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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Changes in pay fixation rules on re-employment

The DoPT has notified some changes in the rules of pay-fixation for government employees who opt for re-employment under the central govt after their retirement / release.

These changes are even more pertinent for those officers (including military) who opt for re-employment on appointments (and pay-bands) lower than the ones from which they retired.

The Central Civil Services (Fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners) Orders, 1986, stand amended to the extent mentioned in the ibid letter.

The new provisions can be accessed by clicking here.


Harry said...

@ Maj Navdeep


In the letter the example given is a Col joining as Deputy Secy. My Question is why should any self respecting Col get re-employed as Deputy Secy in first place?
If one wants re-employment its much better to do it in-house!

Any differece of opinion, anybody?

Harry said...

@ Maj Navdeep and other brothers

Continuing with my earlier comment..

The issue I wanna rake up here is at a macro level. A Col retiring at 54 yrs is forced to opt for re-employment (NOT because he chose to retire early, but was forced by the Govt to keep Army's profile relatively young. Fine, understandable!) but isn't it Govt's duty to absorb him suitably laterally into a job that fits his Grade/Status? A civ Dir is NOT made to sit as Deputy Secy once he reaches 54 yrs. So here one may argue that service conditions for civ service and military are different. Perfectly fine. So if any sane person is asked to frame service conditions for the two distinct services, whose service conditions need to be more benign (esp true for lateral absorption)? The one who has been slugging it out and risking his life and limb throughout his life OR the one who has been pushing pen sitting in AC office?

There is a famous statement by ..(forgetting who) "We all rise to our level of incompetence".
This does not seem to be true for faujis, as after rising to their level of incompetence they still will fall a level lower. :-)

Unknown said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

1. This ORDER of 5 April was supposed to address the issue of protection of last pay of the defence from where the official would have retired and now stands reemployed with the Central Govt.
As per the ORDER, re-employed personnel have been divided into 3 categories as under:-
(a) Those who retired prior to 1.1.2006 & were re-employed prior to 1.1.2006.
(b) Retired prior to 1.1.2006 & reemployed POST 1.1.2006.
(c) Retired POST 1.1.2006 & reemployed POST 1.1.2006.

While CAT (b) & (C) above have been given the benefit of protection of last pay, the CAT(a) has been excluded from this provision.
2. Please may we have your considered opinion if this may amount to the ORDER being discriminatory in nature .

Nar Singh(narsingh17h@yahoo.co.in)

Anonymous said...

Absolutely unrelated to this article but imp NEWS:


Ludhiana: Beating their arch rivals Pakistan by a huge margin of 58-24, India Monday won the first edition of the Kabaddi World Cup.


Cheaper call rates for ”jawans” in border areas.The reduction in charges will be for the para military forces like ITBP and BSF serving along the border outposts throughout the country, a DoT statement said.


14 April is a closed Holiday.

B P Singh Maidh said...


The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity.[1] Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".

Harry said...

@ Mr BP Singh

Thank you Sir for enlightening! Now I recall it.

But strangely you haven't commented upon the bigger issue I raised. Would love to hear your thoughts on the same.

Anonymous said...

Whenever the Dingbat IAS manipulates something they do it slowly & steadily. Because our chaps in AGs Br don't give a repartee at the right moment. They wait for things to get screwed up and then try corrective measures. This AGs Br should also give out a circular where an IAS chap coming on Military Courses like DSSC and NDC will be put through a two week screw session to match up to the Servicemen. If they fail they will be sent back to their parent Dept. 90% of them should be failed

Anonymous said...

This thing about keeping Army young and then re-employing a Col as a Capt doesn't gel. How can an old Capt(re-employed) keep the Army young. If its so imp to keep the Army young why not fill up the vacancies with a young Capt? We should try to increase the age of retirement of Army Officers to 60yrs. Stress should be on fitness rather than on age. Earlier people used to feel old at 40, now they feel young at 70. Times are changing.

Unknown said...

Dear Maj. Navdeep,

Please give your advice on the following wrt this circular:-

What's the difference between 'Direct Recruitment' and 'Re-employment’ in terms of pay and allowences?

In Nov 2008, I had applied
for a Central Govt. job with a G.P. of Rs. 8900/- based on an open newspaper advertisement whilst I was a Cdr through proper channel after taking NOC from the I.N. I cleared the interview and my appointment letter said that I have been selected on Direct Recruitment/ Re-employment basis.

On reporting for my new job after seeking pre-mature retirement from the I.N. in Jul 09, I was told that I should opt for ‘Re-employment basis’ vis-à-vis ‘Direct Recruitment’ as it was beneficial in terms of protection of last pay drawn, and I did.

Till now I am being paid Provisional salary with protection of my last drawn pay from the I.N. inclusive of MSP, minus the pension amount (deducting the ignorable part of Rs. 4000/- as I am less than 55 yrs of age).

Does the new order mean that whereas MSP will not be included during fixation of my pay, but 50 percent of it as a part of my pension would be deducted from my newly fixed salary?

If I opt for 'Direct recruitment' even now, without pay protection wrt last pay drawn from I.N. and opt to start with starting basic pay corresponding to G.P. of Rs. 8900/- , will my pension still be deducted from the salary ?

Can we approach the court to say that our pension should not be deducted from our salary, atleast if we opt for Direct Recruitment instead of Re-employment?

A B Mehta said...

Dear Navdeep,
I hope you would not mind asking yr comments on an old issue that of rank pay inclusion in the light of the Supreme Court judgement.

I retired in 1982 as I was absorbed in a PSU. My rank was Gp Capt. I am told that this order is applicable only to those who were in service during 1 Jan1986-31 Dec 1995 period.

My pension was revised based on the IVpay commn and V pay commision. In both cases the calculation was based on a NOTIONAL pay of 4500 + 1000 rank Pay. My doubt is that would not 4500 have become say 4500+800 or some such figure? If this is true than the pension also would have been higher.
Could you or any other member pl comment?
Gp Capt A B Mehta

Harry said...

@ Anony at 9:03 pm

"Whenever the Dingbat IAS manipulates something they do it slowly & steadily. Because our chaps in AGs Br don't give a repartee at the right moment. They wait for things to get screwed up and then try corrective measures. This AGs Br should also give out a circular where an IAS chap coming on Military Courses like DSSC and NDC will be put through a two week screw session to match up to the Servicemen. If they fail they will be sent back to their parent Dept. 90% of them should be failed."


What u are saying is very correct. But on the contrary we go overboard in entertaining/accomodating any one from civ side visiting us in office or attending course of instruction with us. Also the seniority and service of civ offrs attending NDC is quite less in comparision. So the fact that he is rubbing shoulders with creme de creme of Military (who are about to be Maj Gens and equivalent)makes him quite high headed and he sets his pecking order accordingly. Finally courses like DSSC and NDC may mean the WORLD to us faujis but these don't mean ANYTHING to them professionally as their progression to Joint Secy/Addl Secy is virtually assured.

So, there you see, this won't make a fig of a differece to them!

Anonymous said...

Very nicely worded and a calculated instruction. Deduct the MSP equivalent of pension from the new pay but do'nt provide the same in the pay fixation. Is'nt it the jealousy on MSP and arrogance of the policy makers. I wonder how they think that this will be accepted. It has become a practice that every thing is to be fought for armed forces. In fact half of the efforts go in clearing the confusion deliberately created by the babus.

Anonymous said...

nice article
is there any provision for serving officers not superceeded or LMC to apply for civil posts advertised ? query by nalim has made me ask this.
hoping for rely from nalin or anyone wise enough.

Anonymous said...

Harry said... So, there you see, this won't make a fig of a differece to them!

Would. Just RTU a couple of them and watch the complex they get. This followed up with a course report that they are incapable of grasping higher management will make their egos churn even in their graves. After pasing out of the LBA they feel that they are the rulers of the Indian Empire. Prick their egos and they go phoos. Recently at a party I met an IAS officers who had just retired from the Himachal cadre and was given a post retirement job as the boss of a PSU at Delhi. I had the best time of my life when I recounted tales of IAS incompetence. He kept telling me of his NDC and how some Gen was his classmate. I kept addressing him by his first name even though he kept trying to bring the topic hinting how he was years senior to me and how some Generals came to him & said "Sir". I told him about how some pipsqueak DC had addressed me by my first name and how this is okay with me. His ego took a beating that evening. I can bet that even though he must have retired at a Secretary level that evening he spoke like 2nd Lt.
The point is bring them to their level and they behave. Yes some of us do put them on a pedestal for personal gains. If you ask me at Army HQs all civilians should be addressed by their first names and not "Sir"

Anonymous said...

Dear Maj. Navdeep,

Nalin has a very valid point that pension should not be deducted whilst changing from Armed Forces to another Central Govt. job, specially so if one has applied through an open newspaper advertisement and has been selected on basis of his merit. PSUs and Pvt. companies do not do so and therefore why should Central Govt. do it ? I feel pension is for the part of 20 years plus service one has rendered to the Armed Forces. As an example, in case of officers who change over from PSUs/ other semi-Govt. organisations (where there is no pension) to the Central Govt. on parallel absorbtion, they get their complete salary although they get a handsome amount as a part of Golden handshake/ money in lieu of pension from the parent department during pre-mature retitement.

Further, deduction of pension from new fixed salary is also against the logic of 'Equal work Equal Pay' for ex Armed Forces officers vis-a-vis their colleagues at the same level in the civil job. I understand that Dr. E Sreedharan, MD of Delhi Metro has won the case regarding non-deduction of pension from his new salary from court. Could some one throw more light on this.

Last but not the least, MSP issue brought out is sad and should be opposed by the services.

Sunnyday said...

Hi Navdeep,

Do u know that the short service commissioned officers are the real sufferers. In the paramilitary forces they are employed as fresh DE officers and thier pay is not protected which they have last drawn in army.Could you please advise how their pays can be protected. Could u please suggest some ruels which can help defend the right of the Ex SSCOs in CPOs.

Anonymous said...

I have some arguments 'FOR' nclusion of MSP in pay-fixation on re-employment. These are as follows :-
a) Unlike civilian officers, service officers continue to be compulsorily on 'reserve' list till the age of 55 years and therefore there remains a potential for military service
b) If MSP was only for serving in the military, why would a component remain in the pension. Its status is distinct from other allowances that are only available whilst in service such as flying pay, diving pay, technical allowance etc.
c) A service officer is not given the benefits of NFSG which is available to all other civilian officers. Successive pay commissions have recognised parity with the IPS for pay. Therefore, in the event MSP is being ignored, a serice officers pay should be fixed at a stage equal to that of an IPS officer at an equal number of years of service (which is much more than that of a service officer)
I would appreciate comments/views on the above logic (particularly from Navneet)

Anonymous said...

The MSP issue should be fight for. Why should an ex-servicemen loose the benefit of MSP when he joins a new job. The pay in pvt sector is more so MSP doesn't matter. But other jobs definitely it matters. Ex-servicemen looses many other benefits when switch over to other jobs. Let us get the benefit of MSP at least. Let join our hands together and fight for the right.

Anonymous said...

Can any one clarify about apy fixation in psu after 6th pay commission.

PANKAJ said...

i am ex-sgt pk singh discharged from IAF w.e.f 28feb2011 and selected for auditor under C&AG through ssc. Am i eligible to get pay protection. If yes then kindly inform us because it is a matter of thousands of ