My opinion piece for The Quint today:
Civil-Military
Rank Equation:
Need for a Calmer Approach
Need for a Calmer Approach
Navdeep Singh
A point to point equation of
military ranks and civil grades has always been a subject of controversy. But
then things have taken an unpleasant turn in the recent past. While it is true
that a sense of entitlement of both military and civil staff must not be
allowed to prevail, it is equally valid that undue advantage of proximity to
the decision making process must not become the order of the day. The political
executive thus, must, reach a fair solution without any favour to any side.
While many military veterans
have adopted the route of heavy emotional rhetoric in articulating their views
on this subject, I sincerely feel, with all due respect to the said thought process,
that a solution, if any, would only be possible in an environment of mutual
trust, discussion and logic, irrespective of who is in power, and not by sharp
statements against other services or professions or expressing a persecution
complex. It is true that the military has been put to a disadvantage in the
past in various aspects, but it is equally correct that many anomalies have
been resolved, some fully, some partially, and most such positive movement took
place by means of dialogue and processes of law and by personalities who mostly
remained behind the curtains, and sometimes unsung.
The
Historical Perspective
Traditionally
there always was a broad parity of pay progression between Class-I Civil
Services (Now known as Group A) and the Commissioned Cadre of the Defence
Services. There was also a broad parity
between the career progression of the Indian Police Service and the Defence
Services, except at higher ranks. Moreover, there was established relativity
between Lieutenant Colonels, Conservators of Forests and Superintending Engineers.
Till the 3rd Central Pay Commission (CPC), there was not much of a
problem in equivalence and it was broadly accepted that the Junior Time Scale
(the starting grade of directly appointed Class I Officers) was equal to a
Lieutenant, the Senior Time Scale (Under Secretary to Govt of India) was equal to a Captain, the Junior
Administrative Grade (Deputy Secretary to Govt of India/Joint Director) was at
par with a Major, the Selection Grade (now Director to Govt of India) was equivalent
to a Lieutenant Colonel. The 4th CPC introduced a separate form of
pay system for the Defence Services than the Civil Services with a running pay
scale with separate component of ‘rank pay’ being introduced for defence
officers but civil officers maintaining distinct pay scales for each rank as
per the earlier system. This was the start point of the controversy with no
“scale to scale” rough comparison now available for each analogous rank.
Skewed equation by 6th
CPC
The
6th CPC, for the first time, brought the problem sharply out in the
open. On Page 73 of the 6th CPC Report, the commission reproduced a
chart of analogous military and civil grades wherein it pegged the Group A Junior
Time Scale with a Lieutenant as well as a Capt, the Senior Time Scale with a
Major, the Junior Administrative Grade with a Lt Col, the Selection Grade with
a Colonel and a DIG with a Brig. There were however many infirmities in the
chart. For example, while only one of the Civil Selection Grade scales
(Director) was reproduced and shown against a Colonel, the other civil Selection
Grade scales (For example the IPS Selection Grade of Rs 1650-1800) were not reproduced
at all and also not reflected with the closest military counterpart of Lt Col (Rs
1750-1950). The rank of Capt was shown equivalent to Senior Time Scale (Under
Secretary to Govt of India) in the 3rd CPC table but suddenly shown
reduced below STS in the 4th CPC table and clubbed with a Lieutenant
and Junior Time Scale. Needless to say, there was no government order
downgrading a Captain from the earlier level. There were other infirmities too,
for example, the scale of a DIG wrongly shown analogous to a Brigadier in the 3rd
CPC chart was actually that of the then existing grade of Additional IG which
was later merged with IG, and so on. The data, hence, was cherry picked and
projected as such to throw the entire equation into disarray.
Formation of a Group of
Ministers
Due
to the downgradation of military ranks by the 6th CPC, the
Government decided to form a Group of Ministers (GoM) to look into the issue. The
GoM ultimately recorded that the pay of a Lt Col should be hiked to denote
his/her position above a Deputy Secretary to Govt of India/Joint Director but below
a Director and a Colonel. The recommendations were accepted by the Cabinet. The
controversy was hence settled to an extent, though not to the complete
satisfaction of the defence services who had wanted the restoration of status
of Lt Col to Director Level Officers since both had similar attributes of pay
and length of service. The GoM also endorsed the formation of a High Level
Committee to further resolve the issue. To be honest, even the demands of the
military before the GoM were not justified at a few levels. For example, the
defence services had demanded the pre-4th CPC restoration of the
rank of Capt to Senior Time Scale and that of Major to Junior Administrative
Grade, forgetting in the bargain, that by this time due to difference in
promotion timelines on account of change in rules, while a defence officer was
promoted to the rank of Capt in 2 years, a Group A civil officer took 4 years
to reach Senior Time Scale, ditto for Major at 6 years and Junior
Administrative Grade at 9 years and such an equation would have led to an undue
advantage to the defence services.
The
current controversy
The
current controversy was triggered in October 2016 when the Chief Administrative
Officer of the MoD, the controlling officer for the cadre of the Armed Forces
Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQCS), issued a one-sided memo, downgrading the
status of military ranks even below the already depressed levels articulated by
the 6th CPC. The memo equated a Colonel with a Joint Director of the
AFHQCS (a Joint Director was otherwise equated with a Lt Col by the 6th
CPC and later a Joint Director was placed in-between a Major and a Lt Col by
the GoM). Further the memo equated a Director with a Brigadier though a
Director had clearly been equated with a Colonel both by the 6th CPC
as well as the GoM and approved as such by the Cabinet.
The
Major General and Joint Secretary to Government of India equivalence misnomer
Over the years, if not by
design, the sheen of the military rank has suffered by default. Major General
(today with 32 years of service) has traditionally been pegged at par with
Joint Secretary to Govt of India (currently 19 years of service) but it is unfortunate how this has come
about. The genesis of this incorrect
equation emanates from the fact that pre-independence, the Secretarial
hierarchy was in the order of Assistant Secretary to Govt of India (Stage 1),
Under Secretary (Stage 2), Additional Deputy Secretary (Stage 3), Deputy
Secretary (Stage 4), Joint Secretary (Stage 5), Additional Secretary (Stage 6)
and Secretary (Stage 7). A Major General was equated with Joint Secretary which
was a Stage 5 position in the hierarchy and even the length of service was
similar. However, over the years, the nomenclatures in the Central Secretariat
setup/Central Staffing Scheme were altered and appointments re-designated as
Under Secretary (Stage 1), Deputy Secretary (Stage 2), Director (Stage 3),
Joint Secretary (Stage 4), Additional Secretary (Stage 5), Secretary (Stage 6)
and Cabinet Secretary (Stage 7). Hence,
while the “Maj Gen = Joint Secretary” equation was cleverly maintained on paper as
before, it was not realized that the erstwhile Stage 5 of the secretarial
hierarchy was now Additional Secretary and hence Maj Gen should have retained his 5th
position, that is, Additional Secretary
of date. Also, the equation of Joint Secretaries to Govt of India and Major
General was not with regard to all officers in the pay of Joint Secretary, but
only with those officers who were currently holding the appointment of Joint
Secretary to the Govt of India on being empanelled as such in the Centre. Similar
has been the case if compared with other services. For example, the highest
Police Rank in a State, the IG, was equated with a Brigadier/Major General,
today, there are four pay grades in the Police above a Brigadier and three
above a Maj Gen. This is not to say that other cadres should stagnate, but is
simply to put across that when such upward mobility occurs, there should be a
parallel mobility or merger of scales on the military side too.
Slide over the times on cadre revisions
While
a Lt Col, Conservator of Forests and Superintending Engineer of the Central
Engineering Services (SE) were historically at par, today, after the 7th
Central Pay Commission, a Lt Col in Pay Level 12A is a step below an SE in pay
(Pay Level 13), and two steps below a Conservator (Pay Level 13A). The slide
has been inexplicable over the times with status being gently nibbled over the
years. Moreover, as explained above, whenever there has been any cadre
improvement, while civil posts have moved up and merged with higher
grades due to better cadre mobility and upgradations, military ranks have
stagnated and have been clubbed and bunched with lower grades. Many examples
come to fore. The erstwhile police rank of Additional IG which was roughly
equal to a Brig now stands merged with an IG and enjoys the pay of a Maj Gen
and that of Additional DIG in the Central Armed Police Forces which was equal
(in fact slightly lower) in pay to a Col now stands clubbed with a DIG, today
drawing the pay of a Brig. In the Military Engineering Services, the rank of
Additional Chief Engineer on the civil side was equated with a Colonel and held
interchangeable appointments. Later, in the 2000s, the said rank was merged in
the grade of Chief Engineer and is today enjoying Pay Level 14 which is the pay
granted to a Maj Gen. The Senor Administrative Grade-II roughly equated with a
Brigadier was merged with Senior Administrative Grade-I and today both are
known as ‘Senior Administrative Grade’ (SAG) simpliciter and are in the pay of
a Maj Gen. While logically, both Brigadiers and Major Generals should have
hence been equated with SAG, but today the rank of Brig stands relegated below
SAG.
The
Military also needs to readjust
While the slide of the sheen
of the military rank is more than evident, it is not that the military has not
contributed to it. Over the years, the military establishment has believed in
placing senior officers on junior appointments and used military staff in a
manner not befitting the rank held, thereby itself projecting a wrong equation
to the world at large. It also needs to be empathetically iterated that civilians
who have worked shoulder to shoulder with the military in mixed organisations
have also at times not been given due respect and regard to their experience,
age, seniority and maturity. Such mistrust and friction militates against organisational
fabric and national ethos. If the officers of the defence services expect
respect and sensitivity towards their standing in society, similar should be
their own attitude towards civilian peers in mixed organisations and indeed
towards other civil officers who are also serving the same nation and the same
flag with utmost sincerity. Any sense of entitlement or superiority on part of
the military in this regard, is therefore highly incongruous and misplaced.
The
role of the Political Executive
While no entity, including
the military, should be allowed to steal a march over other counterparts, the political
executive and higher bureaucracy must insulate itself from any advantage sought
to be achieved by key appointments due to functional proximity with power
centres. Ironically, and contrary to popular belief, most of such problems have
not arisen between the military vis-a-vis the IAS or other Group A services but
with support cadres which were meant to assist the military in their secretarial
requirements to enable the defence services in focussing upon their core areas.
Crudely put, it is a case of the grass eating the hedge.
Though I am not very sure if
and when this vexed issue would be resolved to the complete satisfaction of all,
but yet I am sanguine that with political maturity and deftness, the abrasion
between various cadres can be brought down to minimal levels and though a point
to point comparison may never be possible, the solution perhaps lies in
evolving an approach with an approximate pay and status progression keeping in
view the historical parities and length of service between the Commissioned
Cadre and other Group A services of the Government of India. And here is where
I differ with some of my esteemed veteran friends, for I strongly believe that
the key to this is the creation of an environment of mutual trust and
convincing the political executive that while the final decision is that of the
elected leadership, all that needs to be ensured is a say of all stake holders
in the decision-making process leading to justice and equity to all sides, and
the same can only be achieved by logical presentation and not by shouting down or
ascribing motives or antagonizing every entity who might have a difference of
opinion or a divergent view on a recommended solution, and in the bargain
losing all friends by burning bridges with emotional rhetoric to a point of no
return without any semblance of balance.
---
Major Navdeep Singh is a
practicing lawyer at the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the founder
President of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association, at Chandigarh.
