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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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, December 11, 2008

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


-

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Its really good news.Its really nice to see that all the Col.(TS) have been granted the same pay.After all the pyramidal structure in the defence allows only a select few to make it to the next rank and these Col.(TS) have served long enough to deserve this.
But one thing in this 6th pay commission simply defies logic.I as a retired Lt. Col. used to get about a 1000 Rs. more than my friend (an Addl. Commissioner of customs) before 6th pay commission.But after the 6th pay commission he is getting almost 7000/- more pension than me b'coz he is in PB-4 now.
Mind you, he is already getting the new pension whereas I am still to start getting new pension or any arrears till date.
I would like to know whether anyone from the Defence has started getting the new pension as yet or is this problem only with the SBI?

Mukesh said...

I am retd Lt Col and on 10 Dec 08 I have been paid arrers of pension by my bankers ie Bank of India, I have also been confirmed that all pensioners in MP & Chattisgarh have been paid arrears of pension. This has been possible courtsey Mr Guha Zonal Manager Bank of India, Bhopal and Desk Offr Ms Chayya Gupta

GOSPEL said...

A reply to anon above.New pension has not been credited in SBI.A certain amount has been credited in the form of arrears in SBI Kolkata on Dec 8, 2008. This I can confirm as SBI seems to be pretty confused about the pension disbursement.I pursued the case for my father and finally had to speak with GM customer care SBI in Bombay (number available on SBI website) and you have to spk with reference to Pension letter signed on 11 Nov 2008 a copy of which has gone to SBI to get the thing sorted out.SBI at local level is clueless about crediting of arrears or you may wish to wait another 6-7 days for it to be credited by default.

Patriot said...

Here is My Poem

Last night as I lay sleeping
I died .. or so it seemed,
Then I went to heaven
But only in my dream

Up there St Peter met me
Standing at the Pearly Gates,
He said, "I must check your record...
Please stand here and wait."

He turned and said "Your record
Is covered with terrible flaws,
On earth I see you rallied
For every losing cause."

I see that you drank alcohol,
smoked and partied too,
Fact is, you've done everything
A good person should never do.

We can't have people like you up here...
Throughout your life all you did was hear,
You carried out orders without pausing to think...
You never asked for instructions in ink.

Then he read the last of my record
Took my hand and said, "Come in."

You stood in isolated places and shivered alone
You left your kith, kin, hearth and home
You come from an unresponsive, ungrateful nation
You were denied your rights by every Pay Commission

He led me up to the Chief of Heaven ...
"Take him in and treat him well",
He has served in the Indian Military ...
He's done his time in hell."

Anonymous said...

The Naval Equivalents have not been promoted to Capt (TS). They too must get PB-4 after 26 years service like their Army and IAF counterparts otherwise there will be a big disparity. I don't know why Navy is not promoting all Cdr (TS) to Capt (TS) after 26 years service when the Army and IAF have done so. All the three services must have the same career progression to avoid huge disparity in pay between similar officers.

Anonymous said...

Navdeep, Thanks once again. Prompt distribution of happiness !!!

chandru said...

Fate of PB 4 for Lt Col???? Any news???

pawan said...

It is surprising to know that Naval equivalents do not have the same promotion prospects as Army

Anonymous said...

Thanks Mukesh & Gospel for your replies.I will have to check with my Bank again.If everyone else has received I must have also received it by now.

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep
This is regarding non promotion of Cdr(TS) to the rank of Capt(TS) by the Navy who have completed 26 Years of service, where as Army and Airforc has promoted similarly placed officers. In this connection one of the officer has moved to Bombay High court but court has not ruled in favour of the officer ,The officer has moved to Supreme court Case no 24003 of 2007 . As usual Navy tried its level best to delay the case since officer was retring in Nov 2008 ,The supreme court has fixed 12dec 2008 for final Judgement But again Navy has asked for time up to Jan 2009. I will be obliged if you could comment on the status and likely out come of the case.The judgement of Bombay High court is enclosed for your reference,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION
NO.
1503 OF 2006

Commander Ravindera Sadashio
Kshirsagar,
(01807-F), resident of A-25, Hyderabad
Estate, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai 400 036. ... Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India
(through Law &
Judiciary Dept), Ayakar Bhavan,
New Marine Lines, Mumbai.
2. The Chief of Naval Staff,
having his office at Naval Headquarters,
DHQ PQ, New Delhi 110 011.
3. The Chief of Personnel,
having his office at Naval Headquarters,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi 110 011.
4. The Flat Officer Commanding
in-Chief, Western Naval Command,
having his office at Shahid Bhagat
Singh Road, Mumbai 400 023.
5. Integrated Headquarters of the
Ministry of Defence (Navy), having
its office at Naval Headquarters,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi 110 011. .. Respondents
Mr. Shyam Mehta with Mr. Satendra Kumar for Petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Singh, Addl. Solicitor General along with Mr. Rajiv Chavan and
Ms. Akhila Kaushik i/by Pankaj Kapoor for Respondents.

