What is Driving Senior Armed Forces Officers to Courts
Directive of the Government
The
Govt of India, through its Ministry of Law & Justice issued a Directive No.
J-18/5/2016-Judl on 04 Apr 2025 whose objectives (at para 4), amongst others
were to reduce litigation of recurrent
nature, reduce anomalies/inconsistencies in statutory or non-statutory
notifications and administrative orders, reduce unnecessary appeals against
orders of the Court and put in place a sound Knowledge Management System (KMS).
The
Directive mentions (at para 5) service
related and pension matters amongst the recurrent issues. It also identifies
that litigation is often pursued over issues that have already settled by a
Court of law and implemented by the relevant department. It also mentions that
such instances lead to unnecessary litigation and associated costs without any
tangible benefits.
Armed
Forces personnel, especially those still in service seldom use other than
official channels to redress their grievances. Today, even Major Generals and
higher ranks are approaching the honourable Armed Forces Tribunal, High Courts
and ultimately the Supreme Court in increasing numbers to redress their
grievances about pay anomalies and denial of entitled benefits. A cursory
reading reveals that the issues fit the descriptions at Para 4 and 5 of the
Directive.
And Ignoring the Directive
The
media has highlighted that the honourable Delhi High Court dismissed several
hundred appeals by the Union of India (UoI) in cases of disability benefits (https://www.facebook.com/theprintindia/posts/delhi-hc-upheld-armed-forces-tribunals-rulings-finding-no-legal-basis-to-interfe/771178802179003/).
Recently,
the issue of disability benefits UoI appealed before the honourable Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No 129 of 2025 (and 29 pages of tagged Civil Appeals).
The honourable Supreme Court stated at the very beginning
….. 2. The appeals before us are only a speck in
comparison to the number of similar matters that have already been taken up and
dismissed by this Court on delay and on merits. When civil appeals and special
leave petitions involving questions concerning disability element of service pension
(“disability pension”) of ex-servicemen were routinely listed before us,
many of them filed with enormous delay, we asked the learned Attorney General
to inquire as to why the Union is preferring so many appeals. We were concerned,
not about the filing of appeals, but about the system in which such disputes
remained unresolved despite a conclusive judgment of this Court. Nothing really
happened thereafter. In the meanwhile, appeals and Special Leave Petitions were
being filed, and this burgeoning docket had to be taken up for disposal. These
matters need not have been dealt with separately as there is no distinction between
these appeals and those that were dismissed…..”
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
38. The sad part of this litigation is that, out of
around 271 Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions, most of them are barred
by limitation. Many similar appeals that were barred by limitation have already
been dismissed in the past; the present batch is only a small number that survive.
Moreover, it is significant to note that the number of appeals rejected at the
first appellate stage, after a dismissal by the RMB, far exceeds those
accepted. As per information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
of the 2,997 appeals before the First Appellate Authority, almost 2,855 of the
claims were rejected and only 142 appeals are accepted. Before the Second
Appellate Authority, out of 456 appeals, 439 were rejected and only 17 appeals
are accepted…..” (emphasis supplied).
Origin of the Anomaly of Major Generals
(and Lt Gens) granted lesser pay/pension
This anomaly did not exist in the 3rd CPC
(1974-85) or earlier (Departmental Committees from 1947 to 1986) even
though officers up to the rank of Brigadiers were being granted Special Disturbance Allowance (SDA) to
overcome financial hardship caused by reduction in pay by the Post War Pay
Committee. There was no anomaly because wise persons in the Departmental
Committee preceding 3rd CPC and then the 3rd CPC used
their knowledge (of rules and basic arithmetic) that there should be a buffer
between the maximum emoluments of a Brig (Rs 2200-100-2400 + SDA Rs 45) and
minimum emoluments of a Maj Gen (Rs 2500-125-2750) (Source of pay scales: Para 25, Chapter 50 of Vol III of 3rd
CPC Report).
The 4th CPC
instituted the Rank Pay (to replace
SDA) for officers of the ranks of Captain (Rs 200 pm) to Brigadiers and
equivalents (Rs 1200 pm). The anomaly of Maj Gen drawing lesser emoluments than
Brig actually started here in 1987 because the buffer disappeared.
The integrated pay scale
recommended by 4th CPC stipulated that a Brigadier would draw Basic
Pay in the scale of Rs 4950-5100 in addition to a Rank Pay of Rs 1200. Hence Rs
6150-6300 would be a Brigadier’s minimum and maximum emoluments (Chapter 28.13
of the 4th CPC Report and Paras 3 and 6 of SAI 1/S/1987). On the
other hand the pay scale of Maj Gen was fixed as Rs 5900-200-6700. Maj Gen and
above were not granted Rank Pay.
The anomaly continued when 6th
CPC (2006-2015) introduced Military Service Pay (MSP) to replace Rank Pay of 4th
and 5th CPCs.
Consequently, introduction
of MSP showed in starker light the
senior officers starting to draw lesser emoluments/pension (Maj Gen Rs 67000+
GP 10000; Lt Gen 67000 + GP 12000; Army Cdr Rs 80000)/pension (Rs 38500, Rs
39500, Rs 40000 respectively) than the feeder ranks of Lt Cols (Rs 67000
+8000+6000= 81000/40500, and Cols (Rs 67000+8700+6000 = 81700/40850 and Brig
(and equivalent) Rs 67000 + 8900 + 6000 = 81900/40950).
Are Recommendations of Central Pay Commissions
sacrosanct if they are wrong?
Honourable Supreme Court had held
that, “any complex exercise of job
evaluation which is the remit of an expert body like a Pay Commission” but
the Court will review the issue if it “brings
out glaring infirmities” in Writ Petition (Civil) 648 of 2002 on 11.3.2008
in Ramesh Singh Vs UoI (emphasis supplied). The Govt (rather its bureaucracy)
has quoted the first part ever since not to correct an obvious wrong.
However,
in the report of GoM headed by then External Affairs Minister, Shri Pranab
Mukherjee, in December 2008 on 6th CPC issues raised by the Defence
Forces, has stated 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 respective cadre controlling
authorities.
4. All these problems of parity,
disparity, comparison with status of the civilian services and ranks of the
Police and Paramilitary forces have arisen after the Central Pay Commissions
had been entrusted with the task of recommending pay scales of the Armed Forces
also, which till the 3rd CPC recommended salary structures of
civilian services only. In a democratic system such comparisons between Armed
Forces and civilian services are undesirable. As is being done for the
academicians, medical services, public sector units etc., in future a separate board or commission should
recommend the pay scales of the Armed Forces thereby removing the root cause of
the point-to-point comparisons between the ranks of Defence Services and
Civilian Services which is not in the interest of the country (emphasis in
the original Report)”.
The CPCs, relying on their reputation of being ‘expert body taking a holistic view on pay
matters’, do not inquire into the issues in depth concerning Defence
Forces. The nearest representative who may have a little knowledge of pay and
allowances of the Defence Forces is the IDAS officer in every CPC’s
Secretariat. Even then the Armed Forces, the one side that remains
unrepresented in the CPC, end up representing to or beseeching the Govt to
redress their grievances.
MSP and Emoluments of Feeder and Higher Ranks: The 6th
CPC had a Joint Secretary level officer of the Indian Defence Accounts Service
(IDAS) in its Secretariat (who later rose to the top of the IDAS
hierarchy). 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. It is not in the CPC report if the
IDAS officer expressed any views on the anomaly, especially after the verdicts
in AVM Chaturvedi vs UoI/MoD or Maj Gen Sherlaker vs UoI/MoD. MoD finally
admitted it in a short reply affidavit submitted to the honourable High Court
of Punjab & Haryana in CWP 13425 of 2021 in Maj Gen D N Asija & Others
vs UoI.
However, if
this anomaly may not have been noticed by the CPC or ignored, the
MoD–D(Pay/Services) when preparing the
Special Army/Navy/Air Force Instructions appears to have overlooked it when
preparing draft Special Army
Instruction/Special Naval Instruction/Special Air Force Instruction No.
2/S/2008 on pay for Defence Forces officers.
Director,
Implementation Cell (IC), Deptt of Expenditure (DoE), MoF, when vetting MoD’s
draft SAI/SNI/SAFI No. 2/S/2008, pointed out to MoD whether this (sum of the
total of Pay + Grade Pay + MSP) would result in Cols and Brigs &
equivalents earning more than Maj Gen and Lt Gen. The Director also queried
whether MSP should not be delinked from emoluments [M/o Finance, D/o Expenditure
U.O. No. 2674/JS (Per) dated 11.10.2008 refers].
MoD – D
(Pay/Services) referred the query to MoD (Fin), which sought the opinion of the
O/o Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) – domain of IDAS officers.
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 because those Cols and
Brigs would either be promoted or would have retired’ [Notes 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].
The
apprehension of Director, IC, DoE, MoF referred to above was proved to be
correct by subsequent events. It was confirmed when Principal Controllers of
Defence Accounts (PCDA) of Army, Navy and Joint Controller of Defence Accounts
of Air Force (JCDA AF), all IDAS Officers, 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 Pay In Pay Band (PIPB) of 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 of 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].
If indeed it is established that a CPC is an Expert body, which would take a holistic
view, how was it less aware 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)].
Continuing to Penalise
Major Generals and above: 7th CPC did nothing to correct this
anomaly but drove in a point of self-justification (though it had an IDAS
officer who was praised as an expert by the Chairperson in the introduction of
Report of 7th CPC). Perhaps
the expert on Defence Pay & Allowances in the 7th CPC believed
what Charles Seife wrote in his book Proofiness:
The Dark Art of Mathematical Deception (Viking Publishers), “If you want people to get to believe
something really, really stupid, just stick a number on it.”
[Video is available on link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiQwZ6inbOM
and it may be worth your while viewing it].
The mathematical deception could not have been better stated
than by the 7th CPC itself in its report
Para 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”? (emphasis
supplied).
And the
contradictions in the 7th CPC’s Report
“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” (emphasis in the original).
And the D (Pay/Services) under the Department of
Military Affairs compared apples with oranges
Below Para 17 of Note 99 in
F No. 1(6) 2013 – D (Pay/Services) is a table which shows that the retirement
earnings of a Brig for a 7 years period from age 61 to 68 as
Brig’s pension @ Rs 1, 16,
550 + DR is Rs 1,39, 86, 048
Maj Gen’s pension @ Rs 1, 12,500 is Rs 1, 35, 00,
000.
Lt Gen’s pension @ Rs 1, 12, 500 is shown as
Rs 1, 35, 00, 000
Author’s Note:
The retirement earnings would be lesser for Maj Gen (with maximum of pension of
Rs 1, 09, 100) and marginally lesser for Lt Gen with maximum pension of Rs 1,
12, 000).
Then at Para 18 on Note 99,
the D (Pay/Services) makes a statement
that “This is the prime reason for grant of MSP, an edge in the pay being
provided up to the rank of Brig & equivalent only” (emphasis in the
original).
The 7th
CPC commissioned the IDSA to study on pay etc of other Armed Forces
The IDSA report has this Table 67 in Annexure 3 (of the IDSA
Study) with 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
The IDSA report reproduced UK’s Senior Salaries Review Body
recommendations of pay scales, including ‘X’ factor (equivalent of MSP),
applicable for 2-star and 3-star officers with effect from 1 April 2014: -
|
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 |
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 **** |
Civil Pay Scale 4 |
OF 8 *** |
Civil Pay Scale 3 |
OF 7 ** |
Civil 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
Justifications
and Result of denial of MSP to higher ranks: 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) Did 7th CPC learn how pay
(and pension) of OF-7 (2-Stars) and above is protected?
(c) Did 7th CPC share the
findings of the IDSA study with the Services HQ/TRIPAS before publishing its
Report? What was the reply?
(d) When higher grade (SAG and above)
civilian officers draw more emoluments whilst in service and subsequently
higher pension for life than their lower feeder grade officers, how is 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
6.2.114 of 7th CPC report)?
Contrast this with the following
explanation of the Review Body on Senior Salaries of the United Kingdom in its
report of 2024:
“4.18
It is unwise to allow a continued erosion of pay differentials. Sooner or
later, it will lead to recruitment campaigns failing to attract appointable
candidates.
4.19
We welcome the changes the MoD has made to the 2-star and 3-star pay scales so that there is an automatic increase of
at least 10 per cent in base pay on promotion to, and within, the senior
military. However, this does not avoid the need to maintain a sufficient
differential between the pay scales for the senior cadre and the feeder group.
4.20 If this year’s OF6 award exceeds that
of the senior cadre by more than 0.5 per cent then further bespoke arrangements
will be needed to ensure the minimum 10
per cent pay increase for those on promotion from the top of the OF6 pay scale
to OF7. Paragraphs 4.60 and 4.61, including table 4.4, in the Annex to this
Chapter set out this issue in more detail including the current pay increases
on promotion for senior officers.” (emphasis supplied)
Relativity and Parity
Bureaucrats use
these two words that 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).
Every dictionary
defines Parity as the state or condition of being equal, especially as regards status.
However, this is the word used by Director and then by JS (IC), DoE, MoF to recommend
to the Finance Secretary to turn down Personal Pay for Maj Gens approved by
RM-cum-FM Shri Arun Jaitley in 2017 (MoF, DoE ID No. 30-1/11(i)/2016-IC Pt
dated 28 Apr 2017).
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.”
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 that Personal Pay
Maj Gen is relativity to the higher emoluments to Officers of lower ranks (Brig
and Col).
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 Apr 2017 appears to have been
a ploy to deny the right to correct and higher pay for Maj Gen and above
The above
bureaucratic stand is in complete contradiction to the Personal Pay called NFU being given universally to all officers
of Organised Group ‘A’ Services, the IPS and Para-Military forces.
Therefore, it is evident that all Civilian SAG officers
(Grade Pay Rs 10000) who become entitled to NFU will no longer have pay parity with SAG equivalent officers 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 migrate into the
Pay Matrix of the level 16).
Mathematically (with apologies to Charles Seife) a Civilian SAG Officer will be paid Pay
in Pay Band of 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
Fundamental
Rules
The argument of DoE, MoF citing FR 9(23) does not allow that
Personal Pay for Maj Gen would make emoluments higher for Defence Services
officers vis-à-vis SAG and above (details later in this response) is half the
truth.
FR 2: These rules apply, subject to the provisions of rule 3 to all
Government servants whose pay is debitable to civil estimates and to any other
class of Government servants too which the president may, by general or special
order, declare them to applicable.
FR 3: These rules do not apply to
Government servants whose conditions of service are governed by Army or Marine
Regulations (emphasis supplied).
FR 5A: 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 (emphasis supplied).
Provided that no such order shall be made except with
the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance.
Litigation as the only Way Forward
Litigation has been the
Hobson’s choice (viz. one must accept that single option or have nothing at
all) for Defence Forces personnel. Below is a brief chronology.
In
1990, after representations through ‘Proper channels’, Air Vice Marshal S N
Chaturvedi approached the honourable High Court of Delhi. Just about the same
time, Maj Gen P D Sherlaker approached the honourable Bombay High Court, after
exhausting the official channels. Both, in separate petitions, had pleaded that
their total emoluments were lesser than the emoluments of those who were junior
in rank.
The
reason for the anomaly was the same – Rank Pay was granted by the 4th
Central Pay Commission up to the rank of Air Commodore/Brigadier and this
increased the emoluments of the junior rank to above that of their present
rank. The honourable High Courts ruled in the favour of AVM Chaturvedi and Maj
Gen Sherlaker. But the 5th CPC appears not have been informed of
this.
Then
in 1998, Maj A K Dhanapalan approached the honourable High Court of Kerala with
his plea that the Govt had incorrectly deducted Rank Pay when re-setting his
pay on transition from the 3rd CPC to 4th CPC. The
honourable High Court ruled in his favour in 2003 and the honourable Supreme
Court dismissed the UoI’s Special Leave to Appeal for the delay as well as on
merits in 2005.
From
2007 till 2012, pleadings with the MoD to grant the similar benefits to other
entitled officers were denied (because of the recommendation of a High Powered
Committee headed by Defence Secretary, with Secretary Expenditure and Financial
Adviser (Defence Services) as Members due to a large financial burden as the
honourable Supreme Court’s order in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 would benefit approximately
48000 officers (as per the estimates of CGDA).
Nearly a hundred entitled officers approached different High Courts and
finally, a 3 Judges Bench ruled in favour of the entitled officers in IA No. 9
of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007.
In
2019, several serving Air Vice Marshals (leading petitioner AVM P S Babu) approached
the Principal Bench of the honourable Armed Forces Tribunal citing the
Chaturvedi judgments. The officers were granted benefit of higher emoluments in
2020. The honourable AFT also stated in 2021 that it would revert to coercive
measures against the officer who was holding up implementation even after the
Learned Additional Solicitor General had opined that the Babu case was not fit
for appeal at a higher Court.
Almost
simultaneously, about 100 retired officers of the ranks of Maj Gen, Lt Gen,
Vice Chief equivalents, approached the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court
with petitions that their pensions are lesser than the pensions granted to Lt
Cols, Cols and Brigadiers. The
honourable High Court, based on an admission by the UoI that the anomaly
existed from 1.1.2006, granted the petitioners and other similarly affected
officers the pension equivalent (Rs 1, 16, 550)
drawn by Brigadiers.
In
OA 71 of 2022 and tagged OAs, eighty two officers of the rank of Maj Gen and
equivalent approached the honourable PB, AFT for the Babu benefits. Recently,
IHQ (MoD), Army has issued a Conditional implementation sanction No.
PC-A/38701/MAJ GEN PAY ANOMALY/AG/PS-6(A) dated 31 Aug 2026 to grant benefits
to the petitioners. This order, as per the latest news/speculation/rumour has
driven about 600 odd similarly situated officers of the Indian Army, about 300
similarly situated officers of the Indian Air Force and an unspecified number
from the Navy to approach the honourable AFT/High Court(s).
Perhaps
the signatory of the above sanction appears to be unaware of the orders of the
honourable Supreme Court in C A No. 2966 of 2011 in UoI Vs Maj Gen SPS Vains and
Others, “…Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, learned
senior counsel for the respondents in C.A.No.2966/2011 submits that the
benefits that were conferred on the persons as per the judgment rendered by
this Court in Union of India and another vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) & Ors.,
(2008) 9 SCC 125 qua the Sixth Pay Commission keeping in view the cut-off date
dated 01.01.2006 have not been given to the respondents. Elaborating further, it is urged by the learned counsel that the
benefits have been given exclusively to the petitioners who had approached the
Tribunal though not to the categories who were entitled to the said benefit.
Be it clarified, when a question of
pay fixation comes, the same cannot be limited to the petitioners who have
approached the Court (emphasis supplied).
In Conclusion
Till
2020, the bureaucracy could keep out the Armed Forces from the Committee of
Secretaries (CoS) or the Empowered Committee of Secretaries (ECos). However,
from 30 December 2019 with the revision in the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961,
and MoD’s letter MoD. DoD F No. 38(1)/2020-D(O&M) dated 09 January 2020,
places the Pay/Services Division with the Secretary, Department of Military
Affairs (DMA). It is the expectation of the Defence Forces that the Secretary,
DMA will find a seat (and a strong voice) at the high table of the ECoS or
equivalent examining the recommendations of the 8th CPC.
More
importantly, hopefully a One Rank One Pension moment like the one at Rewari in
September 2013 would correct a four decades old anomaly.
E & O E
* * * * * * *
