Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

The equation debate continues ! (with special reference to Lt Colonels and Superintending Engineers of Central Engineering Services)

-

(The following opinion is this blogger’s own and may not be construed opposed to any particular service. The author has the highest regard for all services including the MES - every single service is playing its part in the system. The discussion may please be kept dignified. Abusive or derogatory comments on any service are not welcome. Thanks)


A lot has been said about the equivalence of Superintending Engineers (SEs) and Lt Colonels. While MES officers claim that SEs are equivalent to full Colonels, Army officers refute this and say that SEs can only be equated at best with Lt Colonels.

Let us touch the issue historically and analyse how we have reached the present anomalous situation wherein SEs have been placed in Pay Band-4 while Lt Colonels have been retained in Pay Band-3.

Past precedent : Traditionally, the appointment of Commander Works Engineers (CWE) was interchangeably held by Lt Col from the Army and SE from the MES, though the pay of an SE was in between a Major and a Lt Col. Within the Corps of Engineers, the appointment of CWE was equated with the Command of an Engineer Regiment and hence when the rank of COs of Engineer Regiments was raised to full Colonel in the 1980s, the Army also raised the rank of officers posted as CWEs so as to maintain a parity between a CO of an Engineer Regiment and a CWE. Resultantly, the Army started posting full Colonels as CWEs. But this was merely an in-house arrangement of the Army and did not ipso-facto mean that SEs now became equivalent to full Colonels. The establishment manual till date maintains that the post of CWE technically can be held by a Lt Col from the Army or SE from the MES. It was the Army’s internal cadre management that now full Colonels were being posted as CWEs. The status or pay scale of SEs was not upgraded.

The concept of tenability of posts : Officers of the MES have often lamented that since Colonels are posted as CWEs, a post which is also held by civilian SEs, both have to be equated. However, within the govt there are many posts which can be held by different grades/ranks from different cadres and the issue is not that simple. There is a difference between an appointment/post and a grade/rank. The tenability of posts has infact nothing to do with one’s grade or rank. To take an example, the post of an Assistant Garrison Engineer (AGE) is held both by Civilian Assistant Engineers (AEs – Group B/Class-II) and Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs – Group A/Class-I), now would it mean that AEs of the MES have become equivalent to AEEs ? Most definitely not !, it simply means that the appointment of an AGE is tenable by both grades - AEs and AEEs. On the other hand, an AGE till the 80s could be a Subedar Major, 2/Lt, Lt or a Capt but it could not have meant of course that a Subedar Major then became equal to a Capt. Could the Army then also say that a Subedar Major (Group-B) was equivalent to an AEE (Group A) since both held the same post of AGE ? Of Course not. When different cadres feed one single line of posts, it is perfectly normal to have varying tenability norms to suit that particular cadre. Let us take another example, the post of DC/DM/Collector of a District can be held by STS, JAG or NFSG officers and similar is the case with the district police chief who in the district administration works under the DC/DM/Collector. Now it so happens many times that the DC is an officer of the STS while the police head is an officer of the JAG or NFSG, so can IAS officers be then allowed to say that the Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) of the IPS is now junior to the Senior Time Scale (STS) of the IAS ?, most definitely not !. Moreover in the MES, SEs posted as CWEs cannot write the ACRs of Lt Cols posted as GEs. The Warrant of Precedence, the establishment manual and MoD guidelines till date equate SEs with Lt Colonels.

Pay Scales : The following is a comparative analysis of the starting pay of SEs and Lt Cols :

3rd CPC
Lt Col – Rs 1700
SE – Rs 1500

4th CPC
Lt Col – Rs 4700
SE – Rs 3700

5th CPC
Lt Col – Rs 15,100
SE – Rs 14,300

6th CPC
Lt Col – Rs 15900 – 39100 with Grade Pay of Rs 7600 * (* under revision)
SE – Rs 37400 – 67000 with Grade Pay of Rs 8700

Rank Pay Confusion : This blogger has seen many comments wherein it is mentioned that Rank Pay is not to be counted for status purposes. It may be underlined here that Rank Pay was carved out of Basic Pay in the 4th CPC since an integrated pay scale of Rs 2300-5100 was implemented. The logic behind Rank Pay was to differentiate between various ranks since the integrated scale was the same from 2/Lt till Brigadier. A minima was also brought into force to which the rank pay was added to bring out the correct pay scale. To put it more clearly, while the pay-scale of a 2/Lt remained 2300-5100, the pay scale of a Lt Col was based on a minima of Rs 3900 with a Rank Pay of Rs 800 within the integrated scale of Rs 2300-5100, which basically meant that the actual pay scale of Lt Col came out to be Rs 4700 – 5900. To say that Rank Pay was not a part of Basic would mean that all ranks from 2/Lt to Brigadier are of the same status since they were in the same scale of Rs 2300-5100 !. Moreover, the Central Govt also adequately clarified in SAIs issued after the 4th and 5th CPCs that Rank Pay was very much a part of Basic Pay. There is no force of law in any letter issued by any administrative authority contrary to the said SAIs. The MoD in 2007 has also again clarified that there are NO orders which state that Rank Pay is not to be added into basic pay for comparison of status. Please see this document to see the equation in Army HQ as actually followed.

-

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Merger of Rank Pay with the Pay Scales. Keeping in view the difficulties being faced by the officers with regard to interpretation of Rank Pay, it is defined as follows :-

“Rank Pay is admissible to the Commissioned Officers of the three Services, holding their rank either in a substantive or acting capacity. It is that element of their pay identified with their Rank, which, in turn, has a relationship with their scale of pay. It is granted separately in recognition of the specific needs of their conditions of service and command structure. It will consequently be taken into account for determining their entitlement to such of those financial benefits, concessions, etc, including retirement benefits, as are directly related to the basic pay or their pay scales.”

Authority:
Govt of India MoD letter No 1(26)/97/I/D(Pay/Services) dated 29 Feb 2000.

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep , THEY donot seem to understand the facts and logic and bitter truth is being kept at bay. We have a great and of course free but extremly effective weapon with us to make them understand our pain: The Terrorists. Just let them loose on these babus and thick skinned politicians for a month, they will be putting us up in PB-5 !!!!

Anonymous said...

I really appreciate the sincerity with which this site is pursuing the cause of personnel in uniform. With regards to positioning Lt Colonels in PB-4, there is a strong case and I am sure the Govt. would approve it in the near future.

ragini said...

I feel it should come through fast and the defence forces should not be made to beg literally
read my article here and the comments by some senior generals
here

http://www.indiantvtoday.com/unwilling-to-implement-continues/2008/09/18/

http://www.indiantvtoday.com/why-this-bias-against-the-army/2008/09/13/


http://www.indiantvtoday.com/navy-chief-meets-manmohan-over-pay/2008/09/05/

http://www.indiantvtoday.com/unwilling-to-implement/2008/09/04/

regards
Ragini

ragini said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Thanks to the delay being caused by the vested intrests, the men in unifrom will be deprived of the happiness in this festive season which will be enjoyed by all other civilian counterparts. If the top leadership of this country also cannot honour its assurances, i guess its only the devine intervention which will bring in some sence into these Babus.

Anonymous said...

Well it is for the information of all that post of SE WAS UPGRADED by 5cpc and given scale which is two scale above. The then existing scale of SE was 3700/- which had equivalent of/replaced by 12000-16500.WHERE as given scale to SE is 14300-18300 ,equating them to Full Col.It is further for the information that pay like NPA and now even HRA are treated as basic , more over MSP is also basic and will attract all DA /PAY adjustment. Thus that mean next generation of military officers will demand Ltcol as equals to Jointsecy.AS a fact army is given pay some heigher to civil officer so 5cpc started fauji scale 2300-5100 ,where as civil was given 2200 thus giving military rs 100 extra , because this scale was a running , a element of Rank pay was given to have a difference between varys ranks of defence. This was the only reason to give Rank pay it was treated as basic to get DA like now is MSP OR NPA reading more than this is just waist of time and energy

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous September 19, 2008 9:56 AM
Please correct your English Grammar, Typing mistakes can be understood but not grammatical mistakes.

Anonymous said...

AT the onset let me say that there should be no comparision between services and civil. services pay should be one step higher than pay of civilian pay.IT shouldSTART FROM THE LEVEL of seopy to chief . and army should take a policy descision that they should not post any service officer to civilian organisations like mes ,DRDO, SURVEY OF INDIA etc.THE officers posted are real culprits . when they areposted there they dont mind working under civilians,getting thier ACR Initiated by civilians even though senior service officers are there.Because ,civilians give out standing ACRS Whether deserving or not . I HAVE scanned many ACRS IT IS SAME .WE GIVE ABLIND EYE to it ,because after all it is our officerS let him progress in service. these officers posted to other than MES, do not return back ,they try to get absorbed in these organisations inARMY RANKS enjoy army benefits working in civilian organisations,get promoted to higher ranks applying one below rank promotion ie if regular officer in army , JUNIOR TO them gets promoted to higher rank ,the officer seconded to civilian organisations get promoted. IN THESE category belive it or not there are 25 officers of the rank of MAJOR GENERAL AND DOUBLE the number of Brigadier rank officers in asingle organisation.These are the officers who convey a totally different message to civilians about ARMY.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous,11.17.,i salute you.CHIEF SHOULD report only to supreme commander.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous September 19, 2008 11:17 AM

You are Perfectly right and as the previous Anonymous at 11:32 said Chief of Staff and all three Chiefs Should Report ONLY TO THE SUPREME COMMANDER OF ARMED FORCES THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA and Not to PM, RM etc etc etc etc etc. Perfect

Anonymous said...

1.Third CPC scales of equat. posts of Civilian Defence Forces

JAG 1200-2000
Lt. Col. (Acting) 1500-1900
Lt. Col. (Subs.) 1700-1900
Lt. Col. (TS) 1800 (Fixed)

NFSG 2000-2250
Colonel 1950-75-2175

DIG 2250-2500
Brig. 2200-100-2400

2.Fourth CPC is not comparable bacause sliding scale was followed for defence up to Brig. and not for equt. civilians posts.

3.Fifth CPC
JAG 12000-16500
Lt. Col. 13500*-17100 +(1600 RP^)

NFSG 14300-18300
Col. 15100*-17350 +(200 RP^)

*Higher starting for early retirement
^RP for tough service conditions

4.Six CPC
JAG PB3 + 7600 GP
Lt Col PB3 + 7600 GP

NFSG PB4 + 8700 GP
Col PB4 + 8700 GP

Thus historical equilance of third pay commission has only been formalised in Six CPC.

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep
Some People understand only the language of "Salary Comparison" for Calculation of status Equivalence, they do not want to look beyond that, its like the Eye-Bands of Horses.

Anonymous said...

@12.21pm 19/9/.GOOD HOME WORK.No regrets for keeping nfsg in pb4. you have not commented on SE. -------SE -third pay commission -1200-2000. LT.COL. AS YOU SAID.----------4TH PAY COMMISSION -3700-5000. ----LT. COL 3900+800(rank pay).---------5THPAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 12000-16500.but PLACED IN 14300-18300.--------------- lt.col.13500--17100+(1600) RANKPAY.----------------------------6TH AS YOU SAID. IT is not historical equilance ,it is historical blunder of 6th pay commission by sri krishna. JUSTICE sri krishna has delivered his judgement as usual with out any justification and any rule or any logic . HAD 6th pay commission JUSTGIVEN DA MERGED / REPLACEMENT SCALES WITH COMMON MULTIPLYING FACTOR this heart burn, bitter fightCOULD HAVE BEEN AVIODED. AS already some body has said dont equate services with civilians. services are are paid for one day i.e war. you dont know when it comes.civilians will not be fighting war .THEN AT LEASTshed few tears for the brave soliders who will lay their lives defending these country or else history will repeat we will be ruled by foreigners .

Anonymous said...

It is absolutely incorrect if the feeling is that the defence officers are begging for anything. If they are taking up the anomolies with the Govt., it is only to restore the honour of the brave officers/soldiers and give them the respect they deserve. If their honour is not respected/restored, it would not take much time for entire system to lose its credibility and ultimately result in debacle. It is the faith in the system that keeps the Jawan going at borders. No country can ill afford to compromise on this account. One can only hope that the Govt would sooner than later restore the status of officers in uniform beyond doubt.

Deepak said...

ANOMALY IN GRADE PAY OF ARTIFICER III-I IN indian NAVY OF ARMED FORCES

When every body in central government is talking of their pay increase after the approval of the report of VI Central Pay commission report, there is one group of Artificers in Indian Navy of defense forces which is worried about how much his pay has been denied by his own employer due to a rumor specially created to achieve this objective by his own employer who was representing this group for the better pay and perks in this pay commission. The group which is hereby represented as Artificer III-I though they used to be three different identities having different pay scales before the implementation of V Central Pay Commission Report. Actually, they were together with Chief Artificer of Navy having the same naval rank of Chief Petty Officer. There scales were greater than another in the sequence of Chief Artificer, Artificer I, Artificer II, Artificer III having maximum for Chief Artificer and minimum for Artificer III. Artificer III, Artificer II and Artificer I were merged in the lower scale of Artificer III instead of a normal procedure of merging lower pay scale into the higher one. If there was the requirement of merging these distinct entity these all four were at par and having the same hierarchical position and perks and allowances and all four entities were to be merged as their distinct nature is not required after the introduction of Master Chief Artificer II Class and Master Chief Artificer I Class. The sole purpose of having these distinct entities was to create a hierarchy between these Chief Petty Officers because they were present only at that time in Artificer cadre. Now, the time has changed and there are two more ranks available to satisfy the same. There is no requirement of these four to exist.

The sixth Central Pay Commission report was made public on 24th Mar 08 and the pay scale of S-9, 5000-8000 was placed in Pay Band PB2 with a grade pay of Rs 4200 in which the pay scale of Artificer III-I, 5120-100-7120 falls (Para 2.2.18, Page 43). But when the same has been recommended for the Artificer III-I, the grade pay has been reduced to Rs 3400 (Para 2.3.28 Sub Para iii, Page 85) citing there is no intermediate scale available in the Civilian side. It is pertinent to mention that in the same para, Navy Y Group PBORs who are at par with Artificer III has been recommended a Grade Pay of Rs 4200. the Seniority of Artificer III and Chief Petty Officer (CPO) in Group Y is maintained on the day on which one was promoted i.e. one CPO promoted on a later date than Artificer III will rank junior to an Artificer III who was promoted on a earlier date(IHQ Mod(N) letter RP/1451 dated 16 Nov 2000). It is clearly stated in NI 2/96 that the relative rank of Artificer III, II, I and Chief Artificer is that of a Chief Petty Officer. Regulation 247 of Regs navy Part III amended by SRO-16-E dated 13 Aug 68 in conjunction with NI 2/96 clearly lays down the same. V Central Pay Commission report para146.44 mentions the same as “the Artificers of Navy arc graded according to their level of technical competence, experience and responsibility. Each grade in Artificer cadre is equated to a particular service rank, starting from equation of Artificer V Class with Leading Seaman, Acting Art IV Class and Art IV Class with Petty officer and Art III Class, II Class, 1 Class and Chief Artificer being equated to Chief Petty Officers. Master Chief Art II Class and Master Chief Art I Class are equated to MCPO II and I respectively.”

Anonymous said...

anonymous 1:18 PM

I understand your objection was to keep NFSG in PB4 identical to Cols which is not being objected by you now.
I shall now try to explain position of SEs

In 3rd CPC SE,s where in two grades
1)SE(NFSG) in the scale of 2000-2250
2) SE(JAG) in the scale 1200-2000

5th CPC onwards there is only one grade of SE,s , ie,in the scale of14300-18300.
(These have been taken to PB4 with Cols and GP of 8700)

Now EE,s have two grades
1)EE(STS) in scale of 10000-15200
2)EE(NFSG) in scale of 12000-16500
(Both have been kept in PB3 with GP of 6600 and 7600 respectively in 6th CPC)
hope I have clerified

Anonymous said...

in response to @ anonymous,Sept 19, 2008 11:17 AM.
When all efforts are being made to resolve the issues related to VI CPC for services, your comment seems to be diverting the issue. And it is the kind of mentality which has brought the things to such a pass for the services. How does the positioning of a service officer in MES, DRDO or SoI degrade your stature? You want to cut off from the world rather than facing it.Do you think that in absence of such postings, the civil services would have been very happy and placed you in much higher status than where you find yourself now? So friends, let us not confuse the issue and stand united for a change. Your personal jealousies and frustrations should not deflect the attention from the core issue of unfair deal to services by VI CPC.

Anonymous said...

@RAGINI ,please donot bring father of nation into picture. KEEP poltics away. ALL are same.

Anonymous said...

First, my compliments to Navdeep for putting things across in a dignified and a pithy manner. Second,it is clear that the ever since the Services started fighting battles from the Third Pay Commission onwards, the slide has only accentuated. Third, whilst it is very well to try and continue equations as prevailing at independence, it may not be possible. Fourth, effects of Cadre reviews are there for all to see and therefore let us not hanker for AVC II any more. Fifth, let us also accept that the reward system in the services has become skewed over the years. Let the Chiefs and other Senior Officers introspect and realise whether the ranks today, even within the Services, enjoy the same respect and perks as when they had joined the service and whether the lesser mortals today have far lesser perks than were available than say 30 years ago and whether the perks available to the seniors have declined in the same proportion? If not, then there is a case for them to do something.

So, my two penny bit as suggestions is firstly, let us stop asking hereafter for 'X' salary for each rank. On the other hand, we should say that the existing accepted parities may not be disturbed. Secondly, the Military Service Pay should be over and above the pay scales to compensate for hardships and rigours of military life. Thirdly, we should also say that the personnel of other organisations engaged in hazardous duties must also get hardships allowances but at a scale nominally less than Military Service Pay. Fourthly, the compensation for the families of persons dying in service such as the IFS Officer and the DA in Afghanistan should be the same as for other persons such fighter pilots dying in air crashes etc.

Anonymous said...

dear navdeep
you may be aware of AO 8 of 1985 what is the designation of ltcol as per this AO ?it is joint director so what is the fuss ?col in Ein c br were writing director designation and suddenly switched over to col (pers/wks etc etc )just to confuse matters.

Ramani said...

I agree with anonymous that postings/ deputation of service officers to civilian orgs like DRDO/Survey of India/MES etc be totally stopped.or else at least those officers who are permanently absorbed should be given the choice of shedding the uniform and the perks that go with it and joining the civilian dept as a total civilian.it is because of these guys that the heartburn takes place because two guys working in the same job get different compensations.
In the case of MES a different approach is necessary.

ragini said...

something to cheer about while the wait is on for the pay commission report to come out.
read it here
regards
Ragini
http://www.indiantvtoday.com/some-good-news-about-pay-commission/2008/09/19/

rk said...

@Deepak
I have not seen the notification but as per 6th CPC report Art III is placed in PB 2 along with Chief Petty Officers of other branches.. I think it is more than fair as Art III is assured promotion whereas CPOs in other branches get selected after spending much longer service and very few of them make it to that position...

Anonymous said...

@anonymous 11;17. IT appearsthat you have not read my comments fully. THEIR isNOTHING jealouses or frustration, had itbeen i wouldnt have given ablind eye to out standing ACRS ofservice officers written by civilian officers of equal status ,some times lower status also.Ithink ramani at 11;21 has answered.FEELINGS ARE SAME for any one.

Anonymous said...

@ramani,September 19, 2008 11:21 PM
Going by the debate and the comments put on this blog,it seems that the compensation of service officers vs civilians has gradually been eroded and this is true to a great extent. However, your comments tend to give the impression that services compensation is better.Next you will say that even within the army, say only infantry should be calling the shots and compensated and others denied. I think we are climbing up the wrong tree and as Navdeep has mentioned, let us not derogate each other or for that matter even other Govt departments. Do you know that as per the initial manning plan, when DRDO was set up,30% vacancies were for service officers. Can you imagine the texture and culture of this organisation with that kind of service component. But it is precisely the mentality like yours at play, which prevented occupation of these billets and today we have a situation where an organisation meant to serve the services has gone out of our hands.So stop bickering as this is not going to help anyone including you.

raj said...

@Navdeep
Sir, I have a view on maintaining Pay Parity. Give me your fair view on how do you feel about it???

To have uniform pay scale for all organisations without making anyone feel cheated following changes need to be made in our system for Group ‘A’ promotions: -

(a) Promotions (for pay) should be separated from Rank structure.

(b) Qualifying service and percentage of personnel that can be promoted to next pay bracket should be made same for all services (military & civil). It would address the issue of limited promotion prospect in few of the services.

(c) As far as the issue of truncated service in armed forces is concerned, it affects only those people who serve till superannuation. If a person is willing to serve beyond it (within 60yrs) and govt is not able to offer him suitable position, then only he should be suitably compensated. Others, opting to leave before superannuation should not get any benefits out of this system.

(d) For manning various positions the organisation, based on its requirement, can have its own rank structure which should not affect basic pay (Pay parity). To have a distinction between Ranks, some incentives can be given in terms of additional perks associated with the position.

(e) Compensation for working conditions or any other factor as raised by various organisation can be suitably decided and paid as allowance, instead of including it in the basic pay. The allowance should be admissible to persons actually involved and not for all.

(f) Seniority between two persons serving in different organisations should be governed by the basic pay. For persons on deputation, for the duration of posting, it should be governed by his position in that oragnisation. The moment he leaves the organisation, it should be reverted back.

loverboy said...

i have seen some earlier posts regarding designations of of lt cols and cols etc... let us not confuse rank and designation. in CBI and IB we have joint directors who are officers of addl secy./jt. secy level, similarly there are organisations where colonel equivalent officers are designated as Dy Director General. so please understand that jt dir/dir is an internal issue of the services. tom some guy will start comparing director CBI with director in ministry.

Rohit said...

I was just going through an old post @ Pragmatic's blog which seems to be a premonition by Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi of the state of things to come, written back in May 2008-

From: VIJAY OBEROI
To: CHANDER KAMBOJ ; (ADDRESSEES TRUNCATED)
Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 7:58:28 AM
Subject: PROTEST TAGS

Dear All,

With a view to keep our protest against the Pay Commission recommendations in focus at all times, I suggest that all veterans, their spouses and their dependents, if they so desire, should wear a black and white protest card as shown in the attachment at all times. The attachment has two specimens, as some prefer the word ‘military’ while others prefer ‘defence’. Either can be used, although perhaps military may be more focussed. This should be worn at all times, including on your T-shirt when you play golf or in your office if you have a job. This will soon become a talking point with whoever you meet in an office, shop, train, airline, cafe and so on.

We can get these made cheaply, resembling an Id tag one usually wears at conferences, seminars and of course in our formations and headquarters. The cost, for a plastic cover and a clip would be between Rs. 5 to 10 and the text can be either got printed if it is a bulk demand, or printed on your printer.

I am already wearing one. Yesterday I wore it to a meeting presided over by Governor Punjab. Every one was curious. The IAS officers present had a look and sheepishly turned away, while the others smiled or asked questions. I wore it again at a cocktail party in the evening and there was a great deal of acceptance, including by the ladies.

To some, it might sound a bit foolish, but once you start wearing it, you will yourself see its value. It will also keep our struggle in focus at all times. The various organisations can have them made in bulk and their members and others can buy them. Even our Jawans should wear it. In fact it would then become standard attire and we need not use black arm bands or black head bands for the events we organise.

Think about it and start wearing it.

Regards.

Vijay Oberoi

———

Former Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS)
Former Director Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)
RESIDENCE
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
‘DAULAT’
#673, Sector - 6
Panchkula - 134109
Telephone - 0172 - 2587642, 2587648
e - mail : oberoivijay@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

Dear Readers,
Pl find the historical facts about MES and Corps of Engineers and Lt Col & SE
1. MES came into existence through Army Instruction 1014 and Para 10 very clearly stipulates that an officer from corps of engineers then sappers and miners when posted to MES shall be paid at MES rates and shall be born on MES strength and vice versa.
2. After independence civilian officers were inducted.
3. Lt Col and SE were regarded at par both being 1st select rank and occupied the appointment as CWE in executive and SO I in staff.
4. During 85-86 in order to implement the cadre review of Army appointment of CWE was made tenable by Col how ever the appointment of SO I continued to be held by Lt Col. Had this also been made tenable by col the aberration would not have come as it has come today.
5. AO 8/85 defines Lt Col as joint Director and Col as Director following the same trend as in civil i.e. Jag(SE) as Jt Director and JAG(SG)(SE(SG)) as Director.
6. Vth CPC made changes in the structure and JAG(SE) was made non functional JAG for EE and it was named as EE(SG). The 1st selection was upgraded and brought at the level of JAG(SG) and named as SE.
7. (a) AVSC made Lt Col as non select rank i.e. time scale promotion to be regarded as senior time scale as in civil. Lt Col to hold the appts of GE, DCWE etc as being held by EE / EE (SG).

(b) The 1st select rank is Col and the appts to be held of CWE and Director.
8. Lt col / SOI and SE only the name remaining same but everything changed drastically. As such need to be seen differently. Advantage of name of Lt Col / SO I and disadvantage of name of SE need not be equated.
Further my views:
1. Around 80% of the fauz is in piece area doing the duty of a normal civilian personnel. Then why they should be paid MSP etc.
2. As an austerity measure such fauz should be paid at par to civil rates.
3. Any person doing the job for which he has been recruited should be compensated adequately and the service should become more attractive. This will not only make the service more attractive rather solve the problem of shortage in the fauz.

Anonymous said...

W.r.t. Anonymous dated 24 Sep 2008 thanks for giving a nice history and your views. I feel fauz has to realize that cadre review always bring down-gradation / dilution of rank. Accordingly in today’s scenario Lt Col can be treated at par to EE (SG) (old SE) or STS and consequently both have been put to PB 3 with same grade pay of 7600. In case both are shifted to PB 4 more happy state for all of us.

I also subscribe to your views of giving more compensation for fauz duty and same pay and allowances when in civil duty. It is logical to think why a fauzi should get MSP, free ration, so much of allowances etc while staying at Delhi, Pune, Bangalore etc rather they should be getting the same pay and allowances when discharge the duty of his civil counterpart. This would definitely make the fauz really attractive.

pawan said...

I am willing to accept the case for MSP only in field areas if my dear friends in civil services volunteer to serve in army in peace for 3 years. I am sure more than 80% would not go beyond 3THREE MONTHS. AT the same time try offering equivalent civil posts to army officers. HAFTA collecting civil servants cannot survive the physical training without any HAFTA in Army even for three months

Anonymous said...

The following opinion is my personal own views and may not be construed opposed to any particular service/person.

A lot has been said about the equivalence of Superintending Engineers (SEs) and Lt Colonels and example cited (IAS officers compared with IPS in civil administration).
Firstly, two different species/tribes/cadres can not be compared. IAS can not be related to IPS and a system has been evolved in civil adm. They are manning different posts in different departments which are not clashing with each other; exception being highest post of secretary manned by IAS in all ministries.
In MES why 2 entirely different species are posted. There should be army only if the govt understans that they are competent and capable to run the deptt efficiently or ony civilians should man if govt has understood by now that army is incompetent and incapable to run the deptt because they are employed for different purpose.
On one side army is crying that there is huge shortage of officers in engineer corps (1000 or even more); I fail to understand why 1000 odd officer are poste in MES. MES is a civil department under MOD and it is not under Army as misunderstood by Army. Army is employed for security of nation's border and these 1000 odd engineer officers are posted in MES, are enjoying peace tenure with full army facilities/perks and still cribbing. These officers should immediately be withdrawn from MES and sent to border. In my opinion,govt is compromising the national security by postin army pers to MES doing an engineering job not more than what CPWD/PWDs or any other engg deptt is doing. The pers responsible for this either in uniform or in govt should be hanged.
Now comes SE and Lt Cols. Earlier SEs in al gopvt engineering deptt were wrongly kept in 12000 scale and that's why it was equated with Lt Cols by army in MES. Later govt realised the anomaly and SE were given in 14300 scale equivalent to Conservator of Forests which they actually deserved; and automatically Lt Cols became junior to SEs in MES. Where is the doubt.

Anonymous said...

Dear fauzis
The following opinion is my personal own views and may not be construed opposed to any particular service/person.

It appears that fauzis are comparing Lt Cols with Directors in Civil heirarchy, which is day-dreaming. They should not forget that Brig is equivalent to Dir in Ministry. Whatever they have got by now is more than that they deserve.

Anonymous said...

Two services meant for different purposes should not be compaired,but rule framed by supreme court must be honoured.Equal pay for equal work.Army is degrading it services by posting officers to DRDO,MES,Survey of India because normally they are not professionally comptent to work in these organisationand after doing a tenure there the unit consider them unsutable.Senior officers want to be part of these organisation to enjoy benifit and promotion

Anonymous said...

It has been sad experiences to watch on TV show the retired Officers uneducated in their own self. Harsh but true. Any response will be welcome by our esteemed Defence Service officers, not with rhetoric but facts. We welcome if Government gives an block 25% high pay for Army officers with respect to IPS/IFS/IES etc benchmarked with length of service AND withdraw all extra benefits over civil services together whatsoever they are in service/post retirement. Even a 50% increase will save the government a huge money in taxes exemptions granted to defence forces etc. It will be a great service to Nation to grant that much pay hike for difficult service. Secondly, while on civil peace posts in DRDO/BRO/MES/IMA/CME etc/ posted to peace formations they should be paid at civil rates.

It has been little too much of the Blackmailing tactics with which the Army/Navy/AF serving and retired officers are resorting to. It surprising that senior and retired officers to have such poor knowledge and that they are in fact misinforming the troops that post independence successive and this government has done a great injustice to them. The morale of troops is not low but greed of certain senior officers is crossing the limits expected from the government servants. As a citizen I want pose certain questions and facts to our brothers to respond. We may appreciate that knowledge of even our many journalists is limited wrt Armed forces and hype and love for safety of Motherland sway them. The pool results on TV shows are clear indication of the writing on WALL that Forces are taking full advantage of sympathy coming out of ignorance of public and it sets A VERY-VERY DANGROUS TREND. WORLD HISTROY HAS PROVED IT ON MANY OCCASSIONS. Please read the following questions/facts/opinion:-

1. What was the qualification to enter IMA as an officer in Army earlier? 12th pass for all except Degree Engineers, graduate entry etc. Now you want to compare IAS with that.
2. What length of service was required to become Lt Col in 1920’s-23 Years. What length of service was required for Lt Col in 1949-18 Years, What length of service was required for Lt Col in 2008-9 Years post qualification given by Army for engineers etc, 13/11 years for others. The honour and equivalence being talked about is all warlike tactics. At no stage the pay of ARMY officer was higher than ICS. It was equal to civil posts when they were posted to Civil services like IPS/IFS/IES etc. But Army officers got their equivalent rank with longer service as their qualification have always been lower as now.
3. What was stated at AV Singh committee report, All Lt Col will work on the post of Major which were upgraded en-block. The 90% officers occupying posts of Majors were given Lt Col rank and pay. Why did army kept quit and did not object that Lt Col are being made to work at posts which are held by Captain/Major. Only to blackmail government now? Please realise you are not fighting war with Enemy, but with poor common men money not even taxpayer’s alone.
4. When in history ICS/IAS were at same level as Army officer? As per 1924 Scales Equal work equal pay concept prevailed. When Army officers were posted to Railway/PWD/ Survey of India/IPS/IFS they were given same pay as for the civilian officers. The entire civil service of Doctors in India was manned by Army doctors who draw same pay as civil doctors in Railways. The length of service required was 23 years for Lt Col time scale and 25 years for Selection scale.
5. You want to compare a Lt Col ( 9 years working experience at the responsibilities of 4 years which he was to do as Major) and ask for equivalence of Lt Col who worked for 23 years 90 years ago in a Colony. You want a equivalence higher that what was in a colony which was Destroyed by MAHATAMA. What was service required for promotion as AEE/EE/SE/DIG/Conservator of forest in 1920’s when for Lt Col it was 23 years. In 1920’S AGE LIMITS FOR IES OFFICERS: AEE-0-3 YEARS, EE- 7 YEARS onwards, SE-14 YEARS onwards Now even after IV CPC the Lt Col were given SE in departments like MES after 18 years while class I officers were given in 9 years. It has always been the case since qualification for entry to army were and are much inferior to ICS and other class I services. We can try that by asking Army to recruit through UPSC only having a post selection medical/ fitness/psychological examination of their own. Let us remember that a Boy from same class in IIT gets a job of Rs 3 lakh/year and another of 35 lakhs. IT IS ALL YOUR SKILL SET. Let recruitment to army be through same exam as IAS/IPS/IFS and let there be only separate medical fitness/psychological paper.
6. What qualities are required to fight wars, pay or orientation? Do we think World Wars were not fought bravely with less pay than more qualified civil servants? That way a jawan will never fight for one tenth of salary of his Lt Col.
7. How ICS compared with army ? The ICS officers got a pay of Rs 2250 in 23 years service, IPS/IES/IRSE/IFS/ARMY Rs 1350/1375. That was in 1924. The difference has been narrowed down post independence.
8. What is that date when the Lt Col was ever equal to SE? The SE was equal to DIG in 1924 with 16 years service as they were highly skilled? SE, whose scale is being asked for was never equal to Lt Col except in MES that to when SE RR provide that he become SE in 9 years and an ARMY OFFICER become Lt Col in 18 years. Now SE/DIR becomes in 13 years minimum and Lt Col becomes in 9 years and after becoming that serves at the appointment of Major 3 years ago.
9. Sixth pay commission gave reasoned response to all queries then why Army going to press to distort public opinion on misinformation campaign? Have they studied the subject before going to press and public? Is it not the duty to first put facts before public and then ask for opinion?
10. What harm happens if some Lt Col etc leave, as it is they are being wasted at Majors’ appointments as there is no work for their length of service. They are getting permanent service benefits for filling posts for short service. It will be good for country and Army, they will get better pay outside and Army can find best of the people in a country of 100 crore.
11. Why Army still continues making officers from combatants who are merely 10th pass through Special lists officers by passing UPSC. Is it in national interest to deny opportunity to qualified young men?
12. Why Army failed to find 12000 suitable officers in a country of 100 crores or it is a strategy so that officers get faster promotions?
13. How the benefits of Military service pay, free ration, free clubs, subsidised water/electricity/transport/travel/housing/assured admissions/school fee waiver/higher pension/ higher insurance/CSD/ reservation in jobs/training for post retirement job at govt expense are to be accounted which Army got in last 50 years over and above the Civil services while their entry qualifications is much less than that of civil services. An average officer in army gets 100% more than a civilian in pay+ perks.

THANKS TO ALL READERS

Aditya said...

Anonymous, my dear chap. I dont know who has fed you this propaganda about Army officers having lower qualifications than IAS/IPS/IFS... If you inspect the UPSC website, you will discover that the qualifications required to take the CDS, and the CSE exams are identical. Every direct entry officer must have a degree. All joinees at the NDA also receive a degree as the NDA is a college! All Jawans promoted to the officer cadre must go through the ACC Wing which again is a 3-year degree granting institution. Surely you know this. Indeed, due to the large variety of cadres within the armed forces, apart from the general duty officers who all have BA, BSc, MA/Msc degrees, you have some officers in the armed forces who are very highly educated, with MBBS, MVASc, MSc, MTECH, LLB etc degrees, for specialised cadres such as engineers, medical, veterinary, dental, JAG, and AEC. Im sure you cannot be so completely unaware of the situtation of the armed forces as not to know this. If you are, then possibly, it would be better if you didnt comment here. Indeed most armed forces officers posted to orgs like MES are better educated than the IDSE incumbents, most of whom are diploma engineer promotees. All military engineers officers have a BTECH degree, and many of the military officers are post-graduates from the IIT's/REC's/IISc's etc where a special services quota is available. And as to parity with IAS, in 1949, let me tell you, Manekshaw was a brigadier with 16 years of service, and with about 19-20 years or so of service he was a Major General. With 25 years or so of service, General Thkur Nathu Singh was an LTGEN and Army Commander. So how can you make ridiculous claims about LtCols needing 18 years of service to make the rank? Please, do not make such uneducated and obviously motivated posts in such an arbitrary fashion. It gives neither you, nor the cause you represent any legitimacy to do so.

Anonymous said...

My Dear officer, The statement made are all true. Please refer to Superior Services rules -1924 prescribing minimum service for Lt Col as 23 years for time and 25 for selection scale. If need be i will send u acopy inacse postal address is posted here. Regarding Gen Manekshaw etc the officers became because there was vaccum post independence. Please reconcile that ICS scale was always 25-50
5 higher than Army as also from other services. The Army officers of 6 years servicewas equated with 1 day of ICS officer. The army officers posted to civil posts which they were posted in large nos drew civil scales based on length of service. The SE scale was much higher than Lt Col even in 1924 rules. SE was eual to DIG at that time. Regarding higher qualifications, why Army donot ask the officers from UPSC direct, i can bet they will not even qualify for NIT waht to talk of IIT. The taking degree from CME etc is different than IIT. The PG qualification taken at government expense is of no value you know it, it is like MBA from IIM paid by Army from poor meen's fund. Ask these officers to take IIM and publish their score for transperancy. Making officers from jawan and giving reank upto Col is fraud on indian youth. Neverthess thanks for your views and any error will be welcome, please quate order no /rule no etc.

Anonymous said...

yvpMy Dear officer, The statement made are all true. Please refer to Superior Services rules -1924 prescribing minimum service for Lt Col as 23 years for time and 25 for selection scale. If need be i will send u acopy inacse postal address is posted here. Regarding Gen Manekshaw etc the officers became because there was vaccum post independence. Please reconcile that ICS scale was always 25-50
5 higher than Army as also from other services. The Army officers of 6 years servicewas equated with 1 day of ICS officer. The army officers posted to civil posts which they were posted in large nos drew civil scales based on length of service. The SE scale was much higher than Lt Col even in 1924 rules. SE was eual to DIG at that time. Regarding higher qualifications, why Army donot ask the officers from UPSC direct, i can bet they will not even qualify for NIT waht to talk of IIT. The taking degree from CME etc is different than IIT. The PG qualification taken at government expense is of no value you know it, it is like MBA from IIM paid by Army from poor meen's fund. Ask these officers to take IIM and publish their score for transperancy. Making officers from jawan and giving reank upto Col is fraud on indian youth. Neverthess thanks for your views and any error will be welcome, please quate order no /rule no etc.

pawan said...

gkFor all of those who are blogging without the knowledge of actual beginning of the warrant of precedence in India. Point to be noted is that while it was by No of years for Civil Officers, Military equivlence was by Rank .

Warrant of Precedence as it exists today owes its origins in the Royal Warrant by which by which Precedence was regulated in British India, dated 10th September 1850. Civil Servants (East India Company ) had been divided under the Queens Warrant, into six classes according to date and their standings. Following is the extract from page 60 & 70 of the book “ PEERAGE, BARONETAGE, AND KNIGHTAGE, GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, FOR 1860, INCLUDING ALL THE TITLED CLASSES.” By Robert P Dod, Esq, Associate of King's College, London. Published by Whittaker and Co, Ave Maria Lane, MDCCCLX. Gilbert and Rivington, Printers, St Johns Square ; 1860 :--

Rule 29. Civilians of the 1st , i.e. of 35 years standing from the date of rank assigned them on their arrival and Maj Generals.
Ranking jointly amongst each other according to seniority, which is computed amongst the civilians form the date of there entering the class to which they belong and amongst the military officers from the date of their commissions.

30.Civilians of the 2nd class i.e. of 20 years standing from the date of rank assigned them on their arrival, and Colonels.
Ranking jointly amongst each other according to rule No 29.

34.Civilians of the 3rd class , i.e. of 12 years standing from the date of rank assigned them on their arrival and Lt Col.
Ranking jointly amongst each other according to rule No 29.

35.Civilians of the 4th class , i.e. of 8 years standing from the date of rank assigned them on their arrival and Majors.
Ranking jointly amongst each other according to rule No 29.

36.Civilians of the 5th class , i.e. of 4 years standing from the date of rank assigned them on their arrival and Captains.
Ranking jointly amongst each other according to rule No 29.

37. Civilians of the 6th class , i.e. of under 4 years standing from the date of rank assigned them on their arrival and
Ranking jointly amongst each other according to rule No 29.