On
Being better prepared for the
Eighth
Central Pay Commission
Govt has announced the formation of the 8th CPC. Should we learn lessons from the recommendations and the subsequent events of the 6th and 7th CPCs?
6th
CPC and Armed Forces
2.
In 2008, after the report of the 6th
CPC was made public, the Govt allowed the Armed Forces to express their
reservations with the recommendations of the 6th CPC. Dr Manmohan
Singh, the then Prime Minister (may his soul rest in peace), appointed a Group
of Ministers (GoM) with then Minister of External Affairs, Shri Pranab
Mukherjee (RIP) as its’ Chairman with Shri P Chidambaram, Finance Minister and Shri
A K Antony, Defence Ministers as members. The GoM, wrote in a DO to the PM (Ref
No. 13787/EAM/2008 dated 19th December 2008) enclosing the Report
that
“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 questions relating to inter se parity,
seniority etc have to be dealt with by the respective cadre controlling
authorities“(emphasis supplied).
3. The GoM
recommended that “The pay revision of the armed forces should
be delinked from the civilian pay revisions. Separate Board or Commission
should be set up to recommend the pay scales of the Armed Forces in future. You may like to approve these recommendations for
implementation.” This was approved by the PM vide PMO ID No.
1176973/PMO/2008 dated 27.12.2008 (emphasis supplied).
4. It
appears that when the GoM of December 2008 could not resolve the
dissatisfaction in the Armed Forces, the then PM constituted two Cabinet
Secretary headed Committees (CSC) one in June 2009 and the second in July 2012
to examine the recommendations of the GoM in greater detail and resolve other issues.
Sadly, neither of the CSCs had representation from the affected party, the
Armed Forces. The CSCs quoted the GoM Report innumerable times, and using the
GoM report as “precedent” to deny, dilute or delay resolution. Subsequently,
the Ministries of Defence, Finance and the Controller General of Defence
Accounts (CGDA) quoted the GoM or CSCs or all three as frequently to deny,
dilute or delay resolution.
Extracts
Recommendations
of the GoM of December 2008
xxxx xxxx xxxx
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-Ã -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
Recommendations of the CSC 2009
xxxx xxxx xxxx
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
8. To sum up, the following
recommendations are made by the Committee: -
Personnel below Officer Ranks
(i) The proposal of Ministry of defence to
bring pre 10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners on par with post 10.10.1997 PBOR
pensioners may be agreed to. Since this is a new concession aimed at improving
the pension of PBORs, the benefit will be given prospectively and no arrears
are to be given. The financial implications for the proposal would be Rs 470.66
crore per annum.
(ii) The proposal of the Ministry of Defence
to reckon the enhanced rate of classification allowance w.e.f.1.1.2006 on
notional basis for the purpose of calculation of pension (as in the case of
reckoning MSP for determination of pension) may be agreed to. This
recommendation would benefit around 88, 000 PBORs who retired between 1.1.2006
and 31.8.2008. The average increase in pension of these PBORs is estimated to
be Rs 60 p.m. in Basic Pension. The financial implications for this proposal
will be Rs 7.73 crore per annum. This proposal emanates from Sixth CPC’s
recommendations and may be implemented w.e.f 1.1.2006. Accordingly, arrears
will be paid.
(iii) In order to reduce the gap between the
pensions of pre and post 1.1.2006 PBOR pensioners, its is proposed to follow
the principle of the Award of GOM of 2006 in the following manner: -
(a) To reckon the pension of all pre
1.1.2006 PBOR pensioners with reference to a notional maximum in the post
1.1.2006 revised pay structure corresponding to the maximum of pre-Sixth Pay
Commission pay scales as per fitment table of each rank.
(b) Also to continue with enhanced weightage
awarded by the GOM.
This
dispensation, which will be applicable to service pension as in the case of GOM
award of 2006, will result in average monthly increase in pension of pre
1.1.2006 PBORs in the range of Rs 800 to Rs 1400 for Group Y depending on the
rank and years of service. This will benefit approximately 12 lakh pre-1.1.2006
PBOR pensioners. The financial implications on account of this proposal would
be Rs 1636 crore per annum. Since this is a new concession aimed at improving
the pension of PBORs, the benefit will be given prospectively and no arrears
are to be given.
Commissioned Officers
(iv) The proposal to remove the linkage of
full pension with 33 years of qualifying service w.e.f 1.1.2006 instead of
1.9.2008 in the case of Commissioned Officers may be agreed to. A similar
dispensation will have to be extended to civilians who have retired between
1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008. This recommendation would benefit around 1100 Officers
(Army) whose pension would increase by about Rs 3000 p.m. In the case of
civilians, this dispensation will benefit only those who have taken voluntary
retirement after rendering 20 to 28 years of service. The number of such
personnel is not likely to be significant. The financial implications for this
proposal will be Rs 4.83 crore per annum. This proposal emanates from Sixth
CPC’s recommendations and may be implemented w.e.f 1.1.2006. Accordingly,
arrears will be paid.
(v) In order to address the issue of
disparity in the pension of pre and post 1.1.2006 pensioners at the level of Lt
General/equivalent/Additional Secretary & equivalent civilian categories, a
separate pay scale starting at Rs 67000 and going up to Rs 79000 may be created
and all officers of the level of Lt General/Additional Secretaries/equivalents
may be fixed in this scale. As a result of this, the pension of pre 1.1.2006 Lt
Generals will get fixed at Rs 36500 and those of Additional Secretaries at Rs
33500. This will benefit roughly 4000 officers. The financial implication for
this proposal will be Rs 25 crore per annum. The proposal emanates from Sixth
CPC’s recommendations and may be implemented w.e.f 1.1.2006. Accordingly,
arrears will be paid.
All Defence Pensioners
(vi) It is proposed to agree to broad-banding
of percentages of disability/war injury pension for pre-1.1.1996 disability/war
injury pensioners. The financial implications of the proposal will be collated
by Department of Expenditure from Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare,
Department of Pensions and Ministry of Home Affairs.
(vii) It is proposed to remove the cap on war
injury element of pension in the case of disabled pensioners belonging to
Category E. This will also be applicable to civilian personnel, including those
belonging to Central Para Military Forces. The financial implications of the
proposal will be collated by Department of Expenditure from Department of
Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Department of Pensions and Ministry of Home
Affairs.
