It is not just the military community, but all Central
Government employees who have expressed concern over recommendations of the 7th
Central Pay Commission.
The concern is even more marked in the military because
there was hope of restoration of parity with civilian counterparts, which of
course did not materialize and rather recommendations have been rendered in a
manner which can be called regressive to say the least. Then there are statements
recorded in the Report which are factually incorrect as also reflected in my earlier post of 21 Nov 2015 on disabled soldiers. It also seems that the Pay Commission
has heavily relied upon data provided by an officer of the Defence Accounts
Department attached with it without due verification or even rebuttal from the
Defence Services or even veteran organizations. What is more surprising is that
there are statements in the Report which are in the teeth of decisions of the
Supreme Court.
The disenchantment with the Pay Commission recommendations
is understandable, but not all is lost.
As we all know, these are ‘recommendations’ and not the
final word, and it is unlikely that the Government would accept the abolition
of certain allowances or privileges postulated by it. Pay Commissions are known
for liberalization of benefits and not the opposite, and the Services HQ and
even to an extent, the MoD, would not let this pass so easily. Also the Raksha Mantri would be appropriately
apprised.
All I would say is, stay calm, stay easy, experts are on
the job and all stakeholders would put joint efforts on all issues emanating
from the 7th CPC. If still there remain some pitfalls, rest assured
that there are people who would stand up for your rights!
18 comments:
Thanks a lot Navdeep. Good words.
Somebody is going to standup for my rights??
Were they not around during previous pay commissions?
Maj Navdeep Sir,
You optimism, I fear, is misplaced. Over the years, the top brass is the single largest impediment to the welfare of the personnel below them-the OBCs, or the men they command. No wonder the babus ride roughshod over the fauj.
Your yeoman efforts are the reason why the starred gentlemen have not been able to succeed 100%.
Dear Maj Navdeep,
Your suggestions are always valuable. It's true that we should not jump the guns and wait for the final outcome. Venting anger at this early stage would only vitiate the atmosphere. Let's wait and watch calmly.
Regards
Col JS Pandher(Retd)
Well written Maj Navdeep. Hope that the people concerned are apprised of the factuals before the report is accepted.
Yes. I fully agree with you. The Govt would definitely will do the needful; they must have perceived the total Indian Views about the measured-down treatment being meted out to Armed Forces . Let us wait and watch.
REWARD FOR IN-EFFICEINCY: 7th CPC recommendations on pensioners
Recommendations
1 WE are thankful to the commission for their liberal approach in granting nearly full parity to pre2016 pensioners vide Para 10.1.67 of the report. However I find that the proposal to add number of increments@ 3% per annum (compounded as done by commission in table 5) of service completed at last level of retirement to the min pay at that level has following shortcomings.
Anomalies
There has been abnormal distortion in ratio of starting pay by previous pay commissions at successive levels by contractions as well as by expansion. As a result of it, those pensioners who could not get promotions shall stand to disproportionate gains. On the other hand, those promoted near the end of their service shall be getting much less pension than the former in spite of having retired at higher level as explained below.
(a) Presently, min pay for an employee at level 1 (say peons) is 7000* 2.25=Rs 15750 and pensioners retired at this level is drawing pension of Rs 7875.Prior to 1996 there have been many cases especially at lower level when people retired in the same rank in which they entered. In such a case one having entered at the age of 18and retired at the age of58, is entitled to 40 annual increments and his notional pay at stage 40 under level 1 of table 5 shall be Rs 56900 that shall entitle him a pension of Rs 56900/2=Rs 28450 .On the other hand with his hard work another person entered at same age in level 1 reaches level 4 (say LDC) after 30 years of service and retires after 10 increments at level 4. His notional pay shall be fixed at stage 11 under level 4 i.e. RS 34300and thus a pension of Rs 34300/2= Rs17150. Thus, an in-efficient person shall be getting pension of RS 11300 more than efficient person.
(b) Take another case; X and Y entered level 6 at the same time and X retired at the age of 58 before 1996 at level 7 after getting promotion to level 7 after 15 years. His nominal salary after 23 increments at level 7 stage 24 of table 5 shall be Rs 88700, thus a pension of Rs 44350. On other hand Y gets promotion to level 7 after 15 years, to level 8 after 25 years and level 9 after 35 years. He has got only 3 increments at level 9 and his nominal pay shall be fixed at stage 4 of level 9 i e Rs 59700 and new pension shall be fixed at Rs 29850. Here again in-efficient shall be drawing Rs14500 more than efficient person.
(c) Now I want to quote a case of group A service. X and Y were promoted to level 13 in 1989 and X retires at same level in year 2000. Y gets promoted to level 14 just few months before retirement. Notional pay of X shall be at stage 12 of level 13( as he got 11 increments at this level) i.e. Rs 164100 and his pension shall be fixed at Rs 82050. On the other hand nominal pay of Y is to be fixed at stage 1 of level i4 I e RS 144200and new pension shall be Rs 72100. Thus an officer who retired at higher level shall be getting pension Rs 9950 less than the other who retired in lower level.
In 90 % services promotion are too slow due to skewed sanctioned strength at various levels and rarely a promotion takes place at min residual service. Above type of anomaly shall be visible in most of cases in these services.
Navdeep - the problem is that we always have to fight for more than is initially granted. It is this very basic curse that is painful. We are the step-children no doubt.
Yes u are right. There is long way to go.All the defence services has to get united & fight for their parity. I am not in fauz, but want the govt to look after them well.
Sir While the faith in system is the right thing, yet the past experiences may not support it; that's all
Dear Navdeep,
What you say is correct that the governments have been liberal with the final orders on pay commission but then how liberal can it get on such a strict recommendations where nearly every recommendations of the armed forces have not only been shot down but also the pay commission has endorsed negative remarks for the army which I think no other pay commission has done so. The little privileges enjoyed by army has been withdrawn and it seems it is some sort of vengeance being taken out by the powers behind such recommendations. I am sure that due to the well disciplined army there is no much open talks about the punishment recommendations but there is a feeling of pain and anguish in every soldier. The officer's who lead from the front and LEAD has been punished more.
Let us see how the government balances this but since the way how OROP has gone I don't think the recommendations of the pay commission is any different than what the government wanted finally leaving a thing or two which it will let continue to be given just to show it cares..
Jai Hind .
With regards
AK
Col PK Das (Retd). Veterans are extremely eager to know as to how the GOI MOD will co-relate 7 CPC and OROP. Specifically 7 CPC has worked out a formula for Defence Forces pensioners and has NOT mentioned anything about OROP. GOI MOD is likely to issue implementation orders on OROP may be in Dec 2015 or Jan 2016. 7 CPC may also get implemented on 1.1.2016. If OROP and 7 CPC are exclusive of each other veterans may be at a disadvantage if 7 CPC is more beneficial. Kindly advise on this specific issue.
Great assurance! Thanks.
the way cpc has reported about technical allowances its very sad. Lets hope services will understand the extra and hard work done by technical branch
The 7CPC report is silent on the pension fixation for post 2016 retirees. No commutable has even been mentioned. Your comments please.
True sir dont get disheartened yet but get disheartened after the report is implemented, which in all probability seems to be the case as history has been witness to it since the last six pay commissions.. Sadly, the soldier has to fight for his rights in his country which again he doesn't in the name of discipline and the top brass too week to stand up for their men. General like Sam Manekshaw are indeed missed who were well-known for bravery and forthright approach in addition to stand up for soldier rights. After him not a single general has a stature same as his or is worth looking up to. Time that report of 7th Pay commission is again accepted with a pinch of salt.
Well Major if you are saying so we have a reason to remain calm but the experience with the CDA babus is different and increases our worries. I am a veteran. It has been 6 months since CDA(O) sent my revised LPC to CDA(P) (after lot of chasing) and I am still waiting for revised PPO and increased pension.Do not know how long will it take to be processed .
Col P B Singh( Veteran)
The idea behind the 30% NE Allowance is to incentivise the civilians so that they go to the NE on postings in addition they get double HRA and some other minor benefits. But Faujis are bound by Desertion Laws and hence cant refuse to move to the NE hence NO INCENTIVE for them, and hence dont get the NE Allowance and no double HRA and other minor benefits. However, what we should ask is that the Faujis should be given a choice either to take their special region based allowance or NE Allowance. But it should not be at the cost of work based allowance like CI Allowance, Flg Pay etc. Region based is Field, modified fd etc. I think the Sixth Pay Commission had recommended something like this but was not notified in the Gazette.
Post a Comment