This Part II is minus the Annexes (referred to in Para 15 below) indicating Service, Branch, Corps wise strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force.Though the figures have been disclosed as part of the 65 pages of information, the information is withheld by Aerial View.
Most immediate
By Special messenger
No. 22/S/2014-D (PCC)
Ministry of Defence
(Pay Commission Cell)
Subject: Comments on key
issues relating amongst others to pay parity and related issues raised by
various segments – regarding
Reference D.O. letter No. 7CPC/143/MOD (JSM)/2014 dated 24th
December 2014 on the above mentioned subject from Secretary, 7th CPC
addressed to Defence Secretary.
2. Comments of the Ministry of Defence on the key issues mentioned
in the letter are enclosed.
3. This has the approval of the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri.
Sd/----------------
(R. Pandian)
Deputy Secretary (PC+MIS)
Tele: 2301 3416
Shri
D K Rai
Director
Seventh
Central Pay Commission
Chatrapathi
Shivaji Bhavan
B-14A,
Qutab Institutional Area
New
Delhi – 110016
COMMENTS KEY ISSUES RELATING AMONG OTHERS TO PAY,
PARITY AND RELATED ISSUES
Para No.
|
ISSUE
|
MoD COMMENT
|
||
PARITY AND
RELATED ISSUES
|
||||
2
|
Grant of NFU to Def Forces: In the Joint Services
Memorandum, the Defence Services have contended that while the Sixth Central
Pay Commission, in its Report, extended Non-Functional Upgradation to
organised Group ‘A’ services and the Government, at the implementation stage,
extended the benefit of NFU to all organised Group ‘A’ services including IPS
and IFS officers, such benefit was not granted to the Defence Officers,
which, in their view is an anomaly. It has been contended by the Defence
Services that the grant of NFU to organised Group ‘A’ services in MoD which
operate alongside the defence forces like MES, Border Road Organisation,
Survey of India etc. has created command, control and functional problems.
The view of the Ministry of Defence on the issue of granting NFU, in the
context of what has been stated by the Defence Services, are sought.
|
The
issue was examined in the Ministry and by a Committee headed by Cabinet
Secretary. The Committee in its report which was accepted by Government has
noted that the service conditions of Defence Forces are quite different from
those of civilian employees. Benefits in the form of Military Service Pay and
various allowances are also available to the Defence Forces officers which
are not available to civilian officers. It is, therefore, not logical to
compare the earnings of two services. Further, Defence Forces officers are
covered by a separate time-bound promotion scheme upto the level of Colonel.
The scheme of non-functional upgradation is applicable only to organised
Group ‘A’ Services and was extended to IPS/IFS. The requirements related to
command and control, the norms for recruitment, promotion and rank structure
of the Defence Forces are not
identical to those of Group ‘A’ cadres. The average age of entry of
Commissioned Officers is lower than those joining Group ‘A’ Services.
In
view of the above, the Committee did not make any recommendations on this
issue.
Further,
in the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report though this particular issue was not
considered, it was stated in the Report that for functional purposes, salary
cannot be the basis to determine status.
However,
on account of the steep hierarchical pyramid in the armed forces, a large
number of officers stagnate and retire at the level of Lt Colonel. 7th
CPC may, therefore, devise may to address this issue suitably. One way to
achieve this can be, to grant NFU to those personnel who have been stagnating
at the same level (say for 3-4 years) after the promotion of their immediate
juniors.
|
||
3
|
Relativities – Armed Forces, Civilians, CAPFs: The civilian side has
six levels starting from Under Secretary up to Secretary while the Armed
Forces have nine ranks from Lieutenant to General. Given that some bunching
is inevitable, the Ministry’s views on issues of command and control
functions/relativities of armed forces vis-à-vis CAPFs and civilians may
kindly be shared with the Commission.
|
In
the civilian side in Central Government, there are seven levels of officers
in Group ‘A’ (and not six as indicated in VII CPC DO letter) i.e. junior time
scale (Assistant Director/equivalent), Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary,
Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary, Special Secretary/Secretary.
The Army (as also the other two Services) being a fighting force have their
own command and control functions in their hierarchy and no one-to-one
comparison with the civilian side can be made.
|
||
4
|
Placement of Lt Generals in HAG+ Scales: Defence Services in
their memorandum before the Seventh Central Pay Commission have identified
the existing placement of Lt Generals and equivalent as one of the “core
anomalies.” They have sought placing of Lt General and equivalent officers in
the HAG+ scale (Rs 75, 500 – 80, 000). Considering the overall implications
of this request made, the Ministry of Defence may like to communicate their
views on the point.
|
The
upgradation of pay scales of Lt Gens/equivalent was not agreed to by the
Government before VI CPC. After VI CPC, the matter was reconsidered in April
2009 and it was decided to give the higher pay scale (HAG+ scale) to 1/3rd
Lt General/equivalent. This was agreed to by the then COAS. In the light of
the above, the present demand of the Services for grant of HAG+ scale to all
Lt Generals/equivalent goes against the stand taken by the Services in 2009.
The
issue was also considered by the Pranab Mukherjee Committee. It was stated
the COS has already agree to grant Army Commander’s scale (Apex Scale – Rs
80000) on a non-functional basis to certain number of Lt Generals. Lt
Generals in Defence Forces are equivalent to Additional Secretaries on the
civilian side and prior to VI CPC, both were in the scale Rs 22400-24500. There is no comparison of Lt Generals
with officers on the civilian side as those in HAG+ scale had a higher pay
scale of Rs 24050-26000 prior to VI CPC. This relativity was not disturbed by
the VI CPC and the CoS also did not recommend any change in the matter. Moreover,
on the civil side also, all officers do not reach the HAG+ level.
|
||
PAY AND ALLOWANCES RELATED
|
||||
5
|
Rank Pay – In the Joint Services memorandum the Services
have contended that their Grade Pay in the Sixth Pay Commission has been
artificially depressed as Rank Pay was not taken into consideration while
determining the top of the pay scales of various ranks. It is, however,
gathered that the prevailing principle has been that rank pay cannot be
merged with pay scales.
|
The
matter relating to revision of grade pay to officers was examined in 2008
also. The Government after a long deliberation on the VI CPC recommendations
decided to increase Grade Pay of middle level Armed Forces Officers (except
Lt/equivalent) thereby meeting the demand of the Services, but did not accept
its point on the issue of merger of Rank Pay in basic pay. Subsequently,
while examining draft Services instructions for pay revision, Ministry of
Finance also did not approve the merger of Rank Pay with Basic Pay and
observed that pre-revised scale and Rank Pay should be shown distinctly in
two separate columns in pay fixation tables. Accordingly, the Service
instructions were issue.
Not merging Rank Pay with Basic Pay was upheld in
the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report. It was also emphasised therein that the
Central Pay Commission are recommendatory authorities and final decision of
the pay scales is taken by the Cabinet, and as such the Cabinet decision is
the final word on the subject. Hence the case is not supported.
|
||
6
|
Pay to Lt Colonels and Colonels: - The view of the
Ministry with regard to the contention in the Joint Services Memorandum that
the pay fixation of the Colonel should be done as per Fitment Table for S-25
(of the Fifth CPC) is also sought.
|
The
Services have based their case on merger of Rank Pay with basic pay before
fixation of pay, VI Pay Commission in their report has recommended that
running pay bands on par with those recommended for civilian officers needs
to be introduced in respect of Defence Forces as well. The pay of officers in
Defence Forces has been fixed in line with that of civilian officers. The
basis of this demand i.e. merger of Rank Pay in basic pay was examined in a
detailed manner by the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report and the same was not
accepted. Hence the case is not supported.
|
||
7
|
Equal Work and Equal Pay: - Various Defence
Civilian Groups and associations in their representations to the Pay
Commission have stated that the concept of “Equal work and equal pay” as
enunciated by Para 10 pf Army Instruction 1014 dated 4th December
1923 is getting violated in their case while working alongside with Services
personnel in various organisations of the MoD as the latter are paid more pay
and allowances for executing the same job compared to their civilian
counterparts. To reinforce the point it has been pointed out that while
Executive Engineer (Senior Time Scale/Junior Administrative Grade) currently
draws pay and allowances of Rs 68, 000 per month, his defence counterpart viz
Major/Lt Colonel draws pay and allowances of Rs 1, 34, 000 per month while
being co-located. They have also questioned financial propriety of getting
same work done at higher cost by service personnel. The Commission may kindly
be apprised of the facts in this regard and the approach of the Ministry in
this regard.
|
The
service conditions and nature of the job of Service Personnel and Defence
Civilians are totally different. Terms of engagement of service personnel
also differ from that of Defence Civilians. Moreover, Service Personnel and
the Civilians are recruited through different recruitment processes and
examinations. The duties/responsibilities assigned to both the streams are
not comparable. Hence, Ministry if of the view that the concept of ‘Equal Pay
and Equal Work’ in this case is not feasible.