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ.
DATED :
19th October, 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per F.I.
Rebello,J.)
 :

Rule.


2

As the matter involves career of senior Officers in the Indian
Navy, the parties agreed that it would be appropriate if the Petition is
disposed of at the admission stage itself. The matter accordingly was
heard on various dates. The parties were also directed to file their
written submissions considering the time constraint. The Petitioners have
submitted their written arguments only on 21.9.2007.

2. The Petitioner is at present working as
Commander (Time Scale). Till
the notification of the Government of India dated 11.3.2005, the
Petitioner ordinarily would have superannuated as Commander (Time
Scale). The Government of India had appointed a committee which is
known as “Ajay Vikram Singh Committee (AVS Committee). The
committee was constituted by the Ministry of defence, to examine the
Army headquarters proposals for reconstructing their officer cadre.
One of the recommendations made was time based promotions in
the officers rank. It was also recommended that the rank of Col. (Time
Scale) be granted to all Lt. Cols on completion of 26 years service.
The Committee noted in Para 76 of its report that whilst this report is
primarily focused on the restructuring of the Officers' Cadre of the
Army, it is applicable in nearly equal measure to the other two
services. The Navy and Air Force however, should work out their
Service specific requirements including the additional vacancies,
which will be required at various ranks on operational/functional
grounds. The variations that may be necessary to meet Service
specific requirements would be perused by the individual Service Hqs
separately.
3. Subsequent to the report, the Government accorded approval
for implementation of the report of the AVS Committee, one of which
was promotion of Lt. Colonel's who had completed 26 years service
to the rank of Colonel (T.S.). On 12.3.2005. The Government then

3


accorded approval for implementation of the AVS Committee report
to the Indian Air Force. One of the recommendations was promotion
of Wing Commander to Group Captain (Time Scale) on completion of
26 years of service subject to other requirements.

On 11.3.2005, the President was pleased to convey sanction
for revision of various terms and conditions of service for Naval Officers,
except Medical and Dental Officers. Some of the relevant paragraphs
are as under :

“1. Consequent to the acceptance of recommendations

of the AV Singh Committee Report (Part,1), I am directed to

convey the sanction of the President for revision of various terms

and conditions of service for Naval Officers, except

Medical and Dental Officers, as given in the succeeding

paragraphs.

2. Substantive Promotion : To reduce the age profile
and supersession levels in the Navy, as also to improve vertical
mobility, promotion to substantive ranks will be made based on
eligibility criteria indicated below.
RANK
Eligibility
Criteria
(a) Sub Lieutenant On commissioning

(b)
Lieutenant
02 years as Sbt.
© Lieutenant
04 years from date of
promotions to Substantive Lt.

(d) Commander
11 years from date of

4


promotion to Substantive Lt.
(e) Captain (Time Scale) 26 years of reckonable
commissioned
service.

3. The aforementioned promotions will be governed by the
following :
(a) Inter-se seniority amongst officers as per Navy List will be
protected.
(b) Forfeiture/gain of time as specified in Chapters IV and VI of
Regs Navy Part III.
© Provisions w.r.t. Discipline, vigilance and medical as
promulgated by IHQ Mod (N) from time to time.
4. Promotions accruing from Para 2 above shall also be subject
to officers fulfilling other criteria, to be notified by the IHQ Mod
(N) through policy letters on the subject. Seniority of officers
eligible for promotion based on above mentioned criteria, who
have not completed mandatory sea time due to service
constraints, will be protected.
5. Those serving in the rank of Commander (Time Scale) will
now be eligible for grant of substantive rank of Commander.
The existing rank of Commander (Selection) shall remain
applicable till the existing Commanders (Selection) are either
promoted to the rank of Captain (Selection) or Captain (Time
Scale) or are retired. No further promotions to Commander
(Selection) shall be made.
Captain (Time Scale)


5

6. Officers not promoted to the rank of Captain by selection may
be granted substantive rank of Captain (Time Scale),
irrespective of vacancies, provided they are considered fit in
all respects. The terms and conditions governing the rank of
Captain (Time Scale) to these officers are as under :
(a)
Pay scale : As applicable to Captain Selection Grade
which currently is Rs.15,100-450-17,350.
(b)
Rank Pay Officers will be entitled to rank pay of a
Commander which currently is Rsw.1,600/-p.m.
©
Other Allowances & Perks : Officers holding the rank

of Captain (Time Scale) will be eligible for all
allowances and other perks as applicable to
Captain Selection Grade.

(d)
Age of Superannuation : All officers holding the rank
of Captain (Time Scale) shall retire on
superannuation on attainment of the age of 54 years.