9. The financial implications of the above
proposals from (i) to (v) at a glance are as under: -
|
Sl No.
|
Proposal
|
Annual Implications
(crore)
|
|
(a)
|
Inclusion
of classification allowance for PBORs from 1.1.2006
|
7.73
|
|
(b)
|
Removal
of linkage of full pension with 33 years from 1.1.2006
|
4.83
|
|
(c)
|
Revision
of Lt General pension after carving out a separate pay scale for them
|
25
|
|
(d)
|
Bringing
parity between pension of pre and post 10.10.1997 PBOR pensioners
|
470.66
|
|
(e)
|
Further
improving PBOR pensions based on award of GOM 2006
|
1636
|
|
Total
|
2144.22
|
Financial
implication on account of arrears of (a), (b) and (c) = Rs 164.5 crore
Recommendations of CSC 2012
xxxx xxxx xxxx
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
33.
To sum up, the following
recommendations are made by the Committee:-
Issues
relating to ex-servicemen and consisting of pension related anomalies
(a) One Rank One Pension
(1) JCOs/ORs: -
The 2009 Committee had bridged the gap between pre and post 1.1.06
JCO/OR pensioners to a large extent. The difference between pre and post 1.1.06
JCO/OR pensioners presently exists due to the (a) change in pension
formula to 50% of last pay drawn/10 months’ average and higher pension drawn by
post 1.1.06 retirees on account of increments earned after 1.1.06 and (b) use
of the maximum pay of rank and group across the three Services for
determination of the notional maximum of the pay scale in the method allowed as
an option.
In order to bridge the gap between pre and post 1.1.06 JCO/OR pensioners
and as a measure of improvement in the pension of JCOs/ORs, the Committee
recommends the following:
(a)
The gap in the pension of
pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR retirees and post 1.1.06 retirees may be bridged by
determining the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR pensioners also on the basis of
notional maximum for the ranks and group across the three Services as in the
case of post retirees. It will, however, not be feasible to grant a pensionary
benefit in comparison with the serving JCOs/ORs who earn increments after
1.1.06 and opt for calculation of pension at 50% of last pay drawn/10 months’
average.
(b)
Further, the current
weightage in qualifying service of 10 years, 8 years and 6 years in the ranks
of Sepoy, Naik and Havildar may be increased by two years to 12 years, 10 years
and 8 years, respectively for pre-01.01.06 retirees. This would also need to be
applied to post retirees for the purpose of calculation of pension based on the
notional maximum of the pay scale across the three Services.
(2)
Commissioned Officers
At present, the pension of
pre 1.1.06 Commissioned Officers is stepped up with reference to the minimum of
the pay band + grade pay + Military Service Pay. The Committee recommends that
stepping up of the pension of pre 1.1.06 Commissioned Officers may be done with
reference to the minimum of the fitment table for the rank instead of the
minimum of the pay band. This would also be applicable to Honorary Commissioned
Officers.
(b)
Enhancement
of Family Pension
The Committee recommends
the following measures in regard to family pension:-
(i)
The pension of pre 1.1.06 family pensioners
(Commissioned Officers, Honorary Commissioned Officers, JCOs/ORs) may be
stepped up based on the minimum of the fitment table instead of the minimum of
the pay band.
(ii)
Further, the Committee has made
recommendations on the manner in which the pension of pre 1.1.06 JCO/OR pensioners
will be revised, Establishing a linkage of the family pension with the
pension of JCOs/ORs in those cases where the death takes place after the
retirement of the JCO/OR since such a JCO/OR drew a pension based on the
maximum of the pay scales, the Committee recommends that 60% of the pension
applicable to JCO/OR pensioners may be granted to the family pensioner in case
of normal family pension calculated at 30% of last pay drawn. Accordingly,
based on the rank, group and length of service of the deceased JCO/OR
pensioner, his pension based on this Committee’s recommendation on the revision
of pension of JCOs/ORs would first be determined on notional basis. In cases
where death of JCO/OR took place after retirement, the family pensioners in
receipt of normal family pension would become entitled to 60% of the said
pension determined on notional basis and those in receipt of enhanced family
pension will be entitled to 100% of this pension. Similar entitlements would be
determined in the case of special family pension.
(iii)
The family pensioner of the JCO/OR may be
granted family pension arrived at on the basis of the family pension worked out
as per the formulation at (ii) above or the pension on the basis of stepping up
with reference to the minimum of the fitment table, whichever is beneficial.
Further, the linkage of family pension with retiring pension would need to be
applied in the case of post 1.1.06 family pensioners of JCOs/ORs also.
(c)
Dual Family Pension
As per present provisions, a pensioner who gets second employment in the
Government after military employment is entitled to draw two pensions. Upon his
death, however, the family is entitled to only one family pension. The
Committee recommends that dual family pension may be allowed in present and
future cases where the pensioner drew, is drawing or may draw pension for
military service as well as for civil employment.
(d)
Family
pension to mentally/physically challenged children of armed forces personnel
on marriage
Under the present provisions, the family pension granted to mentally/
physically challenged children stops on their marriage. Considering the demand
made in this regard sympathetically, the Committee recommends the continued
grant of family pension to mentally/physically challenged children who drew,
are drawing or may draw family pension, even after their marriage.
(e)
The recommendations made for pension and
family pension of Commissioned Officers, dual family pension and continuance of
family pension to mentally/physically challenged children on marriage may also
be extended to civilian pensioners in view of the similarity of the present
provisions.
(f)
The above recommendations made on pensions may
be implemented from a prospective date and payment made accordingly.
Issues relating to serving defence personnel
39.
The Committee deliberated at length on the pay
related issues raised by the Defence Forces. It was noted that the pay related
issues are complex and have ramifications across the Government, including on
para-military personnel. The proposals made by the Defence Forces in many cases
are at variance with some of the principles followed by the Sixth Pay
Commission. Some of the proposals have already been considered subsequent to
the Sixth Pay Commission.
40.
In this context, the Committee also noted that
the next Pay Commission’s recommendations would be likely to be implemented
w.e.f. 1.1.2016. If the Thirteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation that
structural shocks such as arrears arising out of Pay Commission awards should
be avoided by making the pay award commence from the date it is accepted is
implemented, the next Pay Commission would need to be set up in the second half
of 2013 or in early 2014.
41.
In the
circumstances, the Committee recommends that the pay related issues may be
specifically referred to the next Pay Commission for its consideration as the
Pay Commission is the expert body set up for this purpose which can examine
these issues in a holistic manner (emphasis supplied).
Financial Implications
42.
The total financial implication of the
proposals in regard to pension is broadly estimated at around Rs 2300 crore per
annum.
It is expected that the recommendations made
by this Committee on the issues of One Rank One Pension, Enhancement of Family
Pension, Dual Family Pension and continuation of family pension to the
mentally/physically challenged children of Armed Forces personnel after the
marriage of such children, would largely meet
Adverse
consequences of not having Representation for Armed Forces
5. However,
as subsequent events proved, Services HQ did not learn from the experience. When
it was speculated that the Govt of the day would announce formation of the 7th
CPC, the Armed Forces lost an opportunity to have a separate Pay
Commission/Committee for then Chairman, CoSC wrote to MoD in September 2013,
that Armed Forces do not want a separate Pay Board or Commission. Addl Secy in
MoD opined, “Regarding the demand of the
Services to be part of the Central Pay Commission with full representation from
Services, it is observed that convincing grounds have not been brought forward
by the Services to warrant any change in the decision which was taken by PM in
Dec 2008 in consultation with RM and then EAM thereby approving setting up a
separate Board or Commission for the pay revision of the armed forces. “ However,
the then Raksha Mantri (Shri A K Antony), who was also a member of the
aforestated GoM, directed that the Chairman, CoSC’s letter declining a separate
Pay Board/Commission be forwarded to the PMO “without expressing any view” (Note 117 on File No. PC-1(13/2009/D
(Pay/Services). So the unconvincing grounds for not having a separate Board
disappeared from consideration. It was evident that the GoM could not, and the
CSCs would not resolve the anomalies (please see summary of recommendations in
Annexure IV). Thereafter, CSC 2012 projected the same issues to the 7th
CPC, stating that the CPC is “…. an
Expert body, which would take a holistic view” notwithstanding the opinion
of the GoM in 2008.
7th
CPC and Armed Forces
6. The
Chairman, CoSC demitted office and was on an assignment as Ambassador to Norway
from Sep 14 to Aug 16 at the time the 7th CPC considered a Joint
Services Memorandum (of which more later) and submitted its report (15 Nov 15).
Despite the incumbent Chairman CoSC apprising the RM of the core concerns, Govt
approved the report leaving an a Empowered Committee of Secretaries (ECoS) in
which the Armed Forces were again left out to resolve the concerns. Results are
described in the subsequent paragraphs.
7. Maybe,
just maybe, all the issues that the GoM and two CSCs could not resolve would
have found satisfactory solutions if there indeed was a separate Pay
Commission/Board just as there were Departmental Committees alongside the First
and Second Central Pay Commissions. At least the Armed Forces would have had an
opportunity to place their recommendations directly to the Union Cabinet to
decide.
8. It
should have been evident to all but the unwise, that lack of representation of Armed Forces by either
a senior serving and knowledgeable or a similarly situated retired officer as a
full time Member (like Mr Vivek Rae) or by a Joint Secretary equivalent in the
Secretariat of the CPC is the reason that the issues continue to remain
unresolved.
9. The
impact that the presence of a senior and knowledgeable Armed Forces officer/Veteran
as Member would have ensured justice by placing as forceful a case as presented
by Shri Vivek Rae, a retired IAS officer and Member of 7th CPC on
behalf of the Indian Administrative Service’s (IAS) on reasons why the IAS must
retain its “edge” of 2 increments over other All India Services (AIS). His strong
defence at great length is available in the 7th CPC Report, Para
7.2.20, Pages 151 to page 158 and cites several judgments.
[Chapters 5.2, 6.1, 6.2 and 10.2 of the
7th CPC report may be referred to for more information].
11. Shri
D K Rai, IDAS, whom the honourable Chairman, 7th CPC lauded as an
“expert on Defence Pay matters” does not appear to have produced orders of the
honourable Courts or file noting in favour of Armed Forces personnel in a
manner that Shri Vivek Rae did on behalf of IAS quoting the many judgments.
12. Therefore,
the incumbent Chairman CoSC took up the matter of Core concerns of the Armed
Forces with then RM in September 2016. File noting obtained through RTI is in
subsequent paragraphs (in italics).
Core
Concerns in 7th CPC
F No. 7/6/2019-E.III(A)
dated the 14 June 2019
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005, reg
Sir,
This is with reference to your online RTI application
with registration No. DOEXP/R/2019/50802 dated 10.07.2019 seeking information
including file notings, deliberations, etc in relation to the matter where the
junior officers of the rank of Air Commodore (Brigadier) and Group Captain
(Colonel) have been drawing higher total emoluments than Air Vice Marshal (Maj
Gen), Air Marshal (Lt Gen) and Air Marshal in HAG Plus and AOC-in-C (Army Cdr)
grades. In this context, the copy of relevant extracts of the noting is
attached herewith for reference. The delay in the submission of the reply is
deeply regretted.
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
-Page 37-
This case relates to demands and implementation of 7th CPC
recommendations in respect of Defence Forces personnel.
2. Defence Secretary vide his DO dated 14.11.2017 addressed to
Secretary (Exp) intimated that Hon’ble Raksha Mantri has desired for a
presentation on the manner in which the concerns/recommendations of the Defence
Forces were addressed and the grounds of rejection of demands of Defence Forces
by the MoD and the Ministry of Finance and requested for fixing a mutually
convenient date for the meeting. He has enclosed a document dated 20.01.2016 of
TRIPAS on Defence Forces concerns on 7th CPC report and copy of the proposed
presentation on issues of Defence Forces.
3. The following core concerns of the Defence Forces relating to
their demands have been mentioned in the proposed presentation received along
with Defence Secretary’s DO dated 14.11.2017.
(A) PAY RELATED ISSUES. Out
of six Core concerns, two have been resolved and following four concerns are
remaining:
i. Military Service Pay (MSP) at higher rates for JCOs – MSP of
(Rs) 10000 for JCO
ii. MSP as a separate
element of pay for Maj General and above.
iii. Non Functional
Upgradation (NFU)
iv. Correction in entry
pays for 6 Ranks/Levels.
(B) PENSION RELATED
ISSUES
i. Weightages to be
restored to cater for truncated carrier (sic)
ii. One Rank One Pension
iii. Sharing of report of
One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC).
(C) ALLOWANCES RELATED
ISSUES
Out of 19 concerns, 11 issues relating to entitlement of Ration to
Officers in Peace Areas, Dress Allowances, Reciprocity of Allowances, Technical
Allowances, Sea Going Allowances, Flying/SF/MARCOS/Chariot Allowance,
Correction in RH Matrix, Restoration of CILQ, Qualification Pay (Q-Pay), GCB/GS
Pay (and) Classification Allowances and Travel Entitlement of Navy have been
mentioned.
Similar issues were listed in the TRIPAS letter dated 20.01.2016
addressed to Hon’ble Raksha Mantri and Appendix A and B of this letter which
have been summarised at F/A.
4. A copy of Defence Secretary DO has been forwarded to Deputy
Secretary (EG) for necessary action in respect of Allowances, since the records
related to deliberations of the Committee of Secretaries on Allowances headed
by the former FS is available with them. The position with regard to issues
pertaining to pay and pension is explained in subsequent paras.
5. Demands of the Defence Forces already accepted: The
under mentioned demands of Defence Forces in respect of pay and pension has
been accepted by Government.
-38-
Continued from previous
page
(I) Vide Cabinet approval dated 29.06.2016, the following
exceptions in (the) Defence Pay Matrix were approved.
i. The IOR of Level 13A
(Brigadier) in Defence Pay Matrix revised upwards from 2.57 to 2.67.
ii. Additional 3 stages in
Levels 12A (Lt Col), 3 stages in Level 13 (Colonel) and 2 stages in Level 13A
(Brigadier) added appropriately in the Defence Pay Matrix.
(II) The Defence Pay Matrix (except Military Nursing Service (MNS)
which had 24 stages extended to 40 stages similar to Civilian Pay Matrix
(Cabinet Approval May 2016).
(III) The Index of Rationalisation (IOR) of Levels 12A and 13 of
Defence Pay Matrix enhanced from 2.57 to 2.67. The Defence Pay Matrix and
Matrix of MNS have been accordingly revised. (Cabinet approval - May 2016).
(IV) Percentage based system for disability pension has been
restored after the matter was referred/considered by National Anomaly Committee
(Cabinet approval – May 2016).
(V) Demands for allowing broad-banding of disability pension for
disability assessed at 20% and above and benefit of additional pension on
attaining the age of 80 years and above applicable on disability element
accepted (FM approval).
6. With respect to the manner in which the
concerns/recommendations of the Defence Forces were addressed it is submitted
that Defence Forces made a presentation before the Empowered Committee chaired
by Cabinet Secretary on 11.03.2016 on their demands. Subsequently a series of
meetings were held with nodal authorities involved in the implementation of the
7th CPC Report and all the issues raised by the Defence Forces have (been)
extensively discussed in these meetings. Joint Secretary (IC) and Director (IC)
from the then Implementation Cell participated in these meetings. Based on the
outcome of these consultations, proposals have been processed for obtaining
approval of Cabinet.
7. The concerns of the Defence Forces were also received vide
their letter dated 18.07. 2016 addressed to Hon’ble PM and letter dated
08.09.2016 addressed to Hon’ble RM. The matter was discussed in the meeting
taken by the then RM (on) 13.04.2017 and MoD vide their OM dated 19.04.2017 recommended
three core concerns i.e. 40 stages in Defence Pay Matrix, revision pf IoR
for Level 12A (Lt Col), and 13 (Col) and grant of Personal Pay in 7th CPC pay
structure to address pay/pension anomalies between Col/Brig and Maj Gen and
above rank(s). The first two issues related to Defence Pay Matrix have already
been addressed and (the) third issue pertaining to grant of Personal Pay for
Maj Gen and above, MoD advised to approach DoPT, the nodal Ministry concerned
with pay fixation issues.
8. With respect to demands of the Defence Forces not
accepted/grounds of rejection of demands, the position in respect of pay and
pension issues is submitted as under:
-39-
Continued from previous
page
(a) Military Service Pay
(MSP) at higher rates for JCOs – MSP of (Rs) 10000 for JCO
Comments – The concept of MSP was introduced by 6th CPC (up to
Brigadier rank) as an edge for the Army over civilian counterparts and it was
treated as Pay for calculating DA, Pension, HRA, Composite Transfer Grant and
Annual increment. MSP by the 7th CPC has been calculated by multiplying
existing rate with 2.57 and subsequent rounding off. As the amount of MSP was
Rs 2000/- for JCO/OR in 6th CPC period which has been increased to Rs 5200/- by
7th CPC, the demand for change in rates of MSP has not been accepted. Similarly,
MSP for Serving Officers has been increased from Rs 6000/- to Rs 15500/-.
(b) MSP as a separate
element of pay for Maj Gen and above
Comment – MSP is admissible to all ranks up to and inclusive of
Brigadiers and their equivalents. In so far as higher ranks are concerned
separate MSP is not admissible in 6th CPC also. However, MSP is subsumed under
Pay on promotion from Brig to Maj Gen. The aspect to grant of MSP in the 6th
CPC regime was considered and grant of Personal Pay to the officers of the ranks
of Maj Gen and above was agreed by the DoPT. For similar dispensation in 7th
CPC period, MoD vide this Department OM dated 05.09.2017 has been requested to
take up the matter with the DoPT as this relates to fixation of pay related
matter which comes under the purview of DoPT.
(c) Non Functional
Upgradation (NFU)
Comments – The Commission has not been able to arrive as at
consensus on extension of NFU, granted to organised Group ‘A’ services at the
time of 6th CPC, to Defence Forces. The Chairman was of the view that the NFU
should be allowed to continue and be extended to CAPFs and Defence Forces. Shri
Vivek Rae and Dr Rathin Roy, Members were of the view that NFU be withdrawn
from organised Group ‘A’ services. Since the Commission could not arrive at a
consensus, the matter has been referred to Department of Personnel and Training
for examination before a final view is taken. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to consider any fresh proposal at this stage.
(d) Correction of Entry
Level Pay for 6 Ranks based on Minimum Fitment Table
Comment – Defence Forces have demanded for correction in the Entry
Pay for the ranks of Artificer (GP 3400), Captain (GP 6100), Major (GP 7600),
Lt Col (GP 8000), Colonel (8700) and Maj Gen (10000) on the basis of Residency
method. The 7th CPC recommended separate Pay Matrix for Defence Forces after
due diligence and detailed stakeholder consultation. The 7th CPC noted there
are a number of common strands in the Civil and Defence pay matrices, the
principle and philosophy on which they are based are identical. The Commission
in para 5.2.15 stated that these GPs are unique to Defence Forces personnel and
minimum pay corresponding to each of these pay levels takes into account the
normative residency period of the ranks of officers.
-40-
Continued from previous
page
Although TRIPAS has mentioned about some difference in figure
based on the correct application of residency period method, it is submitted
that while devising Pay Matrix, the 7th CPC ensured that horizontal
relativities are not disturbed as for example the entry pay of Brig based on
residency period comes out to Rs 59, 100 which is much higher than entry pay
(Rs 53000) equal to that of Joint Secretary.
9. With respect to pension related issues it is submitted
that three issues listed i.e. weightages to be restored to cater for truncated
career, One Rank One Pension (OROP) and sharing of report of One Man Judicial
Committee (OMJC). About weightages issue, it is submitted MoD vide their OM
dated 19.04.2017 recommended grant of 40 stages in the Defence Pay Matrix for
JCOs/ORs subject to the caveat that maximum of the scale will not be counted
towards calculation of pension and the approval of cabinet has been taken vide
Cabinet note dated 01.05.2017. The other two issues about OROP and Report of
OMJC relate to MoD.
10. Defence Forces have requested for issue of resolution of 7th
CPC core concerns on pay, allowances and pension in a time bound manner and
constitution of an Empowered Committee with representation of Defence Services
for resolution of other anomalies of Defence Services. Although these issues
have been raised by the Defence Forces in the past and decisions have been
taken after taking into account the different aspects involved. The file is submitted
for further consideration, please.
Sd/-------------
23/11/17
Dir (E.III.A)
The above note may kindly be seen in the context of the DO letter
dt 14.11.2017 from Defence Secretary to Expenditure Secretary seeking latter’s
convenience for a meeting to discuss the concerns of the Defence Forces
personnel on the recommendation of the 7th CPC.
2. Attached herewith the aforesaid DO letter from Defence
Secretary is a note of 20.1.2018 listing out issues raised by Defence Forces
soon after the submission of the Report of the 7th CPC. However, during the
processing of the Report of the 7th CPC is the erstwhile IC, a few concerns
have already been addressed, as mentioned in para 7 of above note.
3. There is no indication
from the note
-41-
From previous page
sent along with the DO letter from Defence Secy as to which issues
still remain and if these were considered by MoD, what the stand taken have
been, as well as the grounds on which these were not accepted.
4. Furthermore, and more importantly, these issues require proper
consideration, but in the midst of the Budget exercise, it is difficult to
spare proper attention to these issues.
5. Thus we may suggest that MoD may schedule this meeting after
presentation of the Union Budget. A draft DO letter is, accordingly, placed
below for approval of Expenditure Secretary.
Sd/--------------
27.11.17
JS (Pers)
As we are very pre-occupied with the Budget exercise, it may be
difficult to devote so much time on this exercise. Also, the Concerns of the
Defence Services on 7th CPC Report is dated 20/01/16. Some issues have already
been addressed, as brought out in the note of US/RG. MoD may, in the meantime,
prepare an updated document. For approval on the issue.
Sd/---------------
27/11/17
Secy (Exp) Sd/------------
28/11/17
JS (Pers) On tour
Dir (E.III.A) Sd
/-----------291.11.17
US (RG) Sd/-----------
SO (E.III.A)
DO letter from Expenditure
Secretary
Ajay Narayan Jha
D.O. No. 20-1/11(1)/2016-IC (Vol-II) 29th November 2017
Dear Sanjay,
Please refer to your D.O. letter No. 1(2)/2016-D
(Pay/Services)/137/Def Secy/2017 dated 14.11.2017 regarding a meeting proposed
to be held to discuss the concerns of the Defence Forces personnel in the
context of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission.
2. We intend to accord our sincere consideration to the genuine
concerns of the Defence Forces personnel. This requires full attention on our
part. However, in the midst of the current Budget exercise, it is difficult for
us to apply ourselves to this important consideration in a manner we deem it
appropriate. I would, therefore, suggest that a meeting in this behalf may be
scheduled after the presentation of the Union Budget.
3. I would also request that prior to the meeting, a brief note
may be sent to us, bringing our the issues raised by the Defence Forces after
the submission of the Report of the 7th CPC, the issues which have been sorted
out based on the Government decisions and the grounds on which the remaining
issues have not been accepted.
With best regards
Your sincerely
Sd/-------------
(A N Jja)
Shri Sanjay Mitra
Defence Secretary
Ministry of Defence
South Block
New Delhi
Issued 29/11/17
Please
note: Meeting has not taken place till formation of 8th
CPC was announced.
Bureaucratic
Armoury
“All
animals are born equal but some are more equal than others.”
-
George Orwell
13. A
few years ago, in reply to a RTI application, Dept of Expenditure, MoF (the
Nodal Department for CPCs) had stated that it does not have a copy of the
proceedings of the Post War Pay Committee 1946-47 or the Armed Forces Pension
Review Committee 1949-51, the Raghuramiah Committee or the Kamath Committee,
though the documents are either mentioned or quoted in every subsequent CPC. It
is nowhere on public record, even in voluminous reports of Central Pay
Commissions (CPCs) on why the Govt of India decided that Pay, Pensions and
Allowances of Armed Forces personnel should be considered by a CPC without a representative(s)
of the Armed Forces. However, MoD set up an Expert Cell in August 1970
comprising representatives of MoD and MoF and 3 Armed Forces officers of the
rank of Maj Gen. MoD and MoF withdrew their representatives and suggested to 3rd
CPC in June 1971 (while the rest of the country was dealing with the influx of
refugees and the impending war of liberation of Bangladesh) that the report be treated as the views of the Services
Experts (per Para 7, Chapter 48, of Report of 3rd CPC).
