
Major Generals (Maj Gen) and above and equivalent senior officers of the Defence
Services are drawing lesser emoluments and pension than their juniors since
1986.
2. Defence Services
Officers upto the rank of Brigadier were granted Special Disturbance Allowance (SDA) as a compensation for “turbulence
in Service life” from 1950 till 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in
1986. As the Basic Pay scale recommended by 3rd CPC for Colonels &
equiv (Col) was Rs 1950-2175 and for Brigadiers & equiv (Brig) was Rs
2200-2400, the addition SDA of Rs 100 pm did not exceed the pay scale of Maj
Gen which was Rs 2500-2750 or Lt Gen with Rs 3000 (fixed) [Para 19, Chapter 50, Volume III of Report of 3rd CPC].
3. In 1986, 4th
CPC recommended an integrated pay scale of Rs 2300-100-4200EB-100-5000 for Officers
upto Brig to cover a span of 28 years of service, and also an additional element called Rank Pay of Rs 200 for Captain,
Rs 400 for Major, Rs 800 for Lt Colonel, Rs 1000 for Col and Rs 1200 for Brig [4th CPC Report, Part I, Volume
IV, Chapter 28: Armed Forces Personnel Para 28.13 and 28.15].
4. GoI modified the
integrated scale to Rs 2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB-150-5100 with a minimum Basic
Pay of Rs 4500/- for Col and Rs 4950/- for Brig [Para 3 and 6 (a) (ii) respectively of Special Army Instruction No.
1/S/1987]. This reduced the span to 25 years. The pay scale of the Maj Gen
was fixed as Rs 5900-6700 without any Rank Pay [However, scale for Maj Gen does
not find mention in MoD Resolution No. 9E dated 18th
March 1987].
5. Consequently, with the
addition of Rank Pay of Rs 1200 to the pay of Brig of Rs 4950 to 5100 the Brig would
earn Rs 6150 to Rs 6300 which is higher than the pay of Maj Gen of Rs 5900-6700.
This was temporarily obscured due to a decision by Def (Fin) adopting a convoluted
procedure of deducting Rank Pay from the revised pay in 4th CPC
dispensation and adding back the amount deducted. This deduction/procedure was without
consulting Dept of Training & Personnel (DoPT) or Deptt of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance (DoE, MoF). [File
notings 61 onwards in F No. B/25511.AKDP/AG/PS-3(a)].
6. Major A K Dhanapalan challenged
the deduction in his Original Petition (No.
2998/1996) in the honourable High Court of Kerala in 1996. The Single Judge
Bench ruled in 1998 that the deduction of Rank Pay from the revised pay was
incorrect and ordered MoD to refix the pay by restoring the deduction and pay
an additional amount of Rank Pay as per his rank. MoD challenged this before a
Division Bench (Writ Appeal No. 518 of
1998) which upheld the order of the Single Judge Bench in 2003. Finally, even
though then Attorney General for India advised Army HQ that it was not a fit
case for filing an appeal, MoD, at the behest of DoE, MoF, filed a Special
Leave Petition (SLP) No. CC 5908 of 2005
in the honourable Supreme Court, which dismissed the SLP in July 2005 [Judgments of the honourable High Courts of
Kerala in 1998, 2003 and the Supreme Court in 2005 in Maj A K Dhanapalan Vs UoI].
7. MoD refused payment to
other similarly entitled officers stating that the above orders of the High
Court and Supreme Court were applicable only to Maj Dhanapalan. Several
officers filed Writ Petitions in various High Courts and the cases were
transferred at the request of MoD to the honourable Supreme Court [Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2007].
In judgements dated 9th March 2010 in TP (Civil) No. 56 of 2007 and judgment in Interlocutory Application No.
9 of 2010 in TP (Civil) No. 56 of 2007 dated 4th September 2012,
the honourable Court upheld the order of the High Court of Kerala and its earlier
order and dismissed the application by MoD. Court also ordered payment of
arrears with interest after re-fixation of the pay and adding the element of
Rank Pay. Even after then Solicitor General of India categorically stated on 17th
October 2012 in reply to its queries and so did then Attorney General for India
on 3rd September 2013, that MoD must comply with the order of the
Court, implementation was delayed till 24th July 2014 [Judgments of the honourable Supreme Court
in March 2010 and September 2012 in UoI Vs Lt Col N K Nair and Others, opinion
of learned Solicitor General of India (now hon’ble Justice R F Nariman) dated
17th October 2010 and opinion of then Attorney General for India
dated 3rd September 2013 to implement the judgments on specific
reference by MoD].
8. While the case was
still being decided in Courts, and as admitted by CPIO, D (Pay/Services) MoD in
reply to RTI application, the 5th CPC was not informed of the
impugned Rank Pay case in 1996. Rank Pay was increased (doubled) by 5th
CPC thereby increasing the anomaly.
9. in 2006-2008 when the
matter of Rank Pay was still under consideration of Courts, 6th CPC placed
officers of the ranks of Lt Col, Col, Brig, Maj Gen and Lt Gen (HAG) &
equivalents in Pay in Pay Band 4 (Rs 37400-67000) [PIPB], with Grade Pays (GP) of Rs 8000, 8700, 8900, 10000, and 12000 respectively.
6th CPC also granted Military Service Pay (MSP) only to all
personnel up to the rank of Brig.
10. When vetting MoD’s
draft Instructions for implementing Govt approved recommendations of 6th
CPC, then Director, Implementation Cell (IC), Deptt of Expenditure (DoE), MoF
queried MoD in 2008 [M/o Finance,
D/o Expenditure U.O. No. 2674/JS (Per) dated 11.10.2008] whether this (PIPB+GP+MSP) would result in
Cols and Brigs & equivalents earning more than Maj Gen and Lt Gen. MoD
referred the query to MoD (Fin) and O/o CGDA.
11. O/o CGDA stated that it
would not. [Note 22 and 23 on O/o CGDA
File No. AT/I/1596-II, UO Note AT/I/1496-II dated 20th October 2008
and Tabulations at Page Nos. 231 to 235 in a reply to RTI application
CGDFA/R/2017/50707]. Opinion of MoD (Fin) was not provided/available.
12. The apprehension of
Director, IC, DoE, MoF referred to above has proved to be correct. PCDA (O) stated
that there were 124 Cols and 113 Brigs, PCDA (N) replied that there are 36
Captains and 25 Commodores, and by Air HQ furnished information that there are 13
Group Captains and 24 Air Commodores drawing higher emoluments of PIPB Rs 67000+
GP Rs 8700+MSP Rs 6000 = Rs 81700 and PIPB Rs 67000 + GP Rs 8900 +MSP Rs 6000 =
Rs 81900 [PCDA (O) No.
LW/SS/AT/RTI/45/Vol V) dated 10.09.2017; PCDA(N) No. AN/I/LC/RTI/Corr/Vol-XXIV
dated 25.09.2017 and Air HQ/23401/204/4/12206/E/PS dated 20.9. 2017],
13. Therefore, it was
established that Cols & Brigs (and equivalents) earned more than Maj Gen
(Rs 67000+GP Rs 10000= Rs 77000), Lt Gen (HAG) [Rs 67000+ GP Rs 12000 = Rs
79000), Lt Gen (HAG+) [Rs 79500-80000) and Army Commanders & equivalents
[Rs 80000 (Fixed)].
14. The then Chairman of
Chiefs of Staff Committee (CoSC) and CAS, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha expressed
his opinion that the GoI/MoD Resolution No. 2E of 2016 dated 5th
September 2016 for implementing the GoI approved recommendations of the 7th
CPC would worsen the situation/concern. He took up the matter with hon’ble RM on
8th September 2016 [C/7026/VII
CPC/TRIPAS & also MoD F No.
1(2)/2016-D(Pay/Services)/Misc].
15. The anomaly was again highlighted when MoD
(D-Pay/Services) was processing the Officers Pay Rules 2017 for Army and Air
Force and Officers Pay Regulations 2017 for Navy in the 7th CPC by then
Additional Secretary (R) who drew attention, in 2016, to the fact that addition
of 2 stages in the Defence Pay matrix for Level 13A (Brig) would result in Brigs
being paid Rs 217600 and MSP of Rs 15500 making their total emoluments higher
than Maj Gen (Level 14), Lt Gen (HAG) at Level 15, Lt Gen (HAG+) at Level 16 and
Vice Chief/Army Cdr (Level 17) [Note 2
onwards on MoD file No. 1(6)/2016-D (Pay/Services)].
16. Hon’ble RM (Shri Arun
Jaitley), after taking a meeting on 18th April 2017 with Finance
Secretary (Shri Ashok Lavasa) and Defence Secretary, appears to have agreed to granting
a Personal Pay for Maj Gen and above and approved the proposal on 27th
April 2017. For hon’ble RM to approve the grant of Personal Pay on 27th
April 2017, it appears that the Fin Secy agreed with Hon’ble RM (who was also
the Finance Minister) at the meeting on 18th April 2017 for nothing
to the contrary has been recorded as per information provided by MoD in reply
to RTI [Ministry of Defence File No.
1(8)/2016-D(Pay/Services), Pages 26 and
27].
17. However, Implementation
Cell of the Deptt of Expenditure, MoF had some comments on 28th
April 2017, which were concurred by the Finance Secretary on 1st May
2017. However, the file notings of DoE, MoF does not indicate if this had the
approval of the hon’ble Finance Minister (FM), who as hon’ble RM (from 14th
March 2017 to 6th September 2017) had approved the proposal for
Personal Pay for Maj Gen and above etc [DoE,
MoF F No. 30-1/11 (i)/2016/IV (Vol II) supplied in reply to RTI vide No.
7/6/2019-E.III (A) (RTI-315/19)]. It appears that the file was not placed
before the FM.
18. The comments of IC and
documented facts that refute the comments are as follows:
(A) Comments of IC on Page 26:
“It is also observed that the
proposed Pay Rule provides for grant of Personal Pay as part of the pay
structure which is against the basic principle of Personal Pay as defined in
the Fundamental Rules, which is reproduced as under: -
“Rule (23) Personal Pay
means additional pay granted to a Government servant-
(a) to
save him from a loss of substantive pay in respect of a permanent post other
than a tenure post due to a revision of pay or to any reduction of such
substantive pay otherwise than as a disciplinary measure or
(b)
in exceptional circumstances on other personal consideration.”
None of the provisions
mentioned in FR (23) apply to the extent that Personal Pay be granted
universally to all officers of the rank of Major General and above as proposed
in the Draft Rules.”
Fact 1: Major General (and equivalent) or above is a
Permanent rank/post till he is promoted or superannuates.
Fact 2: Major General (and equivalent), as part
of responsibilities to the Nation and Service maybe employed in
Field/Operational areas/Staff tenures at Headquarters till he is promoted or
superannuates.
Fact 3: Similarly, a Lt Gen (and equivalent) is
a permanent rank/post. Lieutenant General & equivalents, as part of
responsibilities to the Nation and Service maybe employed in Field/Operational
areas/Staff tenures at Headquarters till he is promoted as Army Commander (and
equivalent) or COAS (and equivalent) or superannuates.
Fact 4: As observed by a former Director,
Implementation Cell in October 2008 and also observed by an Additional
Secretary in MoD in September 2016, officers in Level 14 and above suffer a
substantial decrease in the amount of pay and pensions.
(B) Page 27 – Comments of Joint
Secretary (IC)
“It may also be mentioned
that since 3rd CPC, there has been a complete parity in pay
structure of Major General and above on the Defence side and SAG and above on
the Civil side which needs to be maintained in future also.”
Fact 1: The 3rd CPC observed, “We feel that it would be better to examine
the question of pay scales for Service officers on a personnel composition of
the Services….To take such a multi-functional group of several thousands for a
equation with a single civilian service would be an highly defective
approach….For this purpose, the pay structure of the Indian Administrative
Service with its long senior scale of pay will be particularly unsuitable” (emphasis supplied) [Para 9, Chapter
50, Vol III of 3rd CPC Report.]