Apart
from the above, civilian engineering cadres of the Defence Establishments
have parity with their counterparts in other Central Government
Establishments.
|
||
8
|
Trade Rationalisation: - The Services, in the
Joint services Memorandum to the Pay Commission (in Para 4.1.16 to 4.1.27)
have sought upgradation to Group X from revised Group Y on fulfilling either
(i) completion of 8/12/15 years of service or (ii) successful completion of
diploma of minimum of one year duration or minimum one year of organised
training at the level of unit which may be cumulative and not necessarily
continuous. What is the view of the Ministry on this pay upgradation proposal
of the Services?
|
Prior
to 5th CPC, trades were divided into five groups i.e A to E. The 5th
CPC recommended reduction to four groups i.e A to D. Subsequently, in1997,
the Government accepted three pay groups i.e X, Y and Z based on entry
qualifications. The 6th Pay Commission recommended merging Group Z
trades into Group Y. Accordingly, the trades are at present divided into
Group X and Y.
Post
6th CPC trade rationalisation was carried out based on job
content, wherein, common trades were merged, obsolete trades deleted and
overall trades reduced. Accordingly, number of trades have been reduced from
194 to 123 in the Indian Army. At present only 27 (22%) trades are in Pay
Group ‘X.’ However this amounts to
approximately 2.86% of JCOs /ORs strength (population) of the Indian Army.
The balance 96 (78%) trades amounting to 97.14% population of the Indian Army
falls under “Y” pay group.
The
personnel in Group ‘X’ are entitled to ‘X’ Group pay of Rs 1400/-. The basis
and only criteria for entitlement of ‘X’ group pay is entry education QR of
the trade i.e. to have diploma in related field on enrolment or to acquire
the same while in service.
Promotional Avenues for Group ‘Y’
(i)
The minimum entry of an OR is Sepoy. Subsequently, a Sepoy gets promoted to
the next higher rank in the sequence of Naik, Havildar, Naib Subedar, Subedar
and Subedar Major subject to availability of vacancies in the trade and on
achieving laid QR such as MR std, Edn, ACR, Med, Age, Discipline including
promotion cadres where applicable.
(ii)
However, promotion of certain trades in Soldier Tradesman category in Group
‘Y’ is restricted upto the rank of Havildar. It is pertinent to mention that there exists no provision of upgradation
from ‘Y’ to ‘X’ pay group on promotion.
(iii)
The stagnation period for promotion to the higher ranks varies amongst different
trades and arms/services. The average period (years) for promotion to the
next ranks is given below: -
(aa) Naik 8.38
(ab) Havildar 12.83
(ac) Nb Subedar 20.27
(ad) Subedar 23.89
(ae) Subedar Major 27.73
Functional justification for the proposal
(i)
Growth and career progression are severely inhibited by external factors as
promotions are based on cadre strength of a trade and there are limited
opportunities for specialisation. In addition, there is no provision to move
into an upper group after attaining higher qualifications and experience. As
such trade rationalisation was necessary to review and restructure existing
trades in view of the large number of changes which have taken place since
the trades were originally evolved. There was also a need to alleviate
existing inter-service disparities.
(ii)
The basic and only criteria for entitlement of ‘X’ group pay is entry
education QR of the trade i.e. to have diploma in related field on enrolment
to acquire the same while in service. No weightage/considerations are given
to other aspects related to the trade such as threat tolife or high risk
profile, working environment/difficult terrain, leadership for qualification
of ‘X’ pay group.
(iii)
Soldiers of combat arms in the Army performing similar type of jobs are the
lifeline of battle. Their abilities in terms of skills with weapons/weapons
systems, human resource management, administration and leadership in
challenging an dangerous situations are unique. Yet, ironically, they have
the lowest recognition in the civil vis-à-vis technical/skilled trades.
Modern warfare requires intelligence and acumen of high order to be able to
operate sophisticated weapon systems. Combat soldiers use weapons with high
skill capability and as such there can be no parallel for their trade in the
civil. Any effort to find comparison may not yield results and yet these
soldiers need to be compensated, as their attrition in war and fatal casualty
rates are highest as compared to personnel in other professions.
(iv)
In the Armed Forces there are large number of trades, particularly of combat
soldiers, who cannot acquire diploma, as there is no equivalent qualifications
in civil. This deprives 97% of soldiers for entitlement of ‘X’ pay group
throughout their service even though they continue to sharpen their combat
skills and leadership traits by attending courses in schools of instructions,
fmn/units and other training curriculum from time to time. Since the JCOs/ORs
cannot be spared for training for long duration, structured training events
at the level of fmn/units/trg ests and experience gathered over years of
service have been considered in the service criteria for upgradation to Gp X
at 08, 12 and 15 yrs of service which would qualify JCOs/ORs to be eligible
for Gp ‘X’ pay. This proposal will be motivating for combat soldiers and will
extend tangible benefits which are commensurate to their counterparts in pay
group ‘X.’
Service
HQ had submitted a proposal to MoD on this issue, [involving financial
implications of Rs 1403.44 crore (one time) and recurring implication of Rs
0.21 crore.] The matter was examined in detail in consultation with Defence
(Finance). Defence (Finance) had advised that the Services HQ may take up the
case with the next Pay Commission. However, the Services HQ contended that
the issue of who should form part of a particular trade or who should move to
a higher trade will not get addressed by the Pay Commission and again
requested for favourable consideration of the proposal. It was however opined
by this Ministry that VI CPC had merged the Y and Z Groups and the present
proposal of AHQ is to upgrade eventually from ‘Y’ to ‘X’ Group at various intervals
within a span of 15 years, in other words, this tantamount to de facto merger
of ‘X’ and ‘Y’ Groups over a period of time. This needs to be examined in
detail by the VII CPC as the merger of Y and Z Groups was considered and
recommended by the VI CPC.
Thereafter,
the proposal was referred to Ministry of Finance. Upon examination of the
matter, MoF advised on 03.09.2014 that the matter should be referred to the
VII CPC being the expert body for taking a holistic view.
The
proposal of the Services HQ to make provision for upgradation of JCOs/ORs
from Group ‘Y’ to Group ‘X’ based on Point Rating System and length of
service as explained in Para 4.1.22 to 4.1.23 of JSM may help in increasing
motivation levels of JCOs/ORs. Accordingly, the VII CPC may like to consider
the proposal.
|
||
9
|
Common Pay Scale for each service like JCOs/ORs: The Services, in the
Joint Services Memorandum to the Pay Commission, have raised the issue of
Common Pay Scale for all in service pre-2006 JCOs/ORs of the three services.
They have stated that in terms of recommendations of the Sixth CPC there has
been a re-organisation of JCOs/ORs in two groups (X & Y) from earlier
existing three groups (X, Y and Z) by upgrading the entry level minimum
qualification of the Z Group from Matriculation to 10+2 and merging it with
the Y Group. Further, Groups X and Y have been given a common pay scale since
01.01.2006 in PB-1 and 2 and same grade pay, with one distinguishing element
of pay viz X-pay to X Group. It is stated that the implementation of this
recommendation by the Government has resulted in situations where seniors in
Y Group earlier drawing more total pay compared to juniors in X Group are now
drawing less pay. In order to resolve such cases, the Services have suggested
that pay of all Group Y and Z JCOs/ORs who joined prior to 1.1.2006 should be
fixed in Fifth CPC scales of X Group and the pay so fixed may then be mapped
into Sixth CPC common pay scales. It is understood that the matter relating
to Common Pay Scales for in-service JCOs/ORs is a matter that is under the
examination of the Ministry of Defence. The final outcome of such examination
may kindly be intimated to Pay Commission.
|
This
issue alongwith other issues, was raised by the Services in 2008, after submission
of report of the 6th CPC. The matter was then examined in detail
in consultation with Defence (Finance). The
issue was recommended by the Ministry to the Committee of Secretaries in May
2008. The proposal was however, not favoured.
Subsequently,
Services raised certain issues as an anomaly. This issue was one of them. The
matter was examined in consultation with CGDA/Defence (Finance).
Meanwhile
as per directions of the Prime Minister, a Committee headed by Cabinet
Secretary (with Secretaries of Defence, ESW, Personnel and Expenditure and
Principal Secretary (PMO) as its members) was constituted in July 2012 to
look into and provide suitable recommendations on certain issues of relevance
to Defence Personnel and Ex-Servicemen. The common pay scale for in-service
PBORs was one of the five pay related issues.
The
Committee submitted its report in August 2012. After detailed examination, in
para 27.2 of the report, the Committee noted that “the proposal of Defence Forces has several complexities and also
involves a deviation from the basic principles adopted by the Sixth Pay
Commission for pay fixation of those in service on 01.01.2006. The basic
principles followed for JCOs/ORs are the same as for other Government
employees, In the circumstances, the Committee is unable to make a
recommendation on the representation and is of the view that this issue
should be referred to the next Pay Commission as and when it is set up, for
consideration. In this context, in view of the fact that similar demands have
been raised by other section of employees, its examination will have to be
done on a holistic basis.”
After
acceptance of the recommendations of the Committee, the matter has already
been referred to the 7th CPC.
As
it has implications for civilian employees also, this matter may be addressed
in a holistic manner by the 7th CPC.
|
||
OTHERS
|
||||
10
|
Civilianisation of certain organisations under the
Ministry:
- It has been brought to the attention of the Commission that certain
organisations under the Ministry of Defence or branches therein are carrying
out functions which are entirely or to a substantial degree of a civilian
nature. Some examples of these are the Military Engineering Service (MES),
Accounts Branch of Air Force etc. In this regard the 5th Pay Commission
recommended the gradual civilianisation inter alia of the Military
Engineering Service, Account Branch of the Air Force. The Commission may
kindly be apprised of the view of the Ministry in this regard.
|
The
issue is purely an administrative issue. The Government can take a decision
on the manning of the cadres as per operational and administrative
requirements.
|
||
11
|
NFU and One Rank One Pension: - The Non-Functional
Upgradation provides that whenever any Indian Administrative Service officer
of the State or 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 members of
service, who are senior to such IAS officers by two years or more and have
not so far been promoted to that grade, shall be appointed in the same grade
on non-functional basis from the date of posting of the IAS officer in that
particular grade. In the Joint Services Memorandum, the Defence Services have
sought granting NFU to Defence Officers. Non-Functional Upgradation will
involve upgrading the concerned officer to a scale of pay which is at the
next higher level.
The
proposed scheme of One Rank One Pension envisages uniform pension to be paid
to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with same length of
service irrespective of their date of retirement. In this context, has the
Ministry taken a view on how the pension of of officers would get regulated
if the demand for NFU which entails higher non-functional upgradation over
and above the existing (and correspondingly pay of the next higher rank) is
accepted?
|
In
so far as the issue of NFU is concerned, the Ministry’s comment are as
against Para No. 2 above.
Modalities
for implementation of ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) are yet to be finalised.
As such it would be premature to take a view as to how the pension of
officers would get regulated if the demand of NFU which entails a higher
non-functional upgradation, over and above the existing rank (and
correspondingly pay of the next higher rank) is accepted.
|
||
12
|
Participation of Defence Forces in Central Staffing
Scheme:
- In the Joint Services Memorandum, the Defence Services have sought to
include Defence Forces as one of the participating services for appointment
to posts of Director and above in Central Government under Central Staffing
Scheme, as admissible to All India Services and Group ‘A’ Services. The
Commission may kindly be apprised of the view of the Ministry in this
regard.
|
At
the outset it is stated that the issue of participation of the Defence
services in the Central Staffing scheme in the Central Government admissible
to All India Services and Group ‘A’ Central Services involves a conscious
decision at the highest level in the Government of India on this concept. While
doing so, it has to be kept in view that job requirements of civilian
administration and the armed forces are totally different. They are recruited
ad trained differently. Apart from this, the armed forces are already facing
acute shortage of officers at different levels.
It
is added here that central staffing scheme envisages filling up of the posts
in the Government of India by borrowing officers from the All India Services
and participating Group ‘A’ Services. The cardinal principle being that all officers
who are so borrowed will serve the Government of India on deputation and
thereafter return to their parent cadre. The raison d’etre of such scheme is
the Centre’s need for fresh inputs at senior levels in policy planning,
formulation of policy and implementation from diverse sources viz the All
India Services and participating organised Group ‘A’ Services.
Moreover,
under the Central Staffing Scheme, officers belonging to All India Services
and Group ‘A’ participating Organised Services are eligible to be appointed
at the level of DS/Director and above. However, in Armed Forces, there is no
classification of Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ and only defined classification in
the Armed Forces is Commissioned and Non-Commissioned/Junior Commissioned
officers. Moreover, the Defence Forces officers are governed by their
respective Acts (Army Act, Navy Act, and Air Force Act) and a number of
issues relating to discipline, pay & allowances, command & control
etc will have to be resolved before armed forces officers are allowed to
participate in the Central Staffing Scheme. Further, the move will also have
ramifications for officers of CAPFs who will raise similar demands.
It
is added here that a number of Service Personnel are already serving of
deputation in various civil organisations. However, Ministry of Defence has
no objection to the intake of limited number of Service Officers under
lateral movement based on their expertise in the specific areas. It is,
however, mentioned that DOP&T is the nodal Department on such issues.
Therefore, DOP&T may take a view on this issue.
|
||
13
|
Superannuation age of PBORs: - With regard to
PBORs, it has been observed that the age of superannuation in the Army, Navy,
and Air Force varies widely in equivalent ranks. Annexe A brings out the
position. Is the Ministry engage in any review/rationalisation on the age of
superannuation of PBORs for the three Services? What is the existing
international practice with regard to the superannuation of similarly placed
personnel among the Defence Forces in comparable countries?
|
The
difference in superannuation ages amongst the three Service stems from the
unique roles and operating environment of these forces. The ages of
superannuation has been reviewed periodically over the years based on
operational and administrative requirements and modified when required. As
regard practice in foreign armies, it is submitted that there does not exist
a standard dispensation and superannuation ages have been tailored to the
particular operational requirements of individual countries.
|
||
14
|
Lateral Entry of service personnel in Defence
Civilian Organisations and CAPFs: - A scheme for lateral shift of defence
personnel to Central Armed Police Forces and Defence Civilian Organisations
was envisaged in Para 2.4.6 of the Report of the Sixth CPC. In the Joint
Services Memorandum , the Defence Services have stated that despite positive
recommendations of Central Pay Commissions and endeavours of the Government
in the past for lateral movement of defence forces personnel, neither the
policy on the subject has been enunciated nor has the implementation been
effected. Services in their Joint Services memorandum have demanded
implementation of the said proposition and stated that lateral shift would
make career of Short Service Commissioned Officers and JCOs/ORs attractive
and results in saving to Government on account of training and pension. The
Commission may kindly be apprised of the view of the Ministry in this regard.
|
Lateral
transfer of service personnel into Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) was
also recommended by the Kargil Review Committee, GoM on Reviewing National
Security System besides the V and VI CPCs. The matter has continuously been
pursued with Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). However, the issue remains
unresolved for want of favourable response from MHA.
MHA
has to take a view on this issue.
As
for civil organisations are concerned, SSC are given age relaxation for entry
into the civil employment.
|
||
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
|
||||
Ministry of Defence is also requested to furnish the
following data/information to the Pay Commission
|
||||
15 (a)
|
The sanctioned strength of select ranks of the Army, Air Force, and
Navy in the format at Annexe B may kindly be furnished
|
Data
containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
|
||
15 (b)
|
The sanctioned strength of services personnel as on 01.01.2014 in
various branches of the Defence Forces as per format in Annexe C may kindly
be furnished.
|
|||
15 (c)
|
Field posting period as a percentage of entire service in various
branches of Defence Forces as per the format in Annex D may kindly be
furnished.
|
Data
containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
|
||
15 (d)
|
In response to Secretary, Seventh Pay Commission’s letter of 2 May
2014 seeking information on personnel, Ministry of Defence has stated that as
on 01.01.2014 there are 11.84 lakh personnel in Army, 1.52 lakh personnel in
the Air Forces and over 69,000 personnel in the Navy. Posting profile of
these personnel (in all groups) in various branches of Defence Forces as on
01.01.2014 may kindly be furnished as per the format in Annex E.
|
Data
containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
|
||
15 (e)
|
Number of permanent moves for Service officers in the entire career
as per format in Annex F may kindly be furnished.
|
Data
containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
|
||
15 (f)
|
Defence versus Civilian personnel in various Branches of the Armed
Forces as on 01.01.2014 as per format in Annex G may kindly be furnished.
|
Data
containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
|
||
15 (g)
|
List of training institutions in Defence Services by order of
importance for tri0services and individually for the Army, Air Force, and
Navy may kindly be furnished. Training Institution(s) tasked with training
and induction of Officers in each Armed Force may be indicated.
|
Data
containing inputs received from TRIPAS (Tri Services Pay Staff) is enclosed.
|
||