14. Bureaucrats
conflate the reasons for denial of benefits of pay and allowances by quoting
that every CPC is chaired by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. If that
stand fails then they quote Fundamental Rules. When even that fails, the
ultimate weapon is that the benefit has not been approved by the Cabinet.
Nowhere is it stated that natural justice has been denied because Armed Forces
are not represented in the CPC, the Committee of Secretaries or that there is
an exception in the Fundamental Rules. Subsequent paragraphs attempt to draw
attention to these adversarial issues.
Quoting
Recommendations of the CPC
15. Every CPC is
chaired by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. File noting show that
bureaucrats hide behind the robes of the retired Judges. There isn’t any
application of the bureaucratic mind that some recommendations may be incorrect
and could adversely impact Armed Forces personnel or even that Judges are
habituated to deciding matters on the evidence presented to them. They do not
inquire into the issues for that is what the lawyers of opposite sides are for.
However, as the draft Report is seldom, if at all, shared with the Armed
Forces, one side remains unrepresented.
16. The
Chairman of the 6th CPC was retired Justice B N Srikrishna. The 6th
CPC had a Joint Secretary level officer of the Indian Defence Accounts Service
(IDAS) in its Secretariat. As a member
of the IDAS, the officer may have been aware that there was a serious anomaly
in the recommendation of restricting Military Service Pay (MSP) for officers up
to the rank of Brigadier and equivalent would result in Maj Gen and above
drawing lesser pay and pension than their juniors.
17. However,
when this anomaly was not noticed at the root, then Director, Implementation
Cell (IC), Deptt of Expenditure (DoE), MoF, when vetting MoD’s draft Special
Army/Navy/Air Forces Instructions 2/S/2008, pointed out to MoD in 2008 [M/o
Finance, D/o Expenditure U.O. No. 2674/JS (Per) dated 11.10.2008 refers]
whether this (Pay + Grade Pay + MSP) would result in Cols and Brigs &
equivalents earning more than Maj Gen and Lt Gen. He queried whether MSP should
not be delinked from emoluments.
18. MoD
– D (Pay/Services) referred the query to MoD (Fin), which sought the opinion of
the O/o Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA). O/o CGDA stated that even with addition of
stagnation increments and MSP, the total emoluments of Col and Brig would not
exceed that of Maj Gen vide 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 [obtained as a reply to RTI application CGDFA/R/2017/50707]
because the Cols and Brigs would either be promoted or would have retired.
19. The
apprehension of Director, IC, DoE, MoF referred to above has proved to be
correct by subsequent events. Principal Controllers of Defence Accounts (PCDA)
of Army, Navy and Joint Controller of Defence Accounts of Air Force (JCDA AF)
stated that there were, as on the last day of the 6th CPC, viz. 31
Dec 2015,
(i) 124
Cols, 36 Captains (IN) and 13 Group Captains drawing emoluments of PIPB Rs
67000+ GP Rs 8700+MSP Rs 6000 = Rs 81700 and
(ii) 113
Brigs, and 25 Commodores IN), and 24 Air Commodores drawing emoluments of PIPB
Rs 67000 + GP Rs 8900 +MSP Rs 6000 = Rs 81900 respectively
[References:
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].
20. Therefore,
it is established that a CPC, an Expert
body, which would take a holistic view, just because it has a retired Judge
of the Supreme Court as its Chairman was unaware than a solitary Director, IC,
DoE, MoF 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)].
Confusing
Relativity with Parity
21. Use
of these two words eventually blunts the ‘Edge’ for the Armed Forces,
especially at the higher ranks (equivalent to Senior Administrative Grade level
and above for the civilian employees).
22. Every
dictionary defines Parity as the state or condition of being equal,
especially as regards status or pay (this is the word used by Director and JS
(IC), DoE, MoF to turn down Personal Pay approved by RM-cum-FM Shri Arun
Jaitley in 2017).
Relativity is defined as the absence
of standards of absolute and universal application. Relativity is the
word used by all Central Pay Commissions (CPC) while the word parity is rarely
used, if at all. Director and also JS (IC), DoE, MoD on the need to maintain “parity in future also” did not bear in
mind the introduction of Non-Functional (Financial) Upgradation (NFU) and its
universal application
23. Consequently,
the MoF’s urge to maintain relativity between SAG and above on the Civil side
with Maj Gen and above on the Military side on 28 May 2017 appears to have
been, in hind sight, a ploy to deny the right to correct and higher pay for Maj
Gen and above. The following would elucidate this. Notes on file by then
Director (Implementation Cell) Deptt of Expenditure, MoF and then JS (IC), DoE,
MoF on file No. 30-1-/11(i)/2016-IC/Pt dated 26.4.2017 which were approved by
then Finance Secretary on 01.5.2017 (information obtained in reply to
DOEXP/R/2019/50322 dated 19.3.2019) state, inter alia,
“It
is observed that benefit of Personal Pay universally to all officer (sic) of
the rank of Major General and above will be against the principle of Personal
Pay as defined in FR 9 (23).
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.”
24. The
above bureaucratic stand is in complete contradiction to the Personal Pay
called Non-Functional (Financial) Upgradation (NFU) being given universally to all officers of Organised Group ‘A’
Services, the IPS and Para-Military forces. Witness this:
25. It means that
all officers who become eligible for
NFU will be granted NFU vide O.M. No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR), Government of
India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of
Personnel and Training, New Delhi, dated the 24th April, 2009, which states,
inter alia, as follows:
(i) Whenever an Indian
Administrative Services Officer of the State of Joint Cadre is posted at the
Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in Pay band 3 or Pay
Band 4, the officers belong to batches
of Organised Group A Services that are
senior by two years or more and have not so far been promoted to that
particular grade would be granted the same grade on non-functional basis
from the date of posting of the Indian Administrative Service Officers in that
particular grade at the Centre (emphasis supplied).
(ii) Grant of higher
scale would be governed by the terms and conditions given in Annex-I.
2.
The up-gradation granted under these orders will be a purely non- functional
up-gradation, personal to the officer
and it would not bestow any right to the officer to claim promotion or
deputation benefits based on non-functional up-gradation in such a manner.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
7.
(i) Pay fixation under on grant of non-functional upgradation under these orders
will be done as per the provisions of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 i.e. the officers will be granted one
increment at the rate of 3% of basic pay and the difference of grade pay will
be added to their basic pay.
(Annexe I of ibid OM refers)
26. It is further
clarified vide O M No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR) Government of India, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and
Training, New Delhi, the 25th September, 2009 issued, inter alia the following
also:
2.
The new HAG scale of Rs. 67,000-79000 has been introduced in replacement of the
pre-revised S-30 scale. It is clarified that consequent upon the carving out of
the new HAG scale, non-functional upgradation under the scheme will be
available to particular Grade Pays in PB-3 and PB-4 and also to the HAG scale. SAG officers can be allowed Non-
functional upgradation to the HAG Grade only where there is such a Grade in the
Service (emphasis supplied).
[Please
note that the issue of NF(F)U for the Armed Forces personnel was also stalled
by a single word, ‘Wait’ by the then Raksha Mantri, Shri A K Antony at Note 76
dated 20 Aug 2013 on MoD file No. 22/4/2012-D (Pay/Services)].
27. NF(F)U is not
available to the Defence Forces as on date (the next hearing in the honourable Supreme
Court was scheduled for 20 Nov 2024). Therefore, it is evident that all
Civilian SAG officers (Grade Pay Rs 10000) who becomes entitled to NF(F)U will no longer have pay parity with a Maj
Gen (SAG equivalent officer of the Defence Forces) because the Civilian will
draw an increment and also the next higher scale of Grade Pay i.e. HAG Grade
Pay of Rs 12000 or into the Pay Matrix of the next higher level.
28. Mathematically (with apologies to
Charles Seife) a Civilian SAG Officer
will be paid Pay in Pay Band Rs 62680 + Grade Pay Rs 10000, Total emoluments Rs
72680. After NFU he will draw Rs
62680+ increment Rs 2180 + 10000 + difference of (HAG & SAG) Grade pay Rs
2000 = Rs 76680. But an equivalent Maj
Gen is stuck at Pay in Pay Band Rs 62680 + GP Rs 10000, Total Rs 72680
Penalising
Merit
29. The
mathematical deception could not have been better stated than in Para 6.2.114 of
the report of the 7th CPC (retired Supreme Court Justice A K Mathur
as Chairman) on “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” (emphasis in
the original).
30. Does one
understand that working harder and earning promotions to rise from the rank of
Brigadier & equivalents (796 in Army + 200 in Navy & 152 in Air Force)
to Maj Gen & equivalents (196 + 38 + 48) and then Lt Gen & equivalents
(57 + 24 + 23) does not deserve higher emoluments for exercising higher
responsibilities and accountability in Service and consequently higher pension
on retirement?
31. Isn’t that in
contradiction to 7th CPC’s assertion in 5.2.8 “Rationalisation: An ‘index of rationalisation’ has
been applied…...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”?
32. The IDSA’s
study commissioned by 7th CPC has this at Table 66 in Annexure 3 (of
the IDSA Study) reproduced the following from the report of UK’s Senior Salaries Review Body: -
4.51 The Civil Service grades and
equivalent Armed Forces ranks of the senior posts are shown in the following
table:
Table
No 66
|
Senior Civil Service Pay
Band
(SCS PB)
|
SCS PB 4 (OF-9)****
|
SCS
PB 3 (OF-8)***
|
SCS PB 2 (OF-7)**
|
|
Army
|
General
|
Lt
General
|
Maj
Gen
|
|
Navy
|
Admiral
|
Vice
Admiral
|
Rear
Admiral
|
|
Air
Force
|
Air
Chief Marshal
|
Air
Marshal
|
Air
Vice Marshal
|
|
The Civil services pay bands and the
equivalent Armed Forces ranks table is
based
on Organograms and Data Sets published by MOD
|
4.52
The comparative pay scales for 2014 are given below. While the Civil servants
pay scales have 10 stages, the Pay scale of Defence officers’ pay scales have
six stages.
|
Level
|
OF 9 ****
|
Pay Scale 4
|
OF 8 ***
|
Pay Scale 3
|
OF 7 **
|
Pay Scale 2
|
|
|
|
|
144895
|
|
107464
|
|
84184
|
Minimum
|
|
|
|
148652
|
|
110191
|
|
85951
|
2
|
|
|
|
152409
|
|
112918
|
|
87719
|
3
|
|
|
|
156166
|
|
115645
|
|
89486
|
4
|
|
1
|
168606
|
159923
|
128526
|
118372
|
110463
|
91254
|
5
|
|
2
|
172821
|
163681
|
134826
|
121099
|
112621
|
93021
|
6
|
|
3
|
177142
|
167438
|
141441
|
123826
|
114824
|
94789
|
7
|
|
4
|
181571
|
171195
|
146998
|
126553
|
117070
|
96556
|
8
|
|
5
|
185202
|
174952
|
151332
|
129280
|
119361
|
98324
|
9
|
|
6
|
188906
|
178709
|
155797
|
132007
|
121697
|
100091
|
Maximum
|
Source:
ibid IDSA Study
33. The IDSA
study commissioned by 7th CPC has this at Table 67 in Annexure 3 (of
the IDSA Study). Look at the salary amounts for the Armed Forces officers and
Civilian equivalents in United Kingdom.
Table 1.1: Recommended annual scales for
Officers up to and including Commodore, Brigadier and Air Commodore
|
Rank
|
Military
Salary
|
|
|
Level
|
01
Apr 2013
|
01
Apr 2014
|
|
OF-6
Commodore (Royal Navy)
Brigadier Royal Marines)
Brigadier
(Army)
Air Commodore (Royal Air Force)
|
Level
5
|
102,145
|
103,167
|
|
Level
4
|
101,145
|
102,156
|
|
Level
3
|
100,157
|
101,158
|
|
Level
2
|
99,165
|
100,
156
|
|
Level
1
|
98,
172
|
99,154
|
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c1d30ed915d1c30daaa65/AFPRB_Report_43rd_2014.pdf
34. Now look at
the UK’s Senior Salaries Review Body
recommendations of pay scales, including ‘X’ factor, applicable for 2 - star and 3-star officers with
effect from 1 April 2014 in £ : -
|
2 Star
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
3 Star
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
|
6
|
120,
492
|
121,
697
|
6
|
154,
254
|
155,
797
|
|
5
|
118,
179
|
119,
361
|
5
|
149,
834
|
151,
332
|
|
4
|
115,
911
|
117,
070
|
4
|
145,
542
|
146,
998
|
|
3
|
113,
687
|
114,
824
|
3
|
140,
041
|
141,
441
|
|
2
|
111,
506
|
112,
621
|
2
|
133,
491
|
134,
826
|
|
1
|
109,
369
|
110,
463
|
1
|
127,
253
|
128,
526
|
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cdfdce5274a2c9a484a49/37334_Senior_Salaries_Print_Ready.pdf
Justifications and Result of denial of
MSP to higher ranks
35. A
perusal of the IDSA study and the 7th CPC’s reports gives rise to
the following unanswered questions: -
(a) Did
the 7th CPC, chaired by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, peruse
the IDSA’s study that it commissioned?
(b) Were
the findings shared with the Services HQ?
(c) Why
wasn’t the anomaly that higher ranked officers of the Armed Forces would draw
the same amount of pay/pension as their civilian equivalents but lesser than
lower ranked Armed Forces officers mentioned in the Report?
(d) When
higher grade (SAG and above) civilian officers draw more emoluments and
consequently pension for life than their lower feeder grade officers, how was
denying MSP to Maj Gen and above justified only because Maj Gen and above would
draw higher emoluments for 2 years (Maj Gen - 56 years to 58 years) or 4 years
(Lt Gen – 56 years to 60 years) than lower ranked feeder ranks of Col and Brig
(see paras 25 and 27 above)?
Fundamental
Rules (FR)
36. The oft
quoted FR 9 (23) 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.”
37. 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) (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.
38. However, none of the files, either of MoD/DMA or
MoF/DoE mentions FR 3 which states,
“These
rules do not apply to Govt servants whose conditions of service are governed by
Army or Marine Regulations” (emphasis supplied).
Cabinet
Approval
39. The
OROP-2023 table No.1 promulgated in MoD, DESW No.1(2)/2023/D(Pen/Pol) dated 04
Sep 24 has demolished the illogic of denial of MSP or Personal Pay or
imposition of ceiling amounts (as pensions are 50% of the last pay drawn)
specified by the now late CDS and mentioned repeatedly by Shri Amar Nath Singh
retd Director now Consultant to E.III.A, DoE, MoF in ID No. 03-05/2016/E.III.A
dated 22 Feb 23 and communicated by E.III.A to MoD (Fin) vide its ID No.
03-05/2016-E.III.A dated 19 May 2023 as well as the MoD/DMA letter, ironically,
captioned Pay Protection vide No. 1(6)/2013/D (Pay/Services) dated 12 Jun 2023
that Rs 2,25,000 would be the ceiling for Maj Gen, which anyway were not
recommended by the 7th CPC or approved by the Cabinet, as per file
notings provided by Dept of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, MoD
The
MoD/DESW letter dated 04 Sep 24 grants Rs 1, 16, 550 as pension for officers of
the ranks of Brigadier, Maj Gen, Lt Gen (HAG/HAG+, Apex) in levels of 14 to 17!
40. However, the
information provided by letter F No. 12(6)/2014/D(P/P) dated 13.11.2024 is
incomplete in that
(a) Though it includes MoD/DESW Proposal in Para
3 of Draft Cabinet Notes (DCN) 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 contain 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 116550.
(b) Information provided by Def Finance vide F
No. 29(02)/2016/Fin/Pen dated 17.10.2024 which approved the DGL also does not
contain mention of the same or in file noting for concurrence of the DGL and/or
tables with same maximum pension amount of Rs 116550 for Levels 13A to 17.
(c) The 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 166550 as
pension for levels 13A to 17 with more than 33 years of service.
(d) Information on the live data provided by O/o
PCDA (P) states that the maximum pension in the calendar year 2023 as Rs 116550
for Brig/Level 13A, Rs 113400 for Maj Gen/Level 14, Rs 112050 for Lt Gen/Level
15, Rs 112200 for Lt Gen/Level 16 and Rs 112500 for Lt Gen/Level 17 (Apex).
Conclusion
41. Hopefully
the next CAPC (Chairman, Army Pay Commission Cell) and his counterparts in the
other Services study reports (not read a synopsis) of the previous CPCs, the
CSCs of 2009 and 2012 as well as the GoM of 2008 before writing (another 441 page Joint Service
Memorandum (JSM). It would in the fairness of things if there are consultations
with knowledgeable Veterans after all there is much in the media how Armed
Forces are grateful and acknowledge the traditions, sacrifices, precedents and
services.
42. A detailed perusal of deliberations of the 6th and 7th CPCs, that were published as voluminous reports (658 and 899 pages respectively), will justify the belief cited by the Fifth Central Pay Commission (5th CPC) in Volume I, Chapter 1 that the honourable Courts held that CPC is an expert body but also that, “But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction”
43. The
IDAS Officers in the secretariat of 7th CPC were either unaware of,
or, did not bring on record, for the attention of the Justice Mathur or the
Full time members the judgments in (1) SPS Vains Vs UoI (2008) SCC OnLine
P&H 551: ILR (2006) 1 (P&H) 80 and later (2008) 9 SCC 125, (2) Er
Gurcharan Singh Grewal vs Punjab State Electricity Board (2009) 3 SCC 94,( 3)
UoI Vs P Jagdish (1997) 3 SCC 176, and (4) ML Jain Vs UoI (1988) 4 SCC 121 to
name just a few orders of the honourable Court that seniors should not be paid
less than their juniors.
43.
Hopefully, the Chief of Defence Staff,
the Chiefs of Army Staff, Navy Staff and Air Staff, the Principal Personnel
Officers Committee and Chairs of the next Pay Commission Cells of the three
Services will ensure that both Orwell and Charles Seife are proved wrong.
Thank you for your patient reading and
understanding.
SySavur