Fact 2: In 3rd CPC there were two
levels of SAG (i) Level I with pay scale Rs 2250-2500 and (ii) Level II with
pay scale Rs 2500-2750 [Para 8.54 of 4th
CPC Report].
Fact 3: In 4th CPC its is stated, “8.65 The scales of Rs.2250-2500
and Rs.2500-2750 apply to posts of heads of departments in the senior
administrative grade (SAG) level-II and level-I respectively in the organised
medical, engineering and other central service. The scale of Rs.2500-2750 is
also applicable to posts of joint
secretary to the Government of India and equivalent posts, Commissioner of
States, IG Police,
and chief conservator of forests. It has been suggested that, having regard to the importance and
duties of the posts of accountant general, commissioner of income-tax, chief
engineer, chief operating superintendent, post master general, controller of
defence accounts, general manager (Telephone), medical superintendent and
equivalent posts, these should be in one scale of Rs.2500-2750 at the SAG
level. We have been informed that functionally the posts in the two levels are
interchangeable and involve similar duties and responsibilities. Considering
all relevant factors, we agree that the posts in the SAG level-II
(Rs.22S0-2500) and level-I (Rs.2500-2750) in the organised central services
should be merged and given the scale of Rs.5900-200-6700. The posts of joint secretary to Government of India, commissioner in
states, IG police, chief conservator of forests and other posts in the scale of
Rs. 2500-2750 may also be given the scale of Rs.5900-200-6700….” There is no mention of Maj Gen or parity with
SAG emphasis supplied. [Para 8.65 of
Chapter 8, Volume II of the 4th CPC Report]
Fact 4: Major Generals were in the pay scale of Rs 2500-2750 (Para 19 of Chapter 50 of 3rd CPC
Report) and were placed in the pay scale of Rs 5900-6700 and Lt Gen in pay
scale of Rs 7300 (fixed) by the 4th CPC. Once again parity with SAG
or above has not been mentioned by 4th CPC [Para 28.16, Chapter 28, Part I, Vol IV of Report of 4th CPC].
Fact 6: However, a Brig was placed in the integrated
pay scale at Rs 4950 and granted an additional amount of Rs 1200 as Rank Pay
making his total emoluments as Rs 6150
i.e. more than being granted to Maj Gen (Govt/MoD
Resolution No. 9E dated 18th March 1987).
Fact 7: - Para
6, Chapter 52 – Allowances and Benefits of Servicemen of 3rd CPC
states: “There is however one aspect
of this concession which needs to be liberalised. At present the benefit of
paying rent at concessional rates has not been extended to officers in the rank
of Major General and above, for the reason that their pays are linked to the
pay prescribed for the top civil posts, viz. Joint Secretary, Additional
Secretary and Secretary. Considering that the pays of Service officers below
the rank of Major General are also fixed on the basis of “comparability” with
the pays prescribed for the officers of Class I Central Services and Indian
Police Service, the ground for denying these concessions to General officers is
not adequate…..”
Therefore, it leads to the conclusion that the concession was
available to Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary but not to Maj
Gen and above. Therefore, there may not
have been complete parity of Maj Gen and above on the Defence side with SAG and
above on the Civil side.
Fact 8: It is an erroneous statement that no
special pay has been granted “universally” to Armed Forces officers. Para 19
of Chapter 50 of the 3rd CPC states, inter alia, “Army Commanders and the Vice Chief of Army
Staff receive a special pay of Rs 250
per month in addition to the pay of a Lt Gen. The Service Chiefs, who are
in General’s rank are being allowed a
salary of Rs 4000 per month as personal to them.” The same Para gives the salary of a Lt Gen as
Rs 3000 and of a General as Rs 3500 (emphasis supplied).
Fact
9. 5th CPC observed “Grant
of identical pay scales to civilians and service personnel may also not be feasible
in view of the distinct differences in rank structure and conditions of
service. The pay structure is, therefore, required to be evolved on the
basis of 'broad comparability with civilian pay scales so as to ensure that the
scheme of remuneration
for the two categories is not very dissimilar.” [Para 145.13 of 5th CPC Report, Part 7.]
