As we all know by now, Lt Cols on deputation to certain organisations such as NHAI, IRCON, Pawan Hans etc would remain in PB-3 till the time they revert back to military duty. Though only about 30 – 35 officers are expected to be affected by this stipulation, still I personally feel they should be granted PB-4 if they are on a military system of pay, due to the following reasons :
(a) The rules in this regard are very clear as far as civil officers of the All India Services are concerned. Any officer proceeding on a post with a lower status remains in his / her own Pay Band and only the Grade Pay is reduced. On that analogy, PB-4 cannot and should not be withheld from such officers and the maximum that can be done is that they can be granted a Grade Pay equivalent to the deputation post that they are holding. The rules on the civil side become clear by perusing Para 9 (i) of this letter dated 29 Sept 2008.
(b) Of course these officers could not have predicted this future PB-4 stipulation when they were proceeding on deputation to these organisations. Hence as a one time dispensation, the officers currently on deputation should be granted PB-4 and the said stipulation may only be imposed on future deputationists after making them fully aware of the pitfalls. Moreover, the last pay drawn and the pay in parent organisation of deputationists is protected as per pre-existing policy.
(c) The modalities should be kept short, simple and uncomplicated. Simply put, it should be placed in black & white that officers who out of their own volition opt to proceed on deputation to lower posts should be granted PB-4 with a lower GP as is done in case of civil officers. Deputation to posts with the Industrial DA (IDA) pattern of payment or with scales different than the Central DA (CDA) pattern are as it is not affected by PB-3/PB-4 stipulation.
(a) The rules in this regard are very clear as far as civil officers of the All India Services are concerned. Any officer proceeding on a post with a lower status remains in his / her own Pay Band and only the Grade Pay is reduced. On that analogy, PB-4 cannot and should not be withheld from such officers and the maximum that can be done is that they can be granted a Grade Pay equivalent to the deputation post that they are holding. The rules on the civil side become clear by perusing Para 9 (i) of this letter dated 29 Sept 2008.
(b) Of course these officers could not have predicted this future PB-4 stipulation when they were proceeding on deputation to these organisations. Hence as a one time dispensation, the officers currently on deputation should be granted PB-4 and the said stipulation may only be imposed on future deputationists after making them fully aware of the pitfalls. Moreover, the last pay drawn and the pay in parent organisation of deputationists is protected as per pre-existing policy.
(c) The modalities should be kept short, simple and uncomplicated. Simply put, it should be placed in black & white that officers who out of their own volition opt to proceed on deputation to lower posts should be granted PB-4 with a lower GP as is done in case of civil officers. Deputation to posts with the Industrial DA (IDA) pattern of payment or with scales different than the Central DA (CDA) pattern are as it is not affected by PB-3/PB-4 stipulation.
16 comments:
@all..
the whole aim of denying pb4 to a very small group of lt col is to ensure the following:-
a) prevent deputation.
b) deny PB4 to lt cols across the board there by degrading them to the status of dy secys, which was equal to majors earlier.
c) prevent senior majors from seeking a higher grade pay of 7600 after 9yrs of service as is the case in other civil services where at dot 9 yrs of service incl trg pd they enter 7600 grade pay.
THEREFORE BY PUTTING THIS SPOKE THE GOVT HAS SUCCESSFULLY DENIED STATUS UPGRADATION TO CAPTS,MAJS,LT COLS,COLS,BRIGS,MAJ GENS,LT GENS.
SO THE QUESTION IS HAVE V REALLY GOT OUR "IZZAT OR STATUS" RESTORED TO ANY EXTENT .THE ANSWER IS A BIG ....NO.
Dear Sir,
You are correct, if the Govt wants to give PB3 to those officers who are on deputation to State Govt and all, they should make it effective from the date of notification.
Why should those 30-35 officers be targeted just to put the PMO's direction effective.
BC.
@Anony at 7.32
I don't think so Sir.
A committee is going to examine all pending issues and PB-4 with GP 8000 can at best be defined an interim measure.
Hold on, have faith and see what happens next :-)
It is not the question of mere 30 to 35 officers, but the very mind-set or policy of putting a rider in everything that can give some sort of relief to the soldiers. There already exist a deputation policy for All India Service Officers. Instead of putting the Lt Col at par, why do they want these special provisions ? It is only to protect the bureaucrate's interests. They do not want any of the Lt Cols butting into their exclusive civil domain without foregoing their izzat.
Would want to understand why officers who have retired/taken voluntary retirement between 01 Jan 06 and 30 Sep 08 ,and have not completed 33 years of reckonable service, are being denied the benefit of drawing 50 % pension.As I understand for these officers pension will be continue to be calculated as a factor.Is there any redressal mechanism for this?
Dear Navdeep,
1. I fully agree with you that these officers could not have predicted PB-4 stipulation when they were proceeding on deputation. As a one time dispensation, the officers currently on deputation should be granted PB-4. PB 3 may only be imposed on future deputationists.
2. denying them PB 4 is against the Natural justice.
3. Why have such a stipulation only for Lt Cols?
4. All pay benifits are applicable wef 1.1.06. Eg grade pay, only MSP is effective wef Sep 08.
5. Could there be hidden motives?
@Navdeep 7.40 am
when is this committee going to examine pending issues with hardly anytime left for announcement of elections. perhaps leave it for next govt to do nothing about it like it happened to orop.
These Lt Cols should be given PB5. Because these are the only Lt Cols who are doing some work
dear sir,
thanx for raising pertinent issues on subjects of real use to us soldiers.
i'd like to take this chance to raise one more point regarding pay fixation by cdao for offrs promoted to substantive rks during 2006.
i belong to 106 reg.
the cda has fixed pay as per subs rk as on 1jan06 and not taken the promotion in jun into account ,this when they have given the very same example as illustration2 on their websit.
all emails to them are evoking zero answers.
would it not have been advisable for the cda to calculate coursewise to save time if they were short of it instead of saying that the total arrears for 2 yrs was only 69000 and deducting 37ooo in one go.
amit
Grade pay for all is applicable from 2006 but when it comes to soldiers, MSP is applicable from 1.9. 2008. Motive is crystal clear. All offrs with lower pay were placed in PB 4 not soldiers. Again crystal clear. all gp 'a' services r promoted faster than soldiers. again crystal clear. All retire at 60 not soldiers. Again crystal clear. soldiers shud be blamed for not joing other services where expected sacrifice is definitely lesser. One cud also make decent money over and above salary. it took gp of ministers and prime minister 4 months to sort prob of PB4 partially that gave sleepless nights to soldiers.
where to go, whom to complain? when everythg fails, armed forces are called in. why that trust is deficient when deciding on pay, perks and promotions?
they will say canteen facility, liquor facility etc. Everyone knows the monetary value of these. Can it be a justifiable trade-off against slow promotions, earlier retirement ages and lower pay?
Whom to ask? Who will hear? Committee is required to hunt out hidden problems. When problems shine the sky, then forming committee is to find what?
I think there is no point in expecting anything.
No one to hear and no one eager to hear.
Dear Navdeep,
I have uploaded the PDF document on scribd as suggested by you. The link for same is appended below:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11841359/Balance-of-SPC-Arrears-for-Lt-Cols-of-All-Seniority
Do you have any idea about reasons for delay in issuing SAI on PB4 for Lt Cols?
Once again thanks for the excellent services and guidance provided by you to all AF personnel.
@navdeep sir at 07:40
SIR,
1. i differ from your positive opinion though i appreciate it.
2. nowhere it is said by govt that it is an interim measure.
3. if 6th cpc, COS, GOM AND EVEN PRIME MINISTER HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS OUR ISSUES THEN HOW CAN V EXPECT ANYTHING FROM THIS SO CALLED HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE?
Maj Navdeep,
what will be the status of LT COLs posted to MES as SOI/GE? will they be considered under PB4?
yes. They are in PB4
Hi Maj,
Glad to find your site on such varied subjects and sub-subjects. I am amazed of your solemn concentration with which you write this blog, have dedicated your time for the country through TA (Army) and you are yourself an Advocate. Quite a feat Maj sahib. Good!
Anyways coming to the point, you would be glad to know that I too wish to follow your foot prints and wish to join TA (Army) and would need your counsel. I am a Corporate Lawyer by profession and work for gain as a Consultant for few Companies in Mumbai. My dad is a retired Major from Army (Bd of the Guards) 1st & 5 Guards converted into an ASC officer, settled in Lucknow.
Do let me know on the aforesaid.
Thanks,
Devendra
Is there any latest news on the Lt Cols Pay band 4 issue on the notification.Most of the officers who retd on or around sep 08 have not received their pension,commutation,grat etc.How long will this delay take as its already more than six months now.
Why doesnt the MOD understand.
Post a Comment