Pay Band-4 confirmed. Lt Cols to be placed senior to Dy Secys to Govt of India but junior to Directors Govt of India

Well folks.

My inputs suggest that Pay Band-4 (Rs 37400 - 67000) is finally through albeit with a Grade Pay of Rs 8000. All Lt Cols at 13 years of service are to be upgraded to PB-4.

Lt Cols, Wg Cdrs (IAF) and Cdrs (IN) have been placed higher than the grade of Deputy Secy to Govt of India (erstwhile Rs 12000-16500 scale / now Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay Rs 7600) but lower than Directors to Govt of India (Pay Band-4 with Grade Pay Rs 8700).

The minimum pension of Lt Cols who retired prior to 2006 is however likely to be jacked up above Directors GoI.

The basic minimum pension of pre-6th CPC retirees of the rank of Lt Col is expected to be Rs 25700. Basic pension of pre-6th CPC Directors (GoI) is Rs 23050.

Again, I still would suggest readers to take the above with a pinch of salt till the final official announcement.

Tango Alpha Delta Alpha Orders

TA DA Entitlement orders have finally been issued by the MoD.

You may access / download the same by clicking here.

In case of any queries on this subject, please post your comments under this blog-post so that a cross-section of readers can join in and enlighten us all. Though all are welcome to write/email to me anytime on any subject, individual mails on the modalities of these orders may please be avoided unless something absolutely pertinent is to be pointed out :-)

Thank You and a Very Happy New Year to everyone. See you in Two-O-O-Nine.

Some important 6th CPC clarifications for those with 'doubts' :-)

On CAA : Some authorities have raised doubts in respect of disabled personnel in receipt of Constant Attendance Allowance (CAA). It has been stated by some that CAA at new rates (Rs 3000 per month) shall be admissible after 2nd September 2008 and not before that. The said stand is incorrect. CAA is very much admissible with effect from 1st January 2006 and the fact has already been clarified by Govt of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare vide an Office Memorandum dated 3rd October 2008. Also, even personnel who retired prior to 1st January 2006 would be amenable to CAA at new rates w.e.f 1st January 2006. No DA is admissible on CAA though.

On double pension : Some of our staff members really suffer from an interpretational malaise. After the 6th CPC, a minimum floor ceiling of Rs 3500/- has been applied to pensioners meaning thereby that no pensioner would be granted a pension below Rs 3500 per month. Pension is to be stepped up to Rs 3500 level in case it turns out to be less than the said amount. In certain cases, individuals are in receipt of two pensions – one from the military and one from the civil, or two pensionary elements such as ‘service element of disability pension’ from the military and normal service pension from the civil. Many a times a combination of both basic pensions (civil and military) turns out to be less than Rs 3500 and some of our great minds dealing with pension including those in banks were of the opinion that the total of both pensions would be stepped up to Rs 3500/- and a stepped up total basic pension of Rs 3500 would be admissible to such cases. This is blatantly incorrect. It is made clear that both pensions would have to be treated individually and both would have to be separately stepped up to Rs 3500 each leading to a total basic pension of Rs 7000 per month. Services rendered in two services in two capacities have to be treated independent of each other. The same has been adequately clarified by the MoD in the ‘pre-2006 pension’ letter dated 11th November 2008 too, and it takes half a brain to interpret the provision so clearly mentioned in Para 11 :

“11. In the case of pensioners in receipt of civil and military pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3,500/- will not apply to the two pensions taken together and the individual pension will be governed by respective Pension Rules. Accordingly, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3,500/- will apply individually to the civil and military pension. In case a pensioner is in receipt of pension as well as a family pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 3500/- will apply individually to such pension and family pension.”

I fail to understand as to how on earth was it possible to interpret it differently that what it apparently means. I hope these troubles end at the teething stage and do not go beyond it !

In a lighter vein, the above is pretty simple to understand and not like the following military jargon for Combatant Cooks :

"Attention is drawn to the undesirability of the overlapping of functions in the preparation of liquid comestibles in catering establishments. It has been observed and established that in cases of reduplication among mess executives a 'deduction in nutritional value and palatability’ has resulted.”

An old proverb has it in six words: "Too many cooks spoil the broth." :-) (Thank You Miljokes)

Misc. (Not a very long wait now !)

Just a short wait now before the GoM recommendations are finally brought into motion. Hold on to your wits.

Whew. Some queries keep pouring in continuously.

I’ll attempt to clarify these.

Yes, DA is admissible on MSP, Chapter closed. Don’t know who is spreading this disinformation about DA not being admissible on MSP.

Yes, pension calculation of post-2006 pensioners is underway. It is taking time since unlike pre-06 pensioners there are no pension tables for post 2006 retirees. The pension of such retirees is basically 50% of last drawn / average of 10 months' emoluments and for that the office of PCDA(Pensions) Allahabad has to wait for data from agencies such as CDA(O). So hang on there for a little while, things are moving and they are moving fast, do not worry.

Yes, a discount of 20% on broadband net usage and subscription is available to defence officers and pensioners too. In fact, it is available to all serving and retired govt and PSU employees. Any doubts should be dispelled by having a look at this BSNL circular.

Thank You.

Determination of seniority between cadres on the basis of ‘Grade Pay’ recommended by the 6th CPC. Why was the system changed to ‘only within a cadre’?

As all of us know, the 6th CPC had made Grade Pay the bench mark of inter-se equivalence and seniority between different services and cadres.

But after the Cabinet decision, it was clearly stated in the resolution that Grade Pay shall only determine seniority within a cadre. The 6th CPC recommendation was hence modified by the Cabinet.

Ever wondered why this happened ??

This simply happened to maintain the existing parities and equations within various organisations and also to maintain the superiority of certain services over the others.

Let me elaborate. Let us take the example of the district administration. In a district, the District Magistrate (also known as Deputy Commissioner / Collector) is the head of the civil administration and the Superintendent of Police (also known as Senior Superintendent of Police in certain states) functions under the District Magistrate. The Police is just one of the various departments under the DM. The DM can be an officer of the Senior Time Scale (STS), Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) or in rare cases of the Selection Grade (SG), the same goes for the district Police Chief. Now it many-a-times happens that the district Police Chief is of a senior grade (and higher Grade Pay) than the DM and in such a case the DM would have been automatically declared lower in status in case of acceptance of GP equivalence between cadres. Hence purely to maintain such superiority, the system was changed by the Cabinet. Similarly at a more senior level, the Home Secretary, who is usually an officer of the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in a State may have to exercise supervisory functions over the DGP (Apex Grade or HAG +) and acceptance of the Pay Commission recommendation would have meant dilution of the State Home Secretaries over IPS officers actually their superiors. The same applies elsewhere too. College Lecturers would become senior to Directors of Education or Public Instruction (DPI) which the administrators would never want, Doctors would become senior to administrators of the Health department etc. To give you a live example, In Chandigarh, the Chief Engineer of the Chandigarh Housing Board is considered junior to an IAS officer of the JTS (GP Rs 5400) posted as the Joint CEO of the same board. This was the actual reason why the original recommendation was tweaked and tinkered into something else.

But the practical situation is otherwise. Notwithstanding the stipulation of Grade Pay determining seniority only within a cadre, it becomes the de facto determinant of status, seniority and standing in practice. In cases of deputation to specific posts, it is the GP of officers of different services which is usually taken into account. In case of entitlements, again GP matters irrespective of service. I think it is high time this seniority system is set aside altogether except for Constitutional posts. The way ahead may be to give a fillip to specialists and slowly phase out the generalists. And this applies not just to the IAS but elsewhere too.

Anomalies addressed (To an extent...?)

There may be some good news in the offing.

Lt Cols stand placed in Pay Band 4, grade pay modality unknown but there are hints that the grade pay has been granted at an amount between Rs. 7600 and Rs. 8700. A percentage of Lt Gens has been upgraded to HAG+ grade and PBOR have been granted enhanced pensionary weightage.

Finer modalities and official announcements not yet made so take it with a pinch of salt. More when authentic information comes my way. Also I would request readers that we should all hold our horses and our 'opinions' till things come out in black & white. There are bound to be slips but we'll take them all one by one. There are also indications that equivalence / seniority of the defence services vis-a-vis civil services may be dumped for good. Chill, relax, have faith, the Chapter is not yet closed my friends...

Old Wine, New Bottle, New Brand

Readers of this blog would be glad to know that this blog is now on a new, simpler, better and easier address www.indianmilitary.info

Of course, the old address http://www.indianmilitarybenefits.blogspot.com/ would remain operational and valid till eternity and would also lead and get re-directed to the new one. In case of any teething technical glitch in reaching the new address, please visit the old domain name.

I would also like to inform that this blog would retain its original interactive format and would not be converted into a regular website notwithstanding its new domain name. I have tinkered a bit with the layout though – added a 3 column template for reducing clutter, added an auto-refreshing chat box and a new link list. Visitors can decide whether they want the earlier (faster) non-auto-refreshing c-box or the new auto-refreshing chat box.

Any other suggestions regarding the layout are welcome and would be appreciated. Use the comments tab of this post for the same. Any ideas for adding new widgets or features on the blog or for removal of existing ones are also welcome. Decision could be taken by a consensus.

Thanks for your time. Happy browsing.

Released SS Officers may be recruited for a new contingency force in Mumbai

-

There are indications that released Short Service Commissioned Officers may be recruited in a new contingency force being raised for emergent situations by the State of Maharashtra. The force has been tentatively (and fancily) named ‘Force ONE’.

Ex-SS Officers of the military would most probably be recruited at ACP / Addl DCP levels through the public service commission.

Released officers who after leaving the army are missing their uniforms (as it usually happens- as they say, the grass is always greener… :-) ) may keep their eyes and ears open for a formal announcement soon. Such officers who miss their uniforms also have an option of joining as Territorial Army (TA) volunteers with full protection of their rank and seniority. The ‘Force ONE’ news more or less stands confirmed now since the same has today been reported in a section of the media too.

-

Transport Allowance, LTC etc

-

Before I’m flooded with more emails :-) Here are three letters issued yesterday on the subject of LTC and Transport Allowance.

My schedule does not allow me to respond to individual queries on such issues through email hence you may post your questions as comments on this post which can be replied to by a cross-section of readers, a method which also leads to a quality addition to the knowledge base of all of us.

Authority for the newly introduced Transport Allowance

Letter on LTC

Letter on travel on LTC to North Eastern Regions


It was said by someone somewhere that govt employees can only avail the newly introduced LTC-80 scheme fares by IA and AI. That may not be the case. People should be free to avail any fare lower than the ones provided in the LTC-80 scheme subject to govt guidelines. In another welcome move, as also reported before, the central govt has removed campus/distance restriction for claiming transport allowance. The said allowance is Rs 3200, 1600, 600 for Officers, JCOs and OR respectively in A/A-1 cities and 1600, 800 and 400 in other cities. DA is also admissible on Transport Allowance. Happy driving and Happy travelling !!!

-

E.Q.U.A.L.I.T.Y

-

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost - Aristotle

I don’t think Aristotle’s words can ever turn true in our nation’s context though I sincerely feel that the Govt is going to shortly announce a package for the services.

Well, after the new scales were announced for university and college teachers, there has been a flood of queries about their modalities. In the past I’ve also received some queries on the nitty-gritty of pay progression into Pay Band-4 for services other than the military.

Keeping in view the deluge of such questions, I have attempted to make a basic comparative table providing rudimentary features of pay progression for the All India Services, the Group-A Civil Services, University & College teachers and of course the Defence Services.

You may click here to view the above mentioned table of comparison.

As Germans believe, the only real equality is in the cemetery.

-

First visible dent to status which was bound to happen : Direct 6th CPC fallout

-

Before I come to the main issue, a brief background.

So I laughed when I saw in the 6th CPC report that there was an ‘established relativity’ between a DIG of Police and a Brigadier.

There had been none, relativity that is. There was nothing common between a DIG and a Brig except the rank badges. More so since in the late 1950s when the MHA had upgraded the rank badges of IPS officers, in a meeting between senior functionaries of the MoD and them, MHA representatives had promised that though they had granted an Ashoka and three stars to a DIG, the rank badges would have no bearing on the actual status of a Brig. Clearly there could be no comparison since 100% of IPS officers attain the rank of DIG in 14 years of service including training whereas less than 7% make it to Brig in the defence services and that too in 28 years of service excluding training.

If the 6th CPC had talked of relativity, here is what the actual relativity was till the 6th CPC :

At the time of independence, according to Governor General of India’s notification No F/49/9/35-Public (G), a Colonel was placed on Serial No 38 for status, a DIG on Number 45 and a Lt Col on Number 47. Hence a DIG was 7 steps lower than a Colonel and 2 steps higher than a Lt Col. At the most recent stage of 5th CPC scales, the starting pay of a DIG (Rs 16,400) was sandwiched between a Lt Col (Rs 15,100) and a Col (Rs 17,100).

The 6th CPC and subsequently the CoS however equated a DIG with a Brig (both granted a Grade Pay of Rs 8900). The 6th CPC and elements in the MoF also emphasized that they had not disturbed any status equation and even earlier a DIG was considered equal to a Brig.

How wrong they were. A recent example was of Scheduled Banks in India who have an appointment known as the Chief Security Officer (CSO) in Senior Management Grade Scale -5 (SMGS-V) the requirement for which was that the applicant should be either a Colonel or a DIG.

After the 6th CPC, the same advertisement has been issued with the requirement that the applicant should be either a Brigadier or a DIG.

And they said that the 6th CPC has merely maintained the existing relativities. Below is proof as to how on the contrary existing and established relativities have been blatantly disturbed only after the 6th CPC :

Here is a pre-CPC (2006) advertisement for the post of CSO of a Bank with a rank requirement of Colonel / DIG

Here is a post-CPC (2008) advertisement for the post of CSO of a Bank with a rank requirement of Brigadier / DIG

Isn’t the slide visible to the naked eye ?

-

While some wait, Doctors can rejoice…

-

Many readers may not know, a new career progression system known as the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (DACP) has already been implemented for all Medical / Dental Doctors appointed under the Central Govt.

Under this scheme, following shall be the career progression structure for General Duty Doctors appointed under any Ministry / Department of the Central Govt :

On appointment : Pay Band-3 (Rs 15600-39100) with Grade Pay of Rs 5400 (equal to Lieutenant after the 6th CPC)

After 4 years of total service : Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs 6600 (equal to Major after the 6th CPC)

After 9 years of total service : Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs 7600 (equal to Lt Col after the 6th CPC)

After 13 years of total service : Pay Band-4 (Rs 37400-67000) with Grade Pay of Rs 8700 (equal to a full Colonel after 6th CPC)

After 20 years of total service : Pay Band-4 with Grade Pay of Rs 10000 (equal to Maj Gen after 6th CPC)

The following (believe your eyes – this is no joke) shall be the career progression for specialists under any Ministry / Department of the Central Govt :

On appointment : Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs 6600 (equal to Major after the 6th CPC)

After 2 years of total service : Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs 7600 (equal to Lt Col after the 6th CPC)

After 6 years of total service : Pay Band-4 with Grade Pay of Rs 8700 (equal to full Col after the 6th CPC)

After 13 years of total service : Pay Band-4 with Grade Pay of Rs 10000 (equal to Maj Gen after 6th CPC)

While this has already been implemented for all Ministries and Departments of the Central Govt, instructions regarding Army Medical Corps and Army Dental Corps have not yet been issued. There is no reason why this should not be implemented on a non-functional basis (pay progression without rank progression) in the AMC/ADC too since the DACP Govt of India letter in Para1 and Para 3 clearly states that it shall be extended to all Medical and Dental Doctors under the Central Govt not just in organised services but also including isolated posts. It is hoped that the office of DG AFMS would have taken note by now.

Readers desirous of having a first hand look at the said Govt of India letter (or those who do not believe their eyes) may do so by clicking here. (Courtesy : Ministry of Health & Family Welfare)

-

From 'US NEWS' : Blocked by bureaucrats. Sounds familiar ??

-


Well this one was sent by our friend Pragmatic :-)

Surely should ring a bell in us Indians too.

It appears on USNEWS.COM and the complete piece can be read here.

When You're Blocked By the Office Bureaucrats

Michael Wade

Regardless of your rank, you should never underestimate the power of others to circumvent, delay, and block your decisions.

Some classic bureaucratic smothering techniques are:

Mistakes. “The plans for the kick-off were sent to Brussels instead of the Boston office. Don’t worry, we’ll get matters straightened out.” Eventually.

Inflated Estimates. “That will take at least three days.” (That = one phone call + two hours of work.)

Non-Agreement Agreement. “When we said yes, it meant that we understood you, not that we agreed.” And no, these individuals don't speak another language.

Convenient Memory Lapses. “Gee, that must have slipped my mind.” All undesirable instructions slip the mind.

Parsing. “When you said that you wanted an update on the status of the move, I thought you simply wanted the date of the move.”

Musical Chairs. “Rex is no longer in charge of that project. Ellen now has it. She’s in Europe for three weeks. We can’t find her notes.”

Timing. “We meant to send that out two months ago, but felt the recipients might confuse it with the Marketing Report so we didn’t mail it. Should we have told you?”

Barrier Collusion. “Our colleagues in the Cleveland office found a reason why that won’t work. They are opposing any action until upper management has reviewed it.”

Sandwiching. “We’ve analyzed the situation and have produced three possible courses of action. You’ll note two extremes. Our recommendation is the moderate one in the middle.”

Michael Wade writes Execupundit.com, an eclectic combination of management advice, observations, and links. A partner with the Phoenix firm of Sanders Wade Rodarte Consulting Inc., he has advised private and public-sector organizations for more than 30 years.

-

Great, now CDA authorities goof up and they goof up well – they send incorrect pension tables to banks !!?!!

-

Don’t ask me how this happened. Don’t even try to rack your brain; you’ll come to a big nought.

Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, had issued the pension sanction letter for pre-2006 pensioners on 11 November 2008. The said Govt letter covered both PBOR as well as officers. Pension fixation tables based on old basic pension and rank were also enclosed with this letter. As we all know by now, basic pension is either to be fixed by

Multiplying the old basic pension by 2.26

OR

@ 50% of lower end of pay band + Grade Pay + MSP

whichever of the two is higher.

An annexure (Annexure-II) was also enclosed with the letter dated 11 Nov 08 which detailed the calculation based on the second option for different ranks. By way of the second option, the pension of Major Generals and Lt Generals was coming to be lower than that of Brigadiers (Rs 26150) since MSP is not admissible to Maj Gens and Lt Gens. As a result, the pension for Maj Gens and Lt Gens was also stepped up to Brig level because as per policy, senior ranks cannot be placed in lower pension grades than a junior rank. Consequently, as per Annexure-II of the letter, the pensions for the ranks of Brig, Maj Gen and Lt Gen were all placed at Rs 26150 and the same was correctly reflected in Annexure-II of the Govt letter.

The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) or PCDA(P) in short, has also floated detailed guidelines to all banks across India alongwith the said Govt letter dated 11 Nov 2008 but surprisingly, the Annexure-II attached with the said letter in the PCDA(P) circular is different than the one released by the Govt. Same letter but different pension scales !!

To take an example, in Annexure-II of the Govt letter dated 11 Nov 2008, the pension of Brigs, Maj Gens and Lt Gens is mentioned as Rs 26150 after completion of 28+ years of service. However it is mentioned as Rs 26150 for Brig but Rs 24566 for Maj Gen and Lt Gen in the same Annexure-II of the same Govt letter dated 11 Nov 2008 forwarded by PCDA(P) to banks. There are many other inconsistencies too.

You don’t believe me : Click here to have a look at this. The table on the top is the one enclosed with the actual govt letter and the table on the bottom is the table of the same govt letter floated to banks with a covering circular from the PCDA(P).

You still don’t believe me. OK, then download the pre-2006 pensioners Govt Letter No 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) Dated 11 November 2008 from the official Ministry of Defence website at http://mod.nic.in/6thCPC/6thCPC-Index.htm and then download the same letter from the PCDA(P) website at http://www.pcdapension.nic.in/6cpc/default.htm

Now compare the two and take a look at Annexure-II at Page 93, can you spot the difference ?

And again, please don’t ask me how this happened ! I have no explanation whatsoever. Do not also ask me as to what happened to the direction of Govt of India vide Para 22 of the letter which ordained 'immediate' and 'expeditious' payment to pensioners. Of course all this is not deliberate, but lack of application of mind or lack of coordination, whatever, take your pick !

-

On popular demand : Complete fixation tables for Colonel (Time Scale)

-

As published by me, complete fixation tables with stagnation modalities in the form of Corrigendum to SAI 3/S/08 were issued yesterday (10th December 2008) by the Ministry of Defence. It may be recalled that as per Special Army Instruction 3/S/08, the rank of Colonel (Time Scale) has been granted the same pay band (PB-4), Grade Pay (Rs 8700) as well as status as enjoyed by a Colonel by Selection. Hence as far as comparison with civil posts is concerned, the rank of Col (TS) is equivalent to Colonel by Selection. The fixation tables should also bring good news for all Colonels (TS).

There were many emails requesting for a copy of the Corrigendum to SAI 3/S/08 and the complete fixation tables. Thanks again to my friend ‘D Square’, the same can be viewed and downloaded now by clicking here.

May I also request all readers / visitors again not to send me individual requests for calculation of fixation, arrears or pension. My profession does not allow me time to individually reply to such requests and queries. Emails other than ones seeking calculations are however most welcome.

Thank You


-

Fixation tables for Col (TS) issued. And secondly : yes it’s true, in a welcome move, PBOR of the three services can now purchase cars from CSD

-

Before I start with the main post, some news for Colonels (TS). Corrigendum to SAI 3/S/08 has been issued and complete tables including stagnation modalities have been forwarded by the MoD, and the fixation is not bad, happy counting !!! (Thanks to my friend 'D Square')

Now the main post. Consequent to some press reports, there was confusion amongst some establishments and retired personnel whether PBOR have actually been authorised the purchase of four-wheelers from CSD. The answer is in affirmative.

In a welcome move, PBOR have been included in the ‘entitled’ category for purchase of cars subject to some light restrictions.

The new rule shall be made applicable w.e.f 01 January 2009. JCOs and equivalent would be able to buy cars once in five years and for other ranks a seven year restriction has been imposed. A minimum service requirement of 15 years has also been imposed for both serving and retired PBOR wanting to purchase cars from CSD. Though I’m usually not cynical, in my humble (and personal) opinion, I feel we need to re-visit and reconsider this 15 year service requirement since it results in exclusion of personnel who are invalided out of service with disability / war Injury pension before completing 15 years. And of course there may be PBOR with lesser years of service who may want to purchase cars. Also I feel we need to be more magnanimous with our in-house policies like these and do away with such self-imposed policy fetters. But I guess with time such teething problems would be ironed out. A welcome start though.

The complete letter / authority and the requisite forms and procedure are available on the CSD website and can also be viewed and downloaded by clicking here.


-

If your bankers do not know, tell them that the entire pension of gallantry awardees is exempted from Income Tax

-


A Gallantry awardee retired Lieutenant General recently wrote to me that his bank was deducting Income Tax from his pension, he also enquired if gallantry awardees were indeed exempted from payment of Income Tax on their pensions.

The answer is in the positive. Income Tax is not to be paid on the entire pension of personnel who are recipients of "Param Vir Chakra", "Maha Vir Chakra", "Vir Chakra" or such other gallantry awards as the Central Government may specify by notification in the Official Gazette. Even family pension paid to the family of such gallantry awardees is exempted from IT. As earlier published in this blog, the entire pension of disability pensioners is also exempted from IT and more on it can be seen by clicking here.

Exemption of IT on pension and family pension of gallantry awardees was introduced by the Central Govt with effect from 1st of April 1999 by inserting a new sub-clause (18) to Section 10 of the Income Tax Act. The said amendment / insertion was introduced through the ‘Finance Act, 1999’.

Besides PVC, MVC and VrC, the following awards are also covered under IT Exemption as per Govt of India SRO 1048(E) 1 dated 24-11-2000 when awarded for gallantry :

Ashok Chakra

Kirti Chakra

Shaurya Chakra

Sarvottam Jeevan Raksha Padak

Uttam Jeevan Raksha Padak

Jeevan Raksha Padak

President's Police Medal for Gallantry

Police Medal for Gallantry

Sena / Nao Sena / Vayu Sena Medal

President's Police and Fire Services Medal for Gallantry

President's Fire Services Medal for Gallantry

Fire Services Medal for Gallantry

President's Home Guards and Civil Defence Medal for Gallantry

Home Guards and Civil Defence Medal for Gallantry

THE COMPLETE NOTIFICATION LISTING ALL AWARDS EXEMPTED FROM INCOME TAX CAN BE SEEN BY CLICKING HERE

Please inform your bank about Section 10(18) of the IT Act and the above mentioned notification by the Central Govt if you are a gallantry awardee pensioner / family pensioner and if still your bank is deducting IT from pension. If the bank does not cease and desist from deducting IT, then please inform the IT department and also file a Consumer Complaint in the District Consumer Redressal Forum of your district. In case IT has been deducted from your pension or you have paid IT on your pension any time after 2000, you may contact the IT department or your CA for initiating refund of the same.

-

Wages down the ages : A comparative analysis of Army and Indian Forest Service (UPDATED)

-


A lot has been said on this blog and elsewhere on the Indian Police Service and the Army. As remarked here earlier by a retired flag officer of the Indian Navy, the 6th CPC has been less than honest while visiting history. The historical tables on Page 73 have faced much flak here and elsewhere. Other than IPS, another service having close links with the military has been the Indian Forest Service which forms the triumvirate of ‘All India Services’ alongwith the IAS and IPS. Military and Forest Service Officers have enjoyed close and cordial ties through the ages, maybe it has something to do with the close proximity of the IMA and FRI, I don’t know :-). But here is how the salaries and pensions have compared through the Pay Coms with reference to the rank of Lt Col :
(Note : The Selection Grade of the Indian Forest Service is actually a time-scale based grade which is achievable by 100% Forest officers in 13 years of service)

Click here to see a (better) tabulated format of pay and pension comparison of the defence services with the Indian Forest Service

III CPC

BASIC PAY SCALE

Selection Grade of Indian Forest Service : Rs 1650-1800

Lt Col : Rs 1750 – 1950

BASIC PENSION

Selection Grade of Indian Forest Service : Rs 825

Lt Col : Rs 875

IV CPC

BASIC PAY SCALE

Selection Grade of Indian Forest Service : Rs 4100-5300

Lt Col : Rs 4700-5900

BASIC PENSION

Selection Grade of Indian Forest Service : Rs 2050

Lt Col : Rs 2350

V CPC

BASIC PAY SCALE

Selection Grade of Indian Forest Service : Rs 14300-18300

Lt Col : Rs 15100-18700

BASIC PENSION

Selection Grade of Indian Forest Service : Rs 7150

Lt Col : Rs 7550

VI CPC

BASIC PAY SCALE

Selection Grade of Indian Forest Service : Rs 37400-67000 + Grade Pay Rs 8700

Lt Col : Rs 15600-39100 + Grade Pay Rs 7600

BASIC PENSION

Selection Grade of Indian Forest Service : Rs 23050

Lt Col : Rs 17063

I Guess these were the tables that were required to be placed in the 6th CPC for a better idea of history !

-

Rule 49-O. Right to a negative vote ? Not quite

-

By now, most of readers of this blog must have received a chain mail stating that there is a right provided to every citizen under Article (sic) 49-O of the Constitution of India wherein voters can refrain from voting and if such voters exceed the number of votes of the winning candidate, then the winning candidate’s candidature gets cancelled and re-poll has to be ordered.

Well, the above is untrue and the email is a fake.

For starters, there is no Article 49-O in our Constitution. The said rumour emanates from Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules which can be seen by clicking here. The said Rule 49-O reads as below :

49-O. Elector deciding not to vote.—If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.

Hence this rule deals with persons who decide not to vote. But the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, nowhere provide any cancellation of candidature or negative declaration of result on the basis of this rule. There is no cancellation on the basis of Rule 49-O and there is no re-polling. Readers are advised and encouraged to read the complete rules to satisfy themselves.

Negative voting if introduced may be a debatable concept since just as voters may get swayed by unethical electoral tactics in regular voting, the same can also happen in negative voting resulting in a sway of voters towards negative votes through unethical enticement.

So people, do not get enthused by fake emails, the right to vote is the most potent tool in your hand, exercise it, and exercise it with due diligence. Vote you must.

-

An appeal to ex-serviceMEN organisations

-


The last few months have seen many Ex-Servicemen (or ESM) organisations in limelight, rightfully bringing into public domain the problems being faced by retired personnel of the three services.

One thing though. Lady Officers have been an integral part of the defence services since long. It started with the Army Medical Corps, then Short Service Commission in other Arms and Services and finally culminating into Permanent Commission for Lady Officers in some branches. In the above light, the term ‘Ex-Serviceman’ no longer holds ground and keeping in view the secular, multi-cultural and sensitised history of our forces, wouldn’t it be prudent to now adopt a gender-neutral term in lieu of ‘Ex-Servicemen’ ?

I respectfully propose the following as a replacement for ‘Ex-Servicemen’ :

Ex-Services

Ex-Servicemembers

Ex-Sainik

Veterans

Even the expanded form of the apex recognized veteran organisation, the IESL stands for the ‘Indian Ex-Services League’ and not ‘Indian Ex-Servicemen League’ as is widely believed.

The transition to the new terminology would be smooth and would also set a good precedent. For instance, if there is an organisation called the ‘National Ex-Servicemen Organisation’ (NESO), the said organisation can retain its abbreviated form by simply shifting to ‘National Ex-Services Organisation’ or ‘National Ex-Servicemembers Organisation’ (still NESO). The word ‘Veteran’ could be even better if acceptable since the negative sounding connotation of the term ‘Ex’ could then be avoided. It is just a humble thought, veteran organisations may consider it if deemed appropriate.

Thank You

-

Heartfelt condolences irrespective of colour of uniform and some more clarity on the NSG

-

Our hearts go out to all lives lost in the Mumbai terror attack irrespective of the colour of uniform. I was also pained to see some immature comments on this blog and elsewhere talking ill of policemen who were in the middle of the action and against Mr J K Dutt, DG NSG who was conducting most of the media briefing. The same immaturity was also shown by some others who said that it was not the Army but a Police Organisation (NSG) which deserved all credit.

Let me clarify.

The NSG comprises of two groups. The Special Action Group (SAG) which handles situations such as Mumbai and other anti-terror, anti-hijack and hostage rescue activities and the Special Ranger Group (SRG) which basically deals with VIP security.

The SAG in its entirety is constituted of Army personnel while the SRG comprises of personnel from the CPOs and also to a degree from the State Police Forces. Needless to say, the operation performed in Mumbai was by the SAG which purely comprises Army Personnel.

Now coming to Mr Jyoti Krishan Dutt. Being the DG NSG and the head of the organisation in thick of action, it was of course natural for him to have briefed the media and I don’t think he did a bad job. The officer is of the 1971 batch of the IPS and is also a recipient of the Police Medal for Gallantry. People who have left negative remarks for him may also have missed out the Sangram Medal ribbon for 1971 Indo-Pak war on his chest. Let us be more responsible in these times, let us not compare professionalism in different organisations, let us just hope that we are able to face this war collectively.

It is also necessary to promote initiative within the uniformed forces. When INS TABAR took on Somalian pirates, it was reported that certain elements in Delhi had castigated the Navy for not keeping them in picture, though later the Navy was rightfully given its pat.

The above reminds me of this situation : Click here for Black Humour on military initiative.

While the sacrifices of Maj Unnikrishnan, Mr Karkare and Hav Gajendra Singh have deservedly received our attention today, the death of Mr Ashok Kamte, another IPS officer of the 1989 batch who was cremated earlier was not much in the public eye. Mr Kamte, son of a Colonel and grandson of a former Police Chief of Maharashtra, was known to be a braveheart who had once physically taken on an MLA in Solapur. He had special attachment and fondness for the Army. He had also attended the Defence Services Staff College, Wellington.

May their souls rest in peace.

-

Rank Pay, anyone ??? (Updated)

-

Newsflash : Our hearts go out to the lives lost in Mumbai. The Army and the NSG have now officially taken over the Operations from the Police. Marcos were the first to arrive at the scene in the morning.

Rank Pay is dead, Long live the rank pay.

Well, as we all know by now, the downgradation of military ranks stems from the non-addition of rank pay into basic pay while laying down the new scales and grade pay. It seems that the Member Secretary of the 6th CPC was not convinced that Rank Pay formed a part of basic pay. The same officer (Member Secy 6th CPC) later also became a member of the Committee of Secretaries under the Cabinet Secy (from Caesar to Caesar’s wife?). Though you may have seen these arguments here and there on this blog, here is why rank pay cannot be excluded from basic pay :

1. Rank pay was carved out of the basic pay of military officers when a running pay band was implemented. So where is the question of rank pay being an ‘additional element’ different from the basic ?. The said fact is also admitted by the 6th CPC in Paragraph 2.3.10 (iv).

2. The 4th CPC had recommended an integrated running pay scale of Rs 2300-5100 for all ranks from Second Lieut till Brigadier to which rank pay was added as a differentiating factor. If we buy the argument of rank pay not being a part of basic pay, it would mean that a 2/Lt as well as a Brig had the same status vis-à-vis civil services since both of them were in the same scale of Rs 2300-5100.

3. Both SAIs 2/S/87 and 2/S/98 notified by the MoD clearly define rank pay as ‘a part of basic pay’. No amendment was carried out in these definitions at any point of time by the Govt. So now to say that rank pay is not a part of basic pay holds no ground.

4. The carving out of rank pay from basic pay and then the addition of the same into basic pay for all purposes was approved by the Cabinet and no authority in the govt can hold an opinion or view which is opposed to the recommendations of the 4th and 5th CPCs approved by the Cabinet.

5. While calculating new pay fixation, even the 6th CPC added rank pay into basic pay. Please see Table 2.3.1 on Page 89 of the 6th CPC.

6. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court reaffirmed the addition of rank pay into basic pay in Maj Dhanapalan Vs Union of India case.

7. The MoD as a respondent had submitted to the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal that rank pay was to be added into basic pay for status purposes. More details of the said case are available here.

8. The insistence of CPOs that their rank of 2IC is equivalent to Lt Col and that rank pay is not to be added into basic pay of a Lt Col holds no ground since originally in most of the CPOs there was no rank of 2IC but there were two grades of Commandants known as Comdt (Selection Grade) [State Emblem with Two Stars] and Comdt (Ordinary Grade) [State Emblem with One Star], the point to be noted is that both these ranks were in NFSG pay scales which are now in Pay Band-4. Comdts (Ordinary Grade) used to be posted as 2ICs of CPO Battalions. The rank of 2IC however existed in some CPOs such as CISF but that rank was also in NFSG scale. The 5th CPC however merged Comdt (SG) and Comdt (OG) and granted them the NFSG scale of Rs 14300-18300, even the 2IC rank wherever it existed was granted the same NFSG scale of Rs 14300-18300 for existing incumbents. Having done that, the 5th CPC created a new junior rank of 2IC in the Junior Administrative Grade of Rs 12000-16500. Now this new JAG rank of 2IC is what is being compared by the CPOs with a Lt Col. But tell me, if a new junior rank is created for the CPOs for their cadre management, would the rank of Lt Col in the Army also stand automatically degraded ?. How can the argument regarding such action taken in one organization be used for degrading ranks in an another unrelated organization ?. Before CPO officers start questioning the above data, Paras 70.19 & 70.21 of the 5th CPC may be perused for a complete lowdown on the situation.

9. A document showing a supposedly new definition of rank pay is now being used to say that rank pay is not to be added into basic pay. Again a plain perusal of this document would show that in fact it re-affirms the stand of the services since it clearly states that rank pay is directly related to the basic pay and scale of pay. The reason for not merging rank pay into basic pay was quite different from what it is being made to look. Rank pay was maintained as a different part of basic pay to cater for acting ranks keeping in view the uniqueness of the services in this regard. For example, if a Capt was promoted as Acting Major, he/she was to be paid the basic pay of a Capt with rank pay of a Major. In case rank pay and basic pay were merged, there would have been a difficulty in maintenance of this concept and that was the reason why there was no merger.

10. The Committee of Secretaries after the 5th CPC had also opined that a Major’s pay with rank pay in 14th year of service should be equated with the NFSG on the civil side. In fact, since the 3rd CPC, it was Majors who enjoyed a close equivalence with NFSG. During the 3rd CPC regime, the pay of a Major (Selection Grade) was Rs 1550-1900 which was quite similar to the Civil Selection Grade of Rs 1650-1800 now in Pay Band-4.


-

Pleasant news in the offing, Relax and wait :-) Please don’t read too much into the Cabinet Secretary’s interview

-

Papers yesterday blew out of proportion some off-the-cuff comments by India’s Cabinet Secretary, Mr KM Chandrasekhar, on the military pay anomalies issue. There was indeed an over-interpretation of his remarks.

The difficulty of maintenance of a balance in equities and parities he was referring to was in fact of the pre-GoM days. He was referring to the Committee of Secretaries and not to the Group of Ministers, which of course is a higher apex body. The GoM is currently examining the accepted recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries headed by Mr Chandrasekhar. The GoM would soon be recommending to the Cabinet the improved amendments.

The following (complete) remarks bring more clarity on what he was trying to convey :-

“The Cabinet Secretary said when the armed forces raised the issue of pay parity, the Committee of Secretaries took up it immediately and deliberated on how to find a solution to it for the satisfaction of the defence personnel. ‘When the armed forces raised the issue, we sat together at the official level with Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister (P M Nair) and decided that the best thing would be to request the higher level. So we requested the external affairs minister because he was both defence and finance minister earlier and could consult defence minister and finance Minister and give his views,’ he said.”


I however do hope that the Cab Secretary was not referring to the below mentioned good work by the CoS when he talked of ‘balance’ and ‘parity’ in his remarks :-) (uh hmm !!)


Click here to see the Comparison of difference / lag in pay and status progression between the civil and defence services.

Click here to see a Comparison of Military & Civil Pay Scales : 5th Vs 6th CPC

-

Perhaps a far fetched idea for the future but an idea nevertheless. And (unrelated) yet another Rumour Killer

-

First the Sunday rumour killer. There have been rumours that Colonels (Time Scale) have been placed in Pay Band-3 with the Grade Pay of a Lt Col (7600). This is incorrect. The MoD has already issued orders (SAI 3/S/08) placing the rank of Col (TS) in Pay Band-4 with a Grade Pay of Rs 8700. Hence there remains no difference in status of a Col (TS) and Col (Selection) vis-à-vis Civil services. Indeed a good step. Anybody wanting the ibid SAI may email a request to me. (Thanks to our friend MBSG for this)

Now the main post. The following comment at 0850 hrs on 20 November 2008 on this post regarding the potent caustic ability of office notings made me think :

“As one comes on posting to Delhi, first priorities are house, child education and so on. With no overlap provided, the incumbent has no choice but to depend wholly on that cunning babu, who has seen many officers come and go. We must change the posting policy at AFHQ. There needs to be a permanent set of officers and JCOs trained to handle HQ jobs with limited rotation to field after every 5-7 yrs.”

The above comment reminded me of the Adjutant General’s Corps of the US Army which is a separate Combat Support Service and provides personnel and managerial support to the Army besides other administrative duties. This corps has its own insignia and is a separate branch of the Army.

We, in India too can have a similar concept with officers exclusively dealing with policy, records and management at headquarter level - a military equivalent of the Armed Forces HQ Civil Service (AFHQCS). This can also put in place a good system of checks and balances wherein military interests could be effectively looked after by providing a better advisory arrangement to the top political and civil executive. The lack of continuity and to an extent a lack of proper understanding of certain concepts at the HQ level may be responsible for neglect of execution of balanced decision making concerning the military. Such a Service Corps if conceptualized, could also take over ‘Records’ and finance duties in the Army and the subsisting SL Cadre of Record officers could also be merged into it. To take a different but parallel example, the Indian Air Force already has an Accounts Branch and a Central Accounts Office which is able to constructively counter balance and also support and augment elements of the CDA. And they do a good job at that, perhaps (arguably) better than what we have in the other two services.

It may appear to be a far fetched idea as of now, but I think it is absolutely workable.

Click here to see the history of the US AG Corps.

I would request readers to post comments on as to how we can have an effective balanced arrangement at places of governance so that decision making bodies are provided professional and valuable military inputs by those wearing uniform rather than those without it. It may be in the overall interest of the defence set up.

-

Saturday rumour killer....

-

The cyberspace and corridors of power are rife with rumours. The biggest one being that the core anomalies have been rejected and the file has reached the PMO and that all demands (except enhanced pensionary weightage to PBOR) stand discarded.

This is wrong. While the govt is still deliberating the issues, no demand has been rejected as on date.

Moreover, I would urge some of my friends to be a little patient. Contrary to popular perception, there was no time-frame for the GoM to come up with its recommendations. The ‘by diwali’ comment was an off the cuff utterance referring to the adhoc arrears. Can you imagine a committee of three busy ministers coming up with a solution for a million strong force within a few days when the Pay Commission and subsequent bodies took more than 2 years for the same. Of course, they need to be quick, but we need to give them some space…it’s just a matter of days now. Instead of praying for a quickie, we should hope for a well rounded decision sealing the matter for all times to come and also for an independent assessment by the GoM without much dependence on what is fed by the Ministry of Finance and their imaginary equivalence.

Oh, by the way, here is the new order on revised allowances. The acceptance of the new inflation protection clause is a welcome move. Otherwise basically all allowances stand doubled except funeral allowance which stands quadrupled. Ironic, isn’t it ?

-

In defence of the IAS. Well, sort of !!

-

"What distortion could you let your pen forget today? What misfortune left your heart so broken you only say Words intended to belittle or dismay? What if I say you lie?" : Prince, in Billy Jack B from 'The Gold Experience' (1996)

Oft you may have seen and heard serving and retired personnel lamenting that the IAS lobby is responsible for bringing down the status and dignity of the military and that the same is singularly responsible for the Pay Com fiasco.

I beg to differ.

In my humble opinion, it is those innocuous looking notes and file notings and recommendations and clerical remarks by the lower echelons of bureaucracy which ultimately wreck havoc upon reaching their respective destinations. It is the army of desk officers, section officers, under and deputy secretaries who do not want the status of the military to be enhanced since they would not like to let go of the self-propagated control wielded by them. The problem is that once a proposal is mooted or moved by the forces, before it reaches the decision makers it has to go through a sieve of secretarial staff, who with their limited outlook and expertise in nuisance value, place their veiled comments in such a nasty manner that the thinking process of the decision makers gets clouded. It is not the IAS or the political executive which is to blame, the malaise derives its origin from much lower places.

In law, there is a concept called ‘opportunity of hearing’ and ‘Audi Alterm Partem' which in plain parlance means ‘nobody can be condemned unheard’. Now this is what is lacking in our system when it comes to the military. Whenever any proposal is forwarded to the decision makers (for example, the GoM and MoF in the case of 6th CPC), it goes through a labyrinth of lower bureaucracy the comments and notings of whom the forces are not privy to. Such unilateral comments are taken as gospel truth by the powers that be without giving any opportunity of clarification to the forces and eventually resulting in adverse and sometimes perverse decisions based on incorrect feedback & analysis of a particular situation. The IAS lobby does not give a damn if the status of the military is enhanced or maintained, come to think about it, it does not matter to them, but my friends it does matter to the Central Secretariat Service (CSS), AFHQCS, IDAS, IDAS et al.

When the four core anomalies (Placing of Lt Colonels in PB-4 / Placing of Lt Gens in HAG+ / Uniform Grade Pay / Enhancement of Pension of PBOR) were forwarded to the highest of political executive and earlier to the Committee of Secretaries, the proposals of the forces were reportedly unfortunately saddled with notes (‘analysis’) by old hands at the MoD and some of these may have been blatantly incorrect to say the least. It is common knowledge that certain notes having no official basis may have been placed on files dealing with the 6th CPC, some examples :

While admitting that rank pay was carved out of basic pay, it was reportedly noted on the file forwarded by certain officials at MoD that ‘a view was later taken by the Ministry that rank pay was not a part of basic pay’. Now it fails common sense as to how can a junior official sitting in the ministry take a ‘view’ on something recommended by the 4th and 5th CPCs and approved by the Cabinet. Elsewhere the same officials have reportedly also stated in writing that ‘rank pay is not a part of basic pay’, of course paragraphs of SAI 2/S/87 or 2/S/98 notified by the MoD which say that ‘rank pay is a part of basic pay’ were not in all probability referred to in the ibid note. The same officials also reportedly made a categorical statement that the pay of a Lt Col had been equated with the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) since the 3rd CPC. Of course it was not mentioned that the pay scale of a Lt Col (1750-1950) was higher than even the civil Selection Grade of Rs 1650-1800 which is now in Pay Band-4. It was also not mentioned that the erstwhile rank of Major (Selection Grade) with a scale of 1550-1900 was also akin to the civil Selection Grade. An example of what certain people would like the status of military to be is reflected from the following comment on the official 6th CPC portal by AFHQ ISOs organization :-

“To compensate their risky and strenuous assignment they should be granted Combatant Allowance. In this way we can ensure, first, equity of pay and, secondly, avoid clash of equivalence with civilian posts which is rampant these days. The pay of a Lieutenant should be at par with civilian equivalent i.e. Section Officer, in the new grade.”

Imaginary equivalence at work again. Needless to say, a Section Officer has been equated with a JCO by even the 6th CPC. Erstwhile Civilian Staff Officers (CSOs) in the Services Headquarters have also been re-designated as Section Officers.


My point is that the issues concerning the forces should not suffer merely because they (the forces) have no control over unilateral comments noted on minute sheets by others who are hell bent on exercising control even in spheres which should remain inert from such control. Now there is no mechanism in place where the forces could have enlightened the powers that be about the incorrectness of the above mentioned observations. Had that happened, the situation may have been entirely different than today. Now where does the role of IAS come into play ? The IAS lobby and the senior bureaucracy have to share the limited blame of not applying proper mind to notes originating from below. In India, power is directly linked to nuisance value and people try to derive such power through ego brownie points and creating hurdles in public life. It is not just in bureaucratic circles that such tendencies exist, such things happen closer at home too. To take a military example, I’m sure serving officers may have experienced situations wherein proposals sent by senior officers on various issues to Record Offices are scuttled by junior military staff by intelligently worded notes or how most of us must have experienced Head Clerks misguiding COs. IAS officers face the same problems in DoPT, IPS officers face the same in MHA. Officers, whether civilian or military, have a bounden duty to apply mind to notes and recommendations coming from below, that is why they are that – ‘recommendations’. These are not binding and one must not blink an eye while disagreeing with such ‘recommendations’ or overruling them with proper logic and that my friends is what distinguishes officers from officials whether the backdrop is civil or military.

-

Pension orders issued for post-2006 retirees (UPDATED) : Thankfully MoD to the rescue of PBOR

-

The pension notification for post-2006 pensioners is out.
It is available here for viewing / download.

Looks good. Personnel retiring after 01-09-2008 seem to be the luckiest :-)

But one important issue.

As most readers must be knowing, the 6th CPC had recommended the scrapping of the 33 year service requirement (with or without weightage) for earning full pension. Prior to 6th CPC, a service length of 33 years was required for earning full pension and for personnel with service below 33 years, pension was proportionately decreased. The 6th CPC has postulated full pension on completion of pensionable service, that is 20 years for commissioned officers and 15 years for defence PBOR. Similar recommendations were made for civil employees too. The same was also accepted by the Cabinet.

However the ibid pension orders reveal a grave anomaly which in fact is not due to any fault of the MoD but a resultant of the orders issued by the Deparment of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Govt of India. As per paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2, PBOR retiring after 1-1-2006 would be granted full pension on completion of pensionable service of 15 years but the same would be applicable to Commissioned officers only after 2-9-2008 and not 1-1-2006. Commissioned Officers retiring between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 would remain amenable to the 33 years service clause for full pension and proportionately decreased pension for service below 33 years. The same cut off date of 1-9-2008 has been initiated for civil pensioners too by the Deptt of Pensions. Hence we would have three categories of personnel within the defence services as per this letter :

A) PBOR retiring after 1-1-2006 who would receive full pension after fulfilling their minimum pension qualifying service of 15 years.

B) Commissioned Officers retiring between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 who would receive full pension only after completing 33 years of service with or without weightage.

C) Commissioned Officers retiring after 1-9-2008 who would receive full pension after completing 20 years of service.

Now the question arises that if the 6th CPC recommendation of full pension on 20 years wef 1-1-2006 was accepted by the Cabinet, could the Deptt of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare alter the mandate of the accepted recommendations by creating an artificial date of 1-9-2008 on its own or was the cut off date of 1-9-2008 decided by the Cabinet itself ?. The 6th CPC definitely stated in Para 6.5.3 that the benefit of full pension on completion of minimum qualifying service by waiving the 33 years' service limit would accrue prospectively (except for PBOR), but we always thought it to mean that the actual monetary benefit would be disbursed prospectively but full pension to pensioners with service less than 33 years would otherwise be fixed w.e.f 1-1-2006. As also pointed out in one of the comments to this post, it's all a question of liberal Vs literal interpretation I guess.

A pertinent question since it greatly affects those commissioned officers and civil employees who retired between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 since their pension would be proportionately reduced in accordance with their length of service on retirement. Thankfully the MoD has released this pension order much in favour of PBOR and thereby protecting atleast the PBOR from this anomaly keeping in view the recommendations of 6th CPC contained in Para 6.5.3.

The paragraphs in reference of the MoD pension letter dated 12-11-2008 are reproduced below :

6. RETIRING/SERVICE PENSION:

6.1. COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
(a) Linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying Service is dispensed with w.e.f. 2.9.2008. The Retiring pension of Commissioned Officers retiring/invalided out on or after 2.9.2008 will be calculated at 50% of emoluments last drawn or average of reckonable emoluments drawn during last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial.

(b) Grant of retiring pension to the Commissioned Officers retired/invalided out during 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 will continue to be governed by the Rules/Orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.

6.2. PERSONNEL BELOW OFFICER RANK
In case of PBOR, linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is dispensed with from 1.1.2006. Service pension of PBOR will be calculated at 50% of emoluments last drawn or average of reckonable emoluments drawn during last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial.

-

Changed status equation vis-à-vis civil officers : practical effect on pension after issuance of pension orders

-

As discussed earlier on this blog, the changed status equation has had a cascading effect on pension of military officers.

A theoretical example of Lt Colonels Vs Directors to Govt of India was provided to amplify the said situation.

Now that the pension tables for pre 2006 military and civil pensioners have been published, here is the practical difference in basic pension between the two categories :-

Basic Pension as on 31-12-2005 (5th CPC rates)

Director to Govt of India : Rs 7150 per month (@50% of lowest end of scale, that is, Rs 14300)
Lt Colonel : Rs 7550 per month (@50% of lowest end of scale, that is, Rs 15100)

Basic Pension as on 01-01-2006 (6th CPC rates)

Director to Govt of India : Rs 23050 per month
Lt Colonel : Rs 17063 per month

The govt is seized of the matter and hopefully this anomaly too would be addressed as an off-shoot of the Pay Band-4 issue.

The latest pension orders for military pensioners are now available on the CGDA website and can be downloaded / saved by clicking here.

-

Better news and addition of MSP fitment for pre 1-1-2006 (and pre 1-9-2008) pensioners in the offing ? Yes & No

-

Well, as reported on this blog earlier, the govt has decided to grant the benefit of MSP to past retirees also which is a welcome step. But my advisory of ‘take it with a pinch of salt’ has also come into play. The addition of an MSP fitment into pension does not translate into direct benefit to all retirees since the benefit of 50% of MSP (Rs 3000 for Officers and Rs 1000 for PBOR) has not been granted for calculation of new pension as per the new 6th CPC system but only for the purposes of prescribed minima for each rank.

Meaning thereby that the new pension for old retirees shall not be below 50% of the minimum of new pay band plus grade pay plus MSP (plus X group pay if admissible).

Hence the new pension shall be either :

As per the new fitment scheme of the 6th CPC (that is, old basic pension X 2.26 + 16% DA as on date)

Or

@ 50% of minimum of new scale + X Group Pay if admissible + Grade Pay + MSP

whichever of the two is higher.

Pension of a Full Colonel who retired on any date prior to 1-1-2006 would be granted @ 50% of minimum of new scale (Rs 37400) plus Grade Pay (Rs 8700) plus MSP (Rs 6000) which would come to 50% of Rs 52100, that is Rs 26050 (plus the applicable DA of course). The said pension would also be admissible to Lt Colonels who retired prior to 1-1-2006 in case Pay Band-4 is accepted for Lt Colonels.

An across the board fitment @50% of MSP for all retirees has not yet been granted.

This paragraph from Govt of India Letter No 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) dated 11 Nov 2008 may throw more light on the issue :

“The consolidation of pension will further be subject to the provision that the consolidated pension, in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised scale from which the pensioner had retired/discharged including Military Service Pay and ‘X’ Group pay where applicable. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of 6600 – 170 – 9320, the corresponding pay band being 9300 - 34800 and the corresponding grade pay and Military Service Pay being Rs. 4,600/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively, his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs. 9300 + Rs 4600 + 2000 i.e. Rs 7,950…”

Anyone wanting the new Govt of India letter on military pensions for pre 1-1-2006 retirees from me may do so through email.

Due to my professional commitments, I would not be able to answer individual queries on pension calculation. However readers are welcome to post their queries or observations as comments to this post and subject to availability of time, I shall attempt to reply. Posting of comments also is a better idea since it gives an opportunity for a cross section of readers to reply to each other leading to a qualitative improvement of our knowledge base and a better exchange of thoughts.

-

A Picture and a Nation

By now, we all must have seen the above picture flashed in every major media outlet all over the world. President designate Obama here is seen hugging Tammy Duckworth at Bronze Soldiers Memorial at Soldier Field, Chicago. She is seen with her husband in the second picture.

So who is Major Tammy Duckworth ?

Maj Duckworth, a brave daughter of an American father and Thai mother, is a National Guard Volunteer who opted for a tour of duty in Iraq where she got hit by a rocket propelled grenade and lost both her legs and also suffered other permanent injuries. For the uninitiated, the National Guard is a part-time national service voluntary force like our Territorial Army (TA). Maj Duckworth, despite her disability is still a National Guard volunteer and has also been appointed as the Director of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for the State of Illinois. She stands decorated with the Air Medal, Purple Heart and the Army Commendation Medal.

The State Departments of Veterans’ Affairs have been in the forefront for veterans’ rights and policies in the US. What is strikingly refreshing is the fact that the State Governments in the US are not rank conscious while appointing heads of veterans’ affairs who are directly answerable to the State Governors and who play a major role in the lives of veterans and also their families.

We, on the other hand also have a proactive set up dealing with ex-servicemen (high time we shed this term – it should be gender neutral : either ex-servicemembers or veterans) welfare but the system is so much embroiled in red-tapism, hierarchism and rank-consciousness that the ultimate benefits do not efficiently percolate down to beneficiaries. The system is also lopsided at places and undermines military dignity. To take an example, all over India, DCs / DMs / Collectors of Districts, mostly young IAS officers are appointed Presidents of Zila Sainik Boards ex-officio. Kendriya Sainik Board guidelines however provide that in each district the Vice-President of the Sainik Board should be a retired General Officer. So we ourselves from within the Kendriya Sainik Board (whose Secretary is a serving defence officer) have initiated a hierarchy wherein young bureaucrats are placed as Presidents and retired Generals are placed as Vice-Presidents.

Secretaries of Zila Sainik Boards in each district (also variably known as Distt Sainik Welfare Officers) mostly used to be retired Honorary officers or released Commissioned officers of junior ranks earlier. However with our own policy in 1999, the Kendriya Sainik Board directed that such appointments must only be made from amongst retired officers of the rank of Major, Lt Col or Col. As a policy it may seem good but the modality not realized by the powers that be was (/is) that the post of Secy Zila Sainik Board in most states is an appointment under the Junior Time Scale (JTS) equal to a pay and status of a Lieutenant and in this light was it prudent for us in the Kendriya Sainik Board to have initiated an upward revision of ranks without first asking the States to upwardly revise the pay and thereby the status ? Isn’t it self deprecating asking Majors, Lt Cols and Cols to join lower rungs of civil hierarchy ?. Most young IAS officers usually extend due respect to retired military officers but it is not normally the case with officers from other state and provincial cadres. And here I also agree with civilian officers of mixed organizations who say that Army officers are often ready to take up lower level ‘below status’ appointments in MES etc to enjoy cushy stints – this definitely leads to status erosion in the longer run, but that’s my personal opinion of course.

Coming back to the Sainik welfare hierarchy. Secretaries of Rajya Sainik Boards (also known as State Directors of Sainik Welfare) are also to be appointed from amongst retired Brigadiers according to Kendriya Sainik Board Policy. It’s another story that most of such appointments were placed in the approx pay scale of a Major of the Army. If indeed an enhanced pay package cannot be provided then a contractual honorarium shall be better than a regular pay scale since it would atleast bypass any comparison with serving civil officers. If retired Brigadiers were to be recommended for such appointments, then firstly the nomenclature of the appointment should have been upgraded to ‘Director General’ and pay scale should have been enhanced. Even the Zila (District) level officers should have been made directly answerable to such State level heads and not civil district heads as is the present practice. Vice-Presidents of Zila Sainik Boards should have been designated as Advisors and not Vice-Presidents who are placed below young civil officers designated as Presidents. The above are small changes in nomenclature which can go a long way in enhancing the dignity of retired officers. But is anyone listening and is someone ready to challenge the status quo ante ?

The ideal set-up would be to have an accomplished veteran at the head of the State organization not based on rank but based on his or her achievements, Maj Tammy Duckworth anyone …?

By the way, this is what President-elect Obama had to say on the occasion yesterday :

“On this Veterans’ Day, let us rededicate ourselves to keep a sacred trust with all who have worn the uniform of the United States of America: that America will serve you as well as you have served your country. As your next Commander-in-Chief, I promise to work every single day to keep that sacred trust with all who have served. May God bless our veterans, and may God bless the United States of America,"

1st Photo Courtesy : Phillyburbs.com, Thank You.

2nd Photo Courtesy : Stripes.com, Thank You.

-

Police and Military ranks at PBOR level, how do they compare after the 6th CPC ?

-

There used to be some confusion of relativities at the PBOR level between the military and the police, but thankfully this has been cleared by the 6th CPC (you saw that right !!). This post is also in response to the humungous amount of queries received on the subject. Following is the order of ranks (with Grade Pay) as recommended by the 6th CPC and accepted by the Govt :-

(The amount in brackets is the Grade Pay)

Sepoy of Army = Constable of Police (2000)

Naik of Army = Head Constable of Police (2400)

Havaldar of Army = Asst Sub Inspector of Police (2800)

Naib Subedar of Army = Sub Inspector of Police (4200)

Subedar of Army = Inspector of Police (4600)

Subedar Major of Army = Asst Commissioner of Police (4800)

Assistant Commissioner of Police after 4 years of service (5400)

The above is a comparison of military ranks vis-à-vis grades of the Delhi Police. The two grades of Asst Commissioner of Police may create some confusion in the minds of readers so let me clarify. Officers of the Delhi & Andaman Nicobar Islands Police Service (Group-B), popularly known as DANIPS, are recruited by the UPSC through the Civil Services Examination. Such officers are appointed as Assistant Commissioners of Police (ACP) in Delhi but are Group-B officers. DANIPS officers are not to be however confused with IPS officers who can also be appointed to the post of ACP in Delhi. IPS officers of the Junior Time Scale (JTS) appointed to the post of ACP are in Pay Band-3 with a Grade Pay of Rs 5400 (equivalent to Lieut of the Army) whereas DANIPS officers are in Pay Band-2 with a Grade Pay of Rs 4800. After 4 years of service, DANIPS officers are also upgraded to a Grade Pay of Rs 5400 albeit in Pay Band-2. DANIPS officers, hence even when upgraded to a Grade Pay of Rs 5400 remain junior to IPS officers in the JTS and Lieutenants of the Army. DANIPS is otherwise a feeder cadre to the IPS and such officers when promoted to the IPS at Selection Grade Level (Grade Pay 8700) are absorbed into the AGMUT cadre of the IPS.

Specially for the naysayers. Before disputing the above data, please do visit pages 84 and 465 of the 6th CPC. Thank You.

And by the way, this blog is 100 posts old.

-

History Redux !!!

-

Some comments by officers of allied / mixed organizations and of the CPOs on this post make it imperative to go back to pre-3rd CPC days. While the rank pay (4th & 5th CPCs) alibi is being used to browbeat the forces into degraded submission, the 3rd CPC scales make it abundantly clear that the civilian Selection Grade (Rs 1650-1800) which was more akin to the Major’s scale (Rs 1550-1800 / Rs 1550-1900 for Maj Selection Grade) and was definitely inferior to the scale of a Lt Col (Rs 1750-1950) is now in Pay Band-4 with a Grade Pay of Rs 8700 whereas a Lt Col has been placed in Pay Band-3 with a Grade Pay or Rs 7600. But again some officers say that even the 3rd CPC could not be a point of comparison since the Special Disturbance Allowance (SDA) had been added into military scales. This argument too is specious since even if this line is agreed upon still the scale of a Lt Col was superior to that of Selection Grade. The SDA was granted @ Rs 45/- per month fixed for all officers upto the rank of Brig.

Prior to 3rd CPC, the starting pay of a Junior Time Scale Officer was Rs 400 and so was the starting pay of a 2nd Lieut with an additional Rs 45/- per month as the SDA.

The starting point of the Senior Time Scale in the 6th year of service was Rs 740 while that of a Capt was Rs 750 with an additional Rs 45/- per month as the SDA.

Now for the Selection Grade. The Selection Grade of the IPS @ Rs 1400 fixed was right in the middle of the scale of a Lt Col @ Rs 1300-1500. A Lt Col however received an additional Rs 45/- per month as the SDA. The IPS Selection Grade Scale was then upgraded to Rs 1650-1800 by the 3rd CPC while the scale of a Lt Col was upgraded to Rs 1750-1950. The SDA was abolished by the 3rd CPC. The term ‘Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG)’ used by the 6th CPC for 3rd CPC scales is a misnomer since the then nomenclature was Selection Grade (SG) and not NFSG. In fact even today there is no NFSG in the All India Services (Indian Administrative, Police & Forest Services) and the nomenclature still is SG.

The rest as they say is……Page 73 of the CPC

-

Who propagates these myths ??

-

(First an unrelated newsflash :- The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the orders of the Delhi High Court which had held that Low Medical Category personnel cannot be discharged across the board as a policy unless there is a specific endorsement of being unfit for military duty by a duly constituted Invaliding Medical Board. It may be recalled that thousands of LMC personnel were discharged last year after being declared surplus. All personnel may have to be reinstated in light of the latest development)

Now with the blog post. An oft repeated rejoinder against upgradation of Lt Colonels into Pay Band-4 is that in the good old days, Lt Colonels used to command units but now the said function is being performed by full Colonels and hence it is Colonels who deserve the erstwhile pay of Lt Colonels and Lt Colonels have been rightly placed in Pay Band-3. It is also rubbed in that officers in certain arms are attaining the rank of full Colonel in 15 years.

My first objection to this argument is that contrary to popular perception, most units are not being commanded by full Colonels but by substantive Lt Colonels who are actually acting Colonels. Officers are not promoted to the rank of Colonel in 15 years - they attain the substantive rank and pay of Colonel in 20 years which is the minimum statutorily prescribed length of service under the rules. Secondly, less than 30% officers make it to Colonel and keeping that in view, as on date the defence services may be the lowest in the ladder in the arena of officers in Pay Band-4. Thirdly, why isn’t the same argument used against other services ?. An Inspector General of Police (IGP) in the Senior Administrative Grade used to be the senior most officer in the IPS and in charge of the entire state. Today the same function is being performed by a DGP who is three grades higher than an IG, but do we hear anywhere that a DGP should be granted the scale of an IG whereas the scale of an IG should be drastically downgraded because the erstwhile functions of an IG are being performed by a DGP ?. The 6th CPC states that the military’s closest counterpart for pay comparison purposes is the IPS, but did you know that out of the total cadre strength of the IPS, more than 90% are today in Pay Band-4 ?, What about the defence services you may ask, well the percentage stands below 15% as on date.

It would be a very small gesture in my humble opinion if the anomalies as projected by the services are rectified. While the equality between different services and pay scales has been harped on by the 6th CPC, career progression in the defence services leaves much to be desired. If the present situation is allowed to continue, the lag in promotions would remain as follows :

(Note : The length of service is being reflected by including the training period assuming the IMA standard of 1.5 years)

Lt is 1.5 years behind his/her civilian counterpart from the IAS as well as the IPS

Major is 3.5 years behind his/her civilian counterpart from the IAS as well as the IPS

Lt Colonel is 5.5 years behind his/her civilian counterpart from the IAS as well as the IPS

Colonel is 8.5 years behind his/her civilian counterpart from the IAS as well as the IPS

Brig is 15.5 years behind his/her counterpart from the IPS. There is no corresponding scale in the IAS

Maj Gen is 18.5 years behind his/her counterpart from the IAS and 16.5 years behind his/her counterpart from the IPS

Moreover, while progression to Maj Gen equivalent grades is available to 100% officers on the civil side, the story is not the same with the military.

Knowing certain commentators who would definitely question this data, the following are the IAS and IPS rules after the 6th CPC which may first be perused before shooting those keys on your keyboards.

IAS Pay Rules, 2008

IPS Pay Rules, 2008

-

The make believe world of inferiority : Courtesy 6th CPC

-

Before I start, some basic facts about history. The controversy of equation has now whittled down to the concept of rank pay. So let’s forget rank pay for a while and go back to 3rd CPC days when there was no rank pay. The 3rd CPC NFSG scale of Rs 1650-1800 is now in Pay Band-4 (Rs 37,400-67000) with a Grade Pay of Rs 8700 while the 3rd CPC scale for Lt Col @ Rs 1750-1950 is today in Pay Band-3 (Rs 15,600-39100) with a Grade Pay of Rs 7600.

Is the IAS to blame for this mess ? I don’t think so.

All the chaos we are in seems a direct resultant of incorrect self-created pay equation reflected by the 6th CPC on page 73 of the report. But who bells the cat my friends ?. The 6th CPC stated that the closest comparison of Military officers was that with the Indian Police Service. The most apt evaluation should be the 3rd CPC since at that point of time the ugly Rank Pay controversy was still a story for the future. That said, after wrongly showing Lt Col equal to Junior Administrative Grade (JAG), the following is a recap of what the 6th CPC had to say on relativities in its comparative tables about the ranks of Colonel and Brigadier :

Non-Functional Selection Grade (Rs 2000-2250) was shown equal to Colonel (Rs 1950-2175)

DIG (Rs 2250-2500) was shown equal to Brigadier (Rs 2200-2400)

But dear Sirs and Ma’ams, unfortunately the above is a lie.

The scale shown against NFSG (Rs 2000-2250) was actually the scale of a DIG and not NFSG whereas the scale shown against DIG (Rs 2250-2500) was actually the scale of the erstwhile then existing rank of Additional IG (later merged into IG) and not of DIG. And would you like to know what the Non-Functional Selection Grade scale was for IPS, well it was Rs 1650-1800. What about Lt Col you may ask, well friends Lt Col was placed in Rs 1750-1950 and today we have the Ministry of Expenditure giving us a lecture that Lt Col was not equivalent to NFSG but to JAG. What hogwash !. In fact, it was the scale of a Major that was closer to NFSG – a Major was placed in Rs 1550-1800 (and Rs 1550-1900 for Major Selection Grade). Moreover the IPS scale of Rs 1650-1800 was known as Selection Grade and not Non-Functional Selection Grade as stated in 6th CPC.

With particular reference to the Lt Col-NFSG controversy, here is the actual 3rd CPC comparison with the IPS:
(Note : The figure in brackets is the 6th CPC Scale)

Lt Col : Rs 1750-1950 (Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay Rs 7600)
Selection Grade of the IPS : Rs 1650-1800 (Pay Band-4 with Grade Pay Rs 8700)
Major : Rs 1550-1800 / Rs 1550-1900 for Major Selection Grade : (Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay Rs 6600)

Why did then the 6th CPC show an NFSG scale as Rs 2000-2250 while it was actually 1650-1800 and a DIG’s scale as 2250-2500 when it was actually 2000-2250 ?

Historically, whenever there is a merger of scales, lower scales are merged into higher scales, but in case of the military, the closest military scales have been merged into lower civil scales, why ?

In the comparison tables, a Captain has been shown against the Senior Time Scale (STS) in 3rd CPC and then against Junior Time Scale (clubbed with Lieut) in the 4th CPC. Who authorized this degradation ? Is there any order to the effect ? No, there is none. There is nothing in the 4th CPC report to suggest that a Capt is being downgraded from STS to JTS. Again 6th CPC’s fertile imagination at work !

4th CPC clearly states (admitted by 6th CPC too) that rank pay was carved out of basic pay. If that be so, how can they now say that rank pay is not a part of basic ?. When a continuous running pay band of Rs 2300-5100 was created for all ranks from 2/Lieut till Brig by the 4th CPC, rank pay was added into basic pay as a differentiating factor. If we say that rank pay is not a part of basic, it would amount to saying that all ranks from 2/Lieut till Brig have the same status since they were in the same scale of Rs 2300-5100.

Why this ‘kanjoosi’ with the Armed Forces only ? To take an example, in defence services with over 55000 officer cadre strength, there are just a little over 20 officers in the Apex Scale of Rs 80,000 fixed (Army Commander’s scale) and still there is opposition to granting the HAG+ scale to other Lt Generals. In comparison, the IAS with a cadre strength of about 4700 officers has about 215 officers in the Apex scale, the Indian Forest Service with a strength of about 2600 officers has about 30 officers in the Apex scale while the IPS with about 3900 officers also has 30 officers in the same scale.

The govt is well meaning, the political leadership is also not to be blamed but the senior bureaucracy, especially in the Ministry of Finance, should deal with the issue with an open mind and not depend on clerical notes put up by the lower echelons of governance. A desk officer or section officer has no right to comment on equivalence or relativities of the military with the civil services and senior civil officers also should put their grey matter into gear - it is not difficult, just forget the 6th CPC tables on Page 73 and start with a clean slate, unlocked attitude and new tables.

-