Fact 10:
6th CPC recommended higher pay on personal basis to (Defence
Services) officers not promoted due to short tenure/promotion on non-functional
basis. [Para 2.3.17 of the Report of the 6th CPC and Para
4 (a) (ii) of GoI/MoD Special Army Instructions (and corresponding Instructions
for Navy and Air Force) No. 2/S/2008 dated 11th October 2008]
Fact 11:
All Civilian Officers and
up to the HAG are granted Non-Functional (Financial) Upgradation (NFU) other
than officers of the IAS, who are the benchmark.
NFU is a Personal Pay by another name i.e one increment and higher
Grade pay is on Universal basis. [Para 2 of Annex I to DoP&T OM No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt
(RR) dated 24th April 2009].
However, Defence Forces Officers have been denied NFU.
(C) Comments of IC continued on
Page 26 and Joint Secretary (IC) on page 27
“In view of the above, capping
the salary of Major General and above at Rs 2, 25, 000 is a major deviation
from the approved Pay Structure by the Cabinet on 29.06.2016. Therefore, it
need fresh Cabinet approval.”
Fact 1: The
Department that is tasked with Pay Commission matters is Department of
Expenditure, MoF, in particular the Implementation Cell. Therefore, MoD
approached IC, DoE, MoF with the above proposal with the approval of then RM
[who was also Finance Minister on 27th April 2017] for necessary processing.
Fact 2: It is a settled law (please see Annexure) that juniors may not be
granted more pay than seniors. This settled law has been violated (by) the denial of
MSP to Maj Gen and above. It would lead to the legacy anomaly of higher ranked
officers drawing lesser pay and pension than their junior i.e. Brig &
equivalent.
18. Joint Secy, IC, DoE,
MoF has stated that a fresh Cabinet decision is required. It appears that MoD
made some effort when Def Secy took up [DO
letter No. 1(2)/2016-D (Pay/Services)/137/Def Secy/2017 dated 14th
November 2017] with Secretary (Secy), Expenditure, Min of Fin for a meeting
on the core concerns. Secy (Expenditure) MoF requested that meeting be
scheduled after the presentation of the Budget 2018 [DO. No.20-11(1)/2016-IC (Vol. II) dated 29th November 2017].
19. Hon’ble RM is earnestly
requested to consider redressing this grievance of hundreds of Maj Gen and
above (and equivalents) who have suffered the ignominy of being granted lesser
pay and pension since 1986 by taking up the matter for the approval of Personal
Pay for Maj Gen & above (and equivalents).
With Highest Regards
Yours sincerely,
Encl: Annexure
Copy
to:
Air Chief Marshal B S Dhanoa PVSM AVSM YSM
VM ADC,
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee &
Chief of the Air Staff,
Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110011
By Speed Post article No. EK096841702IN
ANNEXURE
I. The
Constitution Bench of honourable Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Others vs
Union of India on 17 December, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 130, 1983
SCR (2) 165:
“….. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness
in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is attracted
where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The
principle underlying the guarantee is that all persons similarly circumstanced
shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation and there
should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the
subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same.
Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for
the purpose of legislation. The classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together
from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a
rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
In other words, there ought to be causal connection between the basis of
classification and the object of the statute. The doctrine of classification
was evolved by the Court for the purpose of sustaining a legislation or State
action designed to help weaker sections of the society. Legislative and
executive action may accordingly be sustained by the court if the State
satisfies the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational
principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. A discriminatory
action is liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the Government
that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle
which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable, or discriminatory.”
II. The
honourable Supreme Court in the UoI
& Others Vs Maj Gen SPS Vains & Others [Civil Appeal No. 5566 of 2008,
decided on September 9, 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12357 of
2006]:
“…..30. However, before we give such
directions we must also observe that the submissions advanced on behalf of the
Union of India cannot be accepted in view of the decision in D.S. Nakara's case
(supra). The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a
class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all
persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to
the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been
the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of
two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the
Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same
cadre would be receiving a higher pension.