(e)
Medical Criteria : Criteria applicable for the rank of
Cdr.(TS) will now be applicable to the new grade of
Capt (TS).
7. Officers holding the rank of Captain (Time Scale) will be held
against the sanctioned strength of Commanders. Such officers
shall in precedence, rank junior to the following officers :
(a) Substantive Captain by Selection
(b) Acting Captain by Selection

6

8. Detailed criteria and procedure for
grant of substantive rank of
Captain (Time Scale) will be notified by integrated
Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).”
4. Subsequent to the sanction by the President, Integrated
Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy) New Delhi issued a policy on
14.3.2005 for implementation of Part I – AVS Committee
Recommendations (AVSCR). Some of the relevant paras read as under
;
“3. Governing Principle : The fundamental tenet for
implementation is that the inter-se seniority among Officers
as per Navy List, will be protected. The aim of succeeding
paragraphs is to lay down the modalities for implementation'
of the above, with minimum impact on command and control
structures and traditional naval ethos.”

“10. All Lt. Cdrs who have completed 11 years from
date of promotion to substantive Lt would be eligible for
promotion to Substantive Cdr. In the first instance, the
following officers would also become eligible :


(a) All Ag. Cdrs (Select List)
(b) All Cdrs (Time Scale)
© All “R”/”N” Graded Lt. Cdrs.

Paras 19, 20 and 22 read as under:

“19. The IHQ Mod (N) will screen and promote
substantive Cdrs who have completed 26 years of


7

reckonable commissioned service to the rank of Capt.
(TS). All Capts (TS) will continue to be borne against
the sanctioned strength of Cdrs and below and will
hold appointments tenable by Cdrs. These officers will
not be constituted as Cmde subsequently.


20.To maintain existing inter-se seniority, Cdrs (Time
Scale) and Lt. Cdrs. who have been finally
superseded will be eligible for promotion to Capt
(Time Scale) only after all erstwhile Ag. Cdrs
(Select List) have been promoted to Capt (Select
List) / Capt (Time Scale)/ retired. Para 3 of GOI
Letter ibid also refers.



“22. Such Officers shall, in precedence, rank
junior to the following officers
:


(a) Substantive Captain by selection;
(b) Acting Captain by Selection.”
5. The Integrated Headquarter of Ministry of Defence
(Navy) New Delhi issued another communication dated 2nd
November, 2005. The following paras of the communication
are relevant :
“2. The AVSC recommendations, besides
improving the promotion prospects of officers, are
aimed at ensuring a younger age, profile of officer in the
three Services. Whilst embracing the fundamental
tenets of the AVRC recommendations, the underlying
thrust of the IN promotion policy for non select ranks,


8


has been to preserve inter-se seniority amongst officers
as per Navy List, thereby ensuring minimal turbulence
to the existing Command and Control structure.

4. The above implies that immediate grant of promotion
to Cdrs (TS) with 26 years of commissioned service, to
the rank of Captain(TS), is untenable since it would
impact on the sanctity of inter-se seniority. While, this
may be considered at variance with the Army/Air Force
implementations, it is relevant to highlight that the
implementation by the two Services has been based on
mitigating circumstances such as their geographical
dispersion and selective placement. The IN policy is
practical and based on time tested, functional and
traditional norms followed even pre-AVSC.
5. It is further clarified that the new regulations do not
preclude promotion of erstwhile R1/R2 graded Lt.
Cdrs (subsequently not placed on Select List for
promotion to Captain) or erstwhile Cdrs (Time Scale)
and Lt. Cdrs ((N Graded) (finally superseded) to the
rank of Capt (TS) but only appropriately defers it till
such time the provisions at para 3(a) are complied.”
6. Several Commanders (Time scale) who were
aggrieved by these Communications made
representations to the Ministry of Defence. The
representations were rejected and they were so informed.
6. It is the Petitioners case that inspite of
the notification of
11.3.2005 consequent to the subsequent notifications, the

9


Petitioner though eligible and having completed 26 years
of service to be considered for promotion to the rank of
Captain (Time Scale), cannot be considered, till such time
as all commanders (select) and Commanders (Acting) are
promoted as either Captain (TS) or Commander (Select).
The Petitioner in the course of such exercise, would retire.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the terms
and conditions of service governed by the Government of
India letter dated 11.3.2005 are to be effective from
16.12.2004. The notification by the Integrated Headquarters,
Ministry of Defence (Navy) on 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 has
the effect of altering the rights for consideration for
promotion, as contained by Government of India letter dated
11.3.2005. The impugned policy letters in effect alter the
terms and conditions of the services of the Petitioner, which
are prescribed by the Government of India and as such are
without authority of law. It is also submitted that the
Paragraph 3 of the Communication of 11.3.2005 cannot
have the effect of deferring the promotion of Commander
(TS) like the Petitioners who has completed 26 years of
service. What the para at all would mean is that in the rank
as and when Commander (Select) and acting Commanders
are promoted to Captain (TS), they will be senior to
Commanders (Time Scale) who were promoted as Captain
(Time Scale) before them. More over inter-se seniority
obviously means seniority in the same rank and not in
different ranks.
It is next submitted that the Army and the Air Force
have both implemented the AVS Committee


10


recommendation by immediately promoting all eligible
officers in the rank of Lt. Col (Time Scale) to Col. (Time
Scale) and Wing Commander (Time Scale) to Group
Captain (Time Scale). In these circumstances, it is absurd
for the Navy to contend that the Govt. Notification permits
them to do the opposite. If the impugned naval policy is
implemented then no Commander (Time Scale) can be
considered for promotion to the rank of Captain (Time
Scale) till January, 2016, since the last Commander
(Select)/acting Commander (Select) would be eligible for
consideration by the end of the year 2015. According to
Petitioners, all Commanders (Time Scale) would by then
have retired and none would be available to get the benefit
of promotion of Captain (Time Scale).

It is also submitted that the Navy does not have the
power to vary a Policy of the Government of India. It is only
the Govt. of India that can vary its own Policy.
Consequently, the impugned Naval Policy as reflected in
these communications, are clearly ultra vires and in any

event cannot alter or modify the Govt. Policy much less
take away the right to be considered for promotion,
conferred by the Govt. Policy.

It is therefore, submitted that the impugned
communications are ultra vires and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India, to the extent that they have the
effect of postponing the promotion of the petitioner to the
rank of Captain (Time Scale) untill all Commanders
(Select) and acting Commanders (Select) are promoted to
the rank of Captain (Time Scale). The two communications


11


are therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside with a
direction to the respondents to promote Petitioners as
Captain (TS) with effect from 16.12.2004.

8. Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the
Respondents, by Commander R.N. Purandare. It is set out
that the Petitioner has not exhausted the efficacious remedy
available for redressal of his grievance under the provisions
of Navy Act, 1957 and the regulations framed thereunder and
has instead chosen to approach the Hon'ble Court directly,
which is procedurally incorrect. In our opinion at the outset it
may be noted that the representations made by similarly
situated officers have been rejected. The contentions urged
in this Petition also cannot be considered or decided by the
Authorities. That objection is therefore, devoid of merits. The
letters dated 14.3.2005 and 24.11.2005 of the Integrated
Headquarter Ministry of Defence (Navy) it is explained are
simply an elaboration and amplification of Govt. of India
letter dated 11th March, 2005 and in no way at any stage
contravene the provisions of the GOI letter dated 11th March,
2005. The Government of India Letter dated 11.3.2005, Para
3, clearly sets out that the promotions will be governed by the
inter se seniority of the Officers as per naval list which will be
protected.
It is also contended that as per Para 8 of the
Government of India Letter, the Government has authorised
Integrated Headquarters/Ministry of Defence to set out the
detailed criteria for grant of substantive rank of Captain (Time
Scale). As such, the policy letters dated 14th March, 2005 and
21 November, 2005 have been issued by Respondent No. 5


12


under the authority of the Govt. of India. The policy
letters/draft guidelines submitted are as per existing
regulations and taking into consideration all service
exigencies and effect of implementation of the said policy on
the morale of the service. It is submitted that in the Indian
Navy, if the Commander (T.S.) including Petitioner is
promoted to the rank of Captain (T.S.), immediately. as
claimed by the Petitioner, he will supersede almost 1300
Commanders in one stroke, who are senior to him in the
naval list. This will not only affect the morale but also be
contrary to the existing regulations. This is neither practical
nor desirable and in fact will be contrary to the
regulations/policies.

Dealing with the contention of the other two services, it is
contended that they have so done according to their
needs/requirements and their service conditions. In the armed
forces, the promotional policies are framed to suit the
service requirements which in turn are linked to the
peculiarities of different rank structure and dictates of
command and control. In the Indian Navy, if the
Commanders (TS) including the Petitioner are promoted to
the rank of Captain (Time Scale) immediately as claimed by
the Petitioner, he will supersede almost 1300 Commanders
(Select List) who are senior to them in a single stroke.
Though It is true that the Army and Air force have promoted
Lieutenant Colonel (Time Scale) to Colonel (Time Scale) and
Wing Commander (Time Scale) to Group Captain (Time
Scale) respectively, the terms and conditions of Indian Navy
are different from Army and Air Force. Navy's approach in this
regard has been practical and in conformity with the extant


13


regulations as it does not disturb the existing seniority
structure as promulgated in the Navy List. It is set out that it
is not as if Commander (TS) have been denied promotions to
the rank of Captain (TS). It has only been deferred.
Consequent to the order of this Court dated 23.11.2006
certain additional information was furnished. It has been
pointed out that as on the date of the notification dated
11.3.2005, made effective from 16.12.2004, the number of
Commanders (Select) were 1119 (One thousand one hundred
and nineteen). Acting Commanders (Select list) were 358 and
Commanders (Time Scale) were 412. As of 25.11.2006, 88
Commanders (Select) have been promoted to the rank of
Captain (Select) and 208 Commanders (Select) granted the
rank of Captain (Time Scale). No Commander (Time Scale)
has so far been granted/appointed as Captain (Time Scale).
It is also pointed out that all Commanders (Select) selected
by Promotion Board 03/2004 would be eligible for promotion
to Captain (Time Scale) by 2015. Although 282 erstwhile
Commanders (Time Scale) including the Petitioner would
have retired by then and not be benefited, yet 420 Officers
(130 erstwhile commanders (Time Scale) and 290 “N” graded
Lieutenant Commanders (Lieutenant Commander who have
now been select listed for Commander) would continue to be
eligible for promotion.

9. An additional affidavit was filed on 27.02.2007 by
Commandare Purandare. Amongst other contentions, it was
brought on record, that several representations made by
individual Officers (Commanders) (TS), has been disposed of
by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence and it is set
out that in terms of the Communication of 8.3.1996 the Jt.

14

Secretary is competent to decide all the representations.

As it was contended that by the order dated
11.3.2006, the Ministry of Defence had issued policy decision
in the matter of providing promotional avenues and that
policy could have been amended by Jt. Secretary, Navy and
that in fact it has been so done based on the power conferred
by order dated 8.3.1996, we had pointed out that the
communication dated 8.3.1996 only confers power to decide
statutory complaints. An affidavit has now been filed by by
Captain Purandare which clearly sets out that the order
dated 8.3.1996 only deals with the delegation of powers to
the Joint Secretary regarding disposal of statutory complaints
of officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent and that
the communication of the Integrated Headquarters (Navy)
dated 14.3.2005 impugned in the writ petition was to
harmonize the two clauses of the instruction dated 11.3.2005
relating to eligibility of offices to promotion as Captain time
scale vis a viz to maintain interse seniority amongst as per
Navy list. The impugned decision dated 14.3.2005 was under
the instruction dated 11.3.2005 itself.

10.We may only add an additional fact. The Petitioner in his
affidavit has set out, that he denies that Commander
Purandare was authorised to affirm the affidavit on behalf
of the respondents at any rate, on behalf of the Union of
India. This averment has not been dealt with by the
respondents in their subsequent affidavits. It is also
pointed out that the statement on behalf of the
respondents that 218 erstwhile Commanders of time scale
would have retired by 2015 is incorrect as about 405


15

Commanders will be retiring by that time.

11.Considering these contentions the issues that will arise for
consideration are :

(1) Whether the communications of 14.3.2005
and 2.11.2005 are without the authority of law
and in contravention of the notification dated
11.3.2005.
(2)Whether the communications dated 14.3.2005
and 2.11.2005 can be said to be arbitrary,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
in as much as the effect of these communications
amount to denial to the Petitioners of
promotional opportunities to the rank of Captain
(Time Scale), even though eligible under
notification of 11.3.2005.

(3)Would the action of Respondent No.
2 to 5 be
said to be arbitrary in as much as the
corresponding ranks in the Indian Army and Air
Force have been granted promotion from
16.12.2004.

12. To understand the contentions, we may firstly
note the promotion policy in the Navy previous to
communication on 11.3.2005. The promotion to the rank of
Lieutenant was after putting in maximum three years of
service, minus the seniority gained during Sub courses.
Promotion to the rank of Lt. Commander is after completion
of 9 years of service. Promotion to the rank of Commander
was by selection, based on performance/merit after

16


completion of 14 to 14.1/2 years of service. Three chances
were afforded by the Selection Board for promotion to the
rank of Commander. The promotion to the rank of
Commander (TS) (i.e. When officer not selected in three
chances), is after completion of 20 years of service.
Commander (TS) was not eligible for consideration for
promotion to the rank of Captain.

Pursuant to the policy of 11.3.2005 and
communications dated 14.3.2005 and 24.11.2005, promotion
to the rank of Lieutenant is on completion of two years of
service. Promotion to the rank of Lt. Commander is after
completion of six years of service. Promotion to the rank of
Cdr. is after completion of 13 years of service. Promotion by
selection to the rank of Captain by virtue of merit/performance
is after completion of 18 years of service, three chances are
afforded by the Selection Board for the promotion to the rank
of Captain (Select Grade). If a Commander does not get
selected within the three chances, then after completion of 26
years of service, he is entitled to be considered as Captain
(Time Scale).

13. We may now deal with the first contention. Are
the communications of 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 in
contravention of the notification of 11.3.2005. It is not
disputed and cannot be disputed that once the President
has sanctioned the condition of service which includes
promotion to the post of Captain (Time Scale), it would not
be open to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to alter, modify
the Policy, unless power was conferred to modify the
same. In Shankar Pandurang Jadhav and Ors. Vs. Vice

17


Admiral, Flat Officer, Commanding-in-Chief and Others,
(1991) 2 S.C.C. 209, the Supreme Court has been
pleased to hold that a subsequent order issued by the
Navy, inconsistent with the Presidential Order, has to be
ignored as officers in the Naval Department were not
competent to alter, vary or modify a Presidential order.

The question that we are called upon to answer is
whether there was any power in Respondent Nos. 2 to 5
to issue communication of 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 as
contended by them considering the language of the
Notification dated 11.3.2005. Para 3 which we have
reproduced earlier sets out that the promotion is to be
governed amongst others by maintaining the interse
seniority as per naval list which will require to be
protected. According to Respondents this paragraph read
with Para 8 of the notification which sets out the detailed
criteria and procedure for grant of substantive rank of
Captain (Time Scale) is to be notified by the Integrated
Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Navy). It is in
exercise of this, that the communications of 14.3.2005
and 2.11.2005 respectively were issued. What would be
the meaning of the expression “interse seniority” of
Officers as per naval list which has to be protected.
Seniority in the rank of captain is covered by the Para 7
which places the order of seniority as under:

(1)Substantive Captain by selection ;
(2)Acting Captain by Selection.
(3)Captain (Time Scale).

In other words Captain (Time Scale) in the rank of Captain,

will always be junior to those who have been promoted as

substantive captain by selection or as Acting Captain by


18


selection. If the seniority in the rank of Captain is already
provided, then Para 3 will have to be given a distinctive
meaning and if it has to be given distinctive meaning, then
Par 8 will have to be considered. The feeder rank for
appointment to the rank of Captain (Select) or Captain (Time
Scale) is in the rank of Commander. In the rank of
Commander (Time Scale) are those Lt. Commanders, who
could not be selected as Commander on merit. Appointment
to the promotional rank of Commander (Time Scale) was on
completion of 20 years of service and thereafter there was no
further avenue of promotion. From the affidavit of
Commander Purandare as on the date of notification of
11.3.2005 there were 1300 Commanders (Select List) who
were senior to the Commanders (Time Scale). Commander
(Select List) was by selection and Commander (Time Scale)
on completion of 20 years of service subject to other
requirements. If the Notification of 11.3.2005 has to be read
as Petitioner want us to read, it would mean that all
Commanders (Time Scale) though in the naval list were junior
to commanders (Select) or Acting Commanders (Select) on
account of the new policy by putting in the 26 years of
required service have to be considered for promotion to the
post Captain (Time Scale). In terms of Para 7 of the
Communication dated 11.3.2005, on promotion they would
be senior to Commander (Select) and Commander (Acting).
According to the Navy, if this is so applied, it would affect the
command and control structure in the Indian Navy. Would
this amount to protecting the inter se seniority in the naval list.
On the contrary, Commaner (Time Scale) who were junior
and earlier not eligible for promotion to the post of Captain,
by virtue of the notification dated 11.03.2005 would have to


19


be considered for promotion to the post of Captain (Time
Scale). This would affect the inter se seniority amongst
Commanders in the Naval List. From the various affidavits
filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the
submissions made, the policy of deferment of promotion to
those holding post of Commander (Time Scale) is that
otherwise, meritorious candidates who had been selected to
the post of Commander will rank junior to the Commander
(T.S.) until they are promoted as Captain. The only question
is whether the notification of 11.3.2005 so permits. Para 6
of the notification of 11.3.2005 sets out that the Officers not
promoted to the rank of Captain by selection may be granted
substantive rank of Captain (Time Scale), irrespective of
vacancies, provided they are considered fit in all respects.
Therefore, such officers if fit can be granted substantive rank
of captain (time scale). The expression used is not “shall” but
“may” . The expression “may” can be read in the context it
is used. It can also be read in the context of Para 3, which
would mean maintaining interse seniority amongst the
officers as per naval list which had to be protected. In Para 4,
it was made clear that the promotions accruing from Para 2
above shall also be subject to officers fulfilling other criteria, to
be notified by the IHQ Mod (N) through policy letters on the
subject. On a co-joint reading of Para 3, Para 4, Para 6 and
Para 8 and on a harmonious construction, it cannot be said
that the communications of 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 are
ultra vires the the communication of 11.3.2005. In our
opinion, the interse seniority amongst the Officers as per
naval list in the rank of Commander will have to be
protected and the two communications will have to be read in
consonance with these requirements. The AVS committee in


20


its report had left it to the Navy to work out the service
specific requirements. From 16.12.2004 all Commander
(T.S.) will be holding the substantive rank of Commander.
We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that the two
communications issued by the IHQ Mod (N) are not in
contravention of the Government circular/communication of
11.3.2005. These communications are pursuant to the power
which flows from the Notification of 11.02.2005, itself. That
contention therefore, will have to be rejected.

14.The next contention is whether the communication of
14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 have resulted in denial to the
Commanders (Time scale), their chance of promotion and
thereby are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The argument is that though the policy of
11.3.2005 confers right to be considered for selection to
the post of Captain (Time scale), the subsequent
communications of 15.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 which delays
promotion would result in denying to the Petitioner and
similarly placed Commanders (Time Scale), the right to be
considered for promotion to the post of Captain (Time
Scale), as the Petitioner like most other commanders, will
retire before they can be considered for promotion to the
rank of Captain (T.S.). The present petition has not been
filed in the representative capacity nor is it espousing
the cause of all persons similarly situated like the
Petitioner. However, if the Petitioner succeeds, that
would result in applying the ratio of the judgment to all
others similarly situated Commanders (T.S.). The policy of
11.3.2005 has resulted in the creation of the post of
Captain (Time Scale) to be considered amongst others


21


from Commanders who have completed 26 years of
service. If the figures cited and on record are considered,
there appears to be no possibility of the Petitioner being
considered during his service tenure. According to
Respondents themselves, considering the policy, which
defers consideration of Commanders (Time Scale), for
promotion to the post of Captain (Time Scale), the
youngest Commander (Select) would become due for
promotion to Captain (Time Scale) in 2015 if not promoted
Captain (Select). By then, about 282 erstwhile
Commanders including petitioner would have retired and
not be benefited. However, 220 Officers (130 erstwhile
Commanders (Time Scale) and 290 N graded Lieutenant
Commanders who have been listed as Commander
would be eligible for promotion to the post of Captain
(Time Scale). In other words, according to respondents,
deferment is not illusory. According to the Petitioner the
statement that only 282 erstwhile Commanders (time
scale) would have retired by 2015 is not correct and that
the correct position is that about 405 Commanders (Time
Scale) would have retired. It is then merely denied that
130 erstwhile Commanders (Time Scale) or 290 N graded
Lt. Commanders will continue to be eligible for promotion.
An additional affidavit was filed by Commander Kshirsagar
on 28.11.2006 subsequent to the order of this court dated
23.11.2006. It is set out that there were only 295
Commanders (Time Scale) existing as on
11.3.2005.Reliance is placed on the communication dated
17.3.2005. This letter sets out 295 Officers who have
acquired substantive rank of Commander. There is another
list of 17.3.2005 including 38 other Officers. It is pointed


22


out that out of 295 Commanders existing on 2.11.2005,
about 13 have since retired and as on date, there are only
282 Commanders (Time Scale) existing out of the original
295 and that all these 282 erstwhile Commanders (Time
Scale) would have retired by the time they would be eligible
for promotion to the post of Captain (Time Scale). In so far
as 290 N grade Lt. Commanders, they are junior to the
erstwhile Commanders (Time Scale) including the
Petitioners and may become eligible for promotion to the
rank of Captain (Time Scale) as they might still be in
service after 2015-2016. It is therefore, set out that 295
Commanders (Time Scale) would superannuate before
2015-16 and would not be benefited by the naval policy.
From the figures brought on record, we proceed on the
footing that none of the Commanders (Time Scale) would
be eligible for consideration to the post of Captain (Time
Scale). The fact therefore would be that considering the
Government Notification of 11.3.2005 and the
Communication dated 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 existing
Commanders (Time scale) would be ineligible for
consideration as they would have superannuated and it is
only N graded Lt. Commanders who by virtue of the policy
of 11.3.2005 have become Commanders Substantive by
the same policy, will be eligible for consideration for
promotion to the post of Captain (Time Scale). It is true
that accepting the figures on record, no Commander
(T.S.) will be eligible for consideration till 2015 by which
time all of them would have retired. As however, pointed
out at the same time, the policy requires the seniority in
the Naval list tobe protected. Article 14 abhors
arbitrariness. Is the action of the Respondents arbitrary


23


and or can it be said to be reasonable considering the
exigencies of the service. The rank structure in the Navy
determines the command and control structure. In the
rank of Commanders, the Naval list provided that
Commander (Select) and Acting Commanders would rank
senior to Commanders (Time Scale) even if Commander
(Time Scale) has put in more years of service as
Commander (T.S.). If on account of the change of policy
they are to be promoted, they will rank senior to all these
other Commanders who in the cadre of Commanders were
senior to them based on merits. The subsequent
communications only protect this inter se seniority in the
Naval List. As the Respondents have pointed out the
subsequent communication was to protect the control and
command structure and the morale, considering para 3 of
the Government Policy. In our opinion, the subsequent
communications are reasonable and in tune with the
policy of 11.03.2005. Once we have accepted that
contention, the challenge on the ground of Article 14
will have to be rejected;

15. That brings us to the last contention as to whether
on the two other services having granted promotion to
corresponding ranks, can it be said that the action of the
Navy in not considering the case of the Commanders (Time
Scale) for promotion to Captain (Time Scale) can be said to
be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. We have earlier referred to the various affidavits and
that it is an admitted position that the other two services
have granted promotions. Can that by itself be a reason to
hold that the communication of 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 are

24


arbitrary. Firstly they belong to two different services, in
other words, two different classes.
It is not a case of posts within the same cadre, where one
group of Officers are being considered to the exclusion of the
other. Secondly, the respondents have set out the reasons
as to why they have deferred the consideration for promotion
of Commanders (Time Scale) immediately. The policy
decision of an authority normally would not be interfered with
as the Employer is the best person to evaluate his
requirements and judge his problems. This court only
interferes if the policy is either ultra vires or violative of the
constitutional mandate. Judicial review does not concern itself
with merits of the Act or action of the manner in which it is
done. It also cannot be said that the action of the respondent
is arbitrary or violative of Article 14, in as much as reasons
have been stated as to why it was not possible for them to
follow the principles followed by two other services. Once
the policy confers powers on the respondents and the
respondents considering the over all policy have laid down a
criteria which is within the constitutional frame work, it will
not be possible for this court to interfere on the ground of
arbitrariness as admittedly the two other services have their
own chain of command and control different from the chain of
command and control in the Indian Navy. In our opinion, this
challenge also is not sustainable.

16. Considering the above, there is no merit in the
Petition as filed. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(ANOOP V.
MOHTA,J.)  (F.I.REBELLO,J.
)


25

Anonymous said...

@ Chandru,

Issue of PB-4 for Lt. Col. is dead & buried.As you must have read earlier, then Finance Minister P.C. Chidambaram had clearly refused to entertain this issue saying that it would open a Pandora's box & as you know this Government is dealing with the new issue of terrorism.Even the media has a new story to cater to.So no one is talking about that PB-4 issue any more.The Government only acts on things which are in the news & which everyone is talking about.

digvijay said...

Friends you can do your best but repersentatives of the peole are not in favour , here is some bad news -- Regards dvksingh

No OROP for veterans
Posted: 11 Dec 2008 08:46 AM CST

Supreme Court had passed a judgement in 1982 on the One Rank One Pension scheme for military veterans and the KP Singh Deo Committee had recommended the same unequivocally in 1984. It was also one of the main planks for protests by veterans earlier this year. However the defence minister has categorically stated its unacceptability in the Rajya Sabha today.

Government has not found acceptable the demand of Ex-Servicemen for one rank one pension. This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Kalraj Mishra in Rajya Sabha today. The defence personnel have not rejected the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, he added.[ PIB

Dost Of Fauj said...

DEAR PATRIOT @11NOV,
EXCELLENT POEM.U HAVE VERY APTLY CONVEYED THE "VYATHA" OF INDIAN SOLDIER.BUT ALAS! NEITHER THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER NOR THE "DESH KI JANATA" READ THIS BLOG/COMMENTS.ITS ONLY US FOOLS WHO R EXPRESSING OURSELVES AT THIS FORUM.BUT NICE LINES ALL THE SAME.

Anonymous said...

Navdeep, the SAI mentions Col(TS) prior to 01.01.06, Is there any significance for Officers promoted after that. The CDA Pune website says on its newspage "no orders have been received" for Col(TS)promoted on or after this date! Any comments?

Anonymous said...

@ Navdeep,

Since there is no difference here between the Grade Pay of a Col(SG)and a Col(TS),does that mean that the Grade Pay is not to be linked to erstwhile Rank Pay and would that also mean that the retd Lt. Col.(TS) who were getting the Rank Pay of Maj would also be getting the Grade Pay of A Lt.Col. for pension purposes.

maj amit said...

hi. I am serving major in Indian army. Can i get a copy of sai 2/s/2008 through your blog. It give s fixation table in respect of Col (TS). What about officers who have become major after 01 jan 2006. My date of substantive promotion to major is 9 june 2007. Shall i opt for fixation form 01 jan 2006 or my date of promotion. Kindly let me know the benefits of both.

id-sharma said...

Sir,
A normal reading of of govt orders for pre 2006 pensione issued on 11nov2006 including an example contained therein creates an impresion that pensioners will get 50 % of MSPwith effect from 1-1-06 including arrears on that account. Is it so? Or 50 % of MSP arrears will be paid with effect from 1-9-06 only Please clearify.

Krishnan said...

Dear Sir,
May I request you to provide me the details of "AV Singh Committee Report and MOD letter no 18 i 2004d GS 1 dated 19 12 04."