Five Ranks One
Pension Amount
A certain decision of the Ministry of Defence’s Department
of Ex-Servicemen Welfare granting Brigs and above with 33 years of service the
same amount is intriguing while it tries to reduce, after 18 years, the
humiliation of Maj Gen and above being paid lesser pension than Brigadiers till
01 Jul 2024.
6th CPC recommended that Brigs and below be paid Military Service
Pay (MSP) from 01 Jan 2006. Maj Gen and above were not recommended to be
entitled to MSP. The “anomaly” about likelihood of junior officers drawing more
emoluments than their seniors if MSP was added to Pay in the Pay Band (as
Basic Pay was renamed) and Grade Pay was first raised by the Implementation
Cell of Dept of Finance, MoF in 2008 while vetting SAI 2/S/2008 subsequent to
Govt’s approval of recommendations of the 6th CPC. O/o CGDA opined
that it would not happen because the “Lt
Col/Col/Brig would by then either join the ranks of Maj Gen & above or
superannuate”. This information was not available to Services HQ because
the RTI was in its infancy.
However, thanks to RTI it is known that the then Chairman, CoSC and CNS
(Admiral ‘Faggy’ Mehta) took up the matter strongly with the Govt in 2008. It
resulted in the PMO convening a Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by then
Minister of External Affairs (later President of India) which submitted its
report in Dec 2008. The GoM considered 4 major anomalies.
The GoM was followed by a Cabinet Secretary led Committee
(CSC) in 2009 (which considered issues such as OROP and Revision of Lt General
pension after carving out a separate pay scale for them) and yet another CSC in
2012 (issues included OROP and placing of all Lt Generals in HAG+ scale).
Sadly, none of CSCs had an Armed Forces representative. The result was that all
issues except moving the Lt Col from PB-3 to PB-4 were passed onto the 7th CPC.
The GoM recommended “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.” PMO approved vide PMO
ID No. 1176973/PMO/2008 dated 27.12.2008.
As stated earlier, MoF pointed out in 2008 (6th CPC) that adding MSP (then Rs
6000/-) to the Basic Pay of Lt Cols to Brig was granting them higher total
emoluments than that drawn by Maj Gen, Lt Gen, Lt Gen+ and Army Cdr/VCOAS (and
equivalents). It was disagreed by the CGDA on the assumption that Lt Cols to
Brigs would never attain the maximum of Pay + Grade Pay + MSP. Services HQ were
in the dark because the file noting and calculations was not available to them.
Services lost the opportunity to have a separate Pay Committee or Commission
even though PMO decreed so in 2008 because then Chairman, CoSC & CAS (and
the other two Chiefs) opted in 2013 not to exercise that option and placed his
trust and our future in the hands of the 7th CPC. Then RM just forwarded the
file to PMO without any comments.
In 2014, Services HQ were again given an opportunity to present their case with
a Joint Services Memorandum (JSM) to the 7th CPC. As the JSM has never been placed in the public
domain, the question arises - Did the JSM contain any mention of the anomaly?
Did the authors of the JSM and those who approved it read and recommend the
proposal of protection of pay of 2 Star and above that the Senior
Salaries Review Body of UK has been following for years viz. the minimum pay of
OFC7 (Maj Gen) should be higher by 10% as compared to maximum pay + X Factor of
OFC6 (Brigs) and maintain that 10% for pays of 2 Stars vs 3 Stars, 3 Stars vs 4
Stars.[Please refer to Chapter 4 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a7a3c849b9c0597fdb066e/SSRB_Annual_Report_2024_Accessible.pdf
which is the same as in earlier SSRB reports].
It maybe a coincidence that the pay of a 4 Star Officer in
India (Rs 2, 50, 000) is more than 10% higher than the maximum pay of a 3 Star
(Rs 2, 25, 000)!
The 7th CPC commissioned the IDSA to do a comparative study of pay patterns of certain
countries. How did it escape the attention of IDSA or the Defence Pay/Pension
expert of 7th CPC that even that a Brig’s Basic Pay of Rs 217600 + MSP of
Rs 15500 would exceed the Basic Pay of a Maj Gen (Rs 218200 + Zero MSP) or Lt
Gen (Rs 224100/224400 + Zero MSP or that of an Army Cdr (Rs 225000 + Zero MSP)?
The answer, perhaps, lies in 7th CPC’s Report at Para 6.2.114 Applicability of
MSP: A demand has also been made that MSP
be granted to all officers. Currently MSP is paid up to the level of
Brigadiers. The IV, V and VI CPCs, on examination of the issue, granted Rank
Pay/Military Service Pay up to the level of Brigadier. Superannuation of
personnel at a relatively younger age is one of the important considerations
being laid down by this Commission for the grant of MSP. Major General and
equivalent officers and those above them retire at 58 or beyond, thus serve for
periods comparable, with their civilian counterparts. Having regard to all
these factors the Commission is of the view that the existing application of
MSP up to the level of Brigadier is appropriate and does not call for a review.
7th CPC's Para 5.2.8 Rationalisation:
An ‘index of rationalisation’ has been
applied while making enhancement of levels from Pay Band 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 3
onwards on the remise that role,
responsibility and accountability increases at each step in the hierarchy. At
the existing PB-1, this index is 2.57, increasing to 2.62 for personnel in PB-2
and further to 2.67 from PB-3. Recognising the significantly higher degree of
responsibility and accountability at levels corresponding to Senior
Administrative Grade, the entry pay is recommended for enhancement by a
multiple of 2.72. The same multiple is also being applied at the HAG and HAG+
levels. At the apex level the index applied is 2.81 and for the Service
Chiefs/Cabinet Secretary the index has been fixed at 2.78".
Therefore, anomaly of Brigs drawing more than Maj Gen and
above was continued by the 7th CPC and not addressed by the MoD even after
Chairman CoSC & CAS took up the matter with then RM (RIP) in Sep 2016.
After 2 years of persistent effort to obtain the information that GoI/MoD and
MoF were aware of the anomaly, that Shri Arun Jaitley, then RM (RIP) approved
Personal Pay for Maj Gen and Lt Gen (subject to the maximum of Rs 2, 25, 000)
in May 2017, it was nixed by Ashok Lavasa, then Finance Secretary (now enjoying
a sinecure with the Asian Development Bank).
This needs to be challenged in a High Court with cogent
reasons like what is the workload, responsibility and accountability of Maj Gen
and above.
However, about 70-80 retired Maj Gen and Lt Gen and
equivalents pursued identical writ petitions in the honourable High Court of
Punjab & Haryana, seeking pensions at least equivalents to the maximum
pension drawn by officers of the ranks of Brigadiers. Bureaucracy, with ‘expert
opinion’ of CGDA denied that Maj Gen and above were drawing lesser pension than
Brig because the senior officers were drawing higher basic Pay. This ignored
the fact that pension is 50% of Reckonable Emoluments which is the sum total of
Basic Pay and Military Service Pay (and Grade Pay in the 6th CPC
regime.
On 21 Dec 2021, the MoD acknowledged in a Short Reply
affidavit that it was indeed a fact that Brigs, even Lt Cols and Cols were
drawing higher RE than Maj Gens and above in the 6th CPC regime and
that this has continued to a lesser extent in the 7th CPC – only
Cols and Brigs drew higher RE than Maj Gen and above. Based on this affidavit
the honourable High Court passed an order on 03 Jul 24 that the anomaly be
corrected.
While the litigants, and thousands of similarly situated Maj
Gen and above and equivalents were preparing for continuing the litigation in
the honourable High Court or in the honourable Supreme Court if necessary, the
MoD’s Department of Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare issued a letter dated 04 Sep 24 revising
the One Rank One Pension (OROP) due on 01 Jul 24 with pensions tables that
granted the same amount as pension for all Brigs and above with 33 years or
more of service, viz. Rs 1, 16, 550 (being 50% of the maximum RE of Rs 2,
33,100 being drawn by Brigs).
It is also on record that the first CDS (RIP) proposed a
ceiling of Rs 2, 25, 000 on 21 Sep 2020 (on MoD/DMA file No. 1(6)/2013-D
(Pay/Services). This was seized upon on 22 Feb 2023 by one retired Director who
was appointed as Consultant in E.III.A of DoE, MoF. The Consultant segregated
Brigs and Maj Gen (and there was no mention of Lt Gen or above) into different
classes by pay (Rs 2, 33, 100, 2, 26, 800, 2, 25, 000 and 2, 18, 200) (MoF, DoE
ID No. 03-05/2016-E.III.A dated 19.5.2023) which then Finance & Expenditure
Secretary, now Cabinet Secretary, approved on 15 May 23 (the date the
honourable High Court of Punjab & Haryana was hearing one of the above
mentioned petitions).
This was followed up by MoD/DMA with approval of Maj Gen/JS (since
retired) issuing Pay Protection letter o1(6)/2013/D (Pay/Services) dated 12 Jun
23 based on the above segregation.
However, with issue of letter No. 1(2)/2023/D(Pen/Pol) dated 04 Sep 24, the
pensions of Maj Gen and above are higher (Rs 1, 16, 550) than the
original pensions of Maj Gen (Rs 1,09, 100) or pension of even Army Cdr and VCOAS
(Rs 1, 12, 500) and equivalents or the ceiling imposed by MoF, DOE’s E.III.A
division on 19 May 23 and echoed by MoD/DMA’s Pay Protection letter of 12 Jun
23.
Finally, those dissatisfied with the letter of 04 Sep 24, must read and understand
that the Protection of Pension concept or the Stepping up of pay of seniors or
Personal Pay is based on the Fundamental principle that Pension of a junior
cannot be more than the pension of senior and NOT that pension of a senior has
to be stepped up to be higher than pension of a junior.
While the battle was half won – pension of Maj Gen and above
increased from Rs 1, 09, 100, Rs 1, 12, 050, Rs 1,12,220 and Rs 1, 12, 500 to
Rs 1, 16, 550 – it left knowledgeable veterans gasping as how a small miracle
of the bureaucracy ocurred, especially the CGDA and MoD Fin/Pen conceding this.
Was it the ibid order of the honourable High Court? Or was it an extraordinary
intervention of the Executive at the highest level? For even the assurance of
revision of OROP every 5 years as per the Govt’s policy letter dated 07 Nov 15
had been hotly contested by Union of India till the honourable Supreme Court
passed an order on 17 Mar 23.
The mystery behind the magnanimity of the MoD/DESW letter of
04 Sep 24 extending the benefit of pension of Rs 1, 16, 550 to all Maj Gens and
above contradicts the ceilings of pay of Maj Gen imposed by the MoD/DMA ‘s
letter of 12 Jun 23.
The mystery is not answered in the nearly 800 pages of file
noting and correspondence provided by MoD/DESW and MoD Fin/Pen as indicated
below:
1. The information provided by MoD/DESW letter F No.
12(6)/2014/D(P) dated 13.11.2024 is incomplete in that though it includes
MoD/DESW Proposal in Para 3 of Draft Cabinet Notes (DCN) approved by the
honourable RM and subsequent Cabinet approval of Para 9 of the DCN vide Case
No. 02/16/2024 dated 03.7.2024 for revision of OROP from 01.7.2024, the
information provided does not mention for the information of the Cabinet, the
basis by which MoD/DESW recommended that retirees of ranks of Brigs and above
with 33 years or more of service to be granted the an identical amount of
pension viz. Rs 1, 16, 550.
Similarly, file noting and correspondence provided by Def
Finance/Pension vide F No. 29(02)/2016/Fin/Pen dated 17.10.2024 which approved
the DGL also does not contain mention of the same in file notings or
correspondence the basis for concurrence of the DGL and/or tables with same
maximum pension amount of Rs 1, 16, 550 for Levels 13A to 17.
And. the MoD/DESW’s submission to the Cabinet for approval
of OROP 2023 states that OROP revision w.e.f 01.7.2024 is on the same
principles adopted in MoD letter of 07.11.2015 viz. pension of past pensioners
will be re-fixed on the basis of average of minimum and maximum pension of
Defence Forces retirees of calendar year 2023 for same rank and same length of
service. However, Para 3 of Proposal for approval of Cabinet in DCN for pension
revision w.e.f 01.7.2024 does not mention identical amount of Rs 1, 16, 550 as
pension for levels 13A to 17 with more than 33 years of service.
Yet the live data used by O/o PCDA (P) to calculate the
OROP-2023 states that the maximum pension in the calendar year 2023 is Rs 1, 16,
550 for Brig/Level 13A, Rs 1, 13, 400 for Maj Gen/Level 14, Rs 1, 12, 050 for
Lt Gen/Level 15, Rs 1, 12, 200 for Lt Gen/Level 16 and Rs 1, 12, 500 for Lt
Gen/Level 17 (Apex).
Therefore, the mystery would be resolved only by revealing
file noting and correspondence that enabled grant of the same amount as maximum
pension for retirees of the ranks of Brig and above with 33 years of service
(ibid Table 1 dated 04.9.2024 refers)including photocopy of the Govt order
amending the OROP principle of same amount as pension for the same rank and
years of service as in MoD/DESW letter dated 07.11.2015 to enable grant of identical
amount maximum pension of Rs 116550 to Levels 13A to Level 17 as reflected in
Table 1 of ibid DESW letter dated 04.9.2024 needs to be placed in the public
domain.
Finally there is the Fundamental Rules (FR) – the ultimate
weapon in the armoury of bureaucracy.
FR 9 (23), which was quoted most often to deny higher pay
and pension states, inter alia that “Personal
Pay is additional pay granted to Govt servant to same him/her from loss of
substantive pay, and (b) in exceptional circumstances, on other personal
consideration.”
Personal Pay to all Maj Gen and above to bring their pay
or pension at par with the pay or pension of Brigs is denied quoting FR 9(23)
(in MoF, DoE ID No. 30-1/11(i)/2016-IC/Pt dated 28 Apr 2017 (provided by reply
No. F No. 7/6/2019-E.III (A) (RTI-315/19 dated 25 Apr 2019 to RTI request No.
DOEXP/R/2019/50322 dated 19 Mar 2019.
However, none of the files, IDs or OMs, either from
MoD/DMA, MoD/DESW, or MoF/DoE mention that FR 3 states, “These rules do not apply to Govt servants whose conditions of service
are governed by Army or Marine Regulations.”
Or no recourse by MoD against the FR 5A weapon of the
Deptt of Expenditure, MoF by taking action “Where
any Ministry or Department of Government is of opinion that the operation of
any of these rules may cause undue hardship to any person, that Ministry or
Department, as the case may be, may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such
conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and
equitable manner:
Provided that no
such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance”
by resorting to FR 3!
Quod Erat
Demonstrandum