III. 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 18th May 2015,
Quoting the ruling in the Vains case, the honourable Court has held, “….The principle of law, as decided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, is plain and simple; that a senior officer cannot get pension
less than his junior. If that be, the effect of pay fixation than the pension
would have to be stepped up to avoid such hostile discrimination….
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…..”
IV. Honourable Supreme Court in In Civil Appeal No. 65-67 of 2009 in Er.
Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Another Vs Punjab State Electricity Board &
Others:
“…..13. Something
may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra's submissions about the difference in
increment in the scales which the appellant No.1 and Shri Shori are placed, but
the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot
be paid lesser salary than his junior.”
V. Principal Bench Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Appeal No. 655 of 2010 in SLP
(Civil) No. 23055 of 2013 in Review Petition (Civil) No. 2492 of 2013, and
Curative Petition (Civil) No. 126 of 2014 in Union of India Vs SAG-29
Pensioners
“…..10……..That apart, in the case of S.P.S.
Vains (supra) the Court was dealing with entirely a different issue. The issue
involved in the said case was whether there could be a disparity in payment of
pension to officer of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction
of the revised pay scale, with those who retired thereafter. It was further
noticed that an anomaly has arisen with the acceptance of the recommendations
of the VCPC, which has created a situation
whereby Brigadiers began drawing more pay than Major Generals and were,
therefore, receiving higher pension and family pension than Major Generals (emphasis
supplied).
xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. The learned counsel has further
argued that the resultant injustice done to the pre-1-1-2006 pensioners had
even been recognized by MOS (F) and MOS (PP) in their letters to the PM and MOS
(F) respectively, copies of which are at Annexures A-11 (page 169)and A-12
(page 170) of the OA. A formal proposal was also sent by DOP & PW to Department
of Expenditure seeking rectification but was not accepted by the latter. It was
also incorrectly mentioned that the earlier provision in para 4.2 of OM
dated1.9.2008 has been issued in pursuance of the approval of the Cabinet
granted to the Report of the Sixth CPC and any change would entail substantial
financial implications and this was done
only with the approval of the Secretary (Expenditure) without putting up the
note to MOS (F) who had himself supported the change (emphasis
supplied). A copy of this Note dated
2.1.2009 is enclosed as Annexure 5.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. On the basis of this chart it has been
pleaded that as per the impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24
officers the corresponding pay in the Pay Band against 14300/- is shown as
37400. In addition, Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- was given totalling Rs. 46,100/-.
Similarly, revisions concerning all the other pay scales were accepted by the
aforementioned OM dated 14th October, 2008. The illegality which has
been perpetrated in the present matter is apparent from the fact that whereas
an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and receiving a pay of
Rs.14,300/- would now receive Rs. 37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs. 8700 and his
full pension would accordingly be fixed at Rs.23050 (i.e. 50% of Rs 37400 pay
plus grade pay Rs. 8700) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC
recommendations after 1.1.2006, whereas a person belonging to the Applicant
Association, who was drawing a pay of Rs.18, 400/- or even Rs. 22, 400/-
(maximum of scale) in the pre-revised S-29 scale will now be getting pension of
only Rs 23700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of Rs.37, 400/- plus grade pay of Rs.10000).
However, the misinterpreted revised basic pay of Rs.37400 has caused a grave miscarriage of justice since
those officers who belong to a much higher grade have now been equated with
those who were working under them in a lower rank/grade (emphasis supplied).
xxxx xxxx xxxx
29…..d) That even the Minister of State
for Finance and Minister of State (PP) taking note of the resultant injustice
done to the pre-11.2006 pensioners (pages 169-170) had sent formal proposal to
the Department of Expenditure seeking rectification but the said proposal was turned down by the officer of the Department
of Expenditure on the ground of financial implications. Once the Central
Government has accepted the principle of modified parity, the benefit cannot be
denied on the ground of financial constraints and cannot be said to be a valid
reason (emphasis
supplied).
* * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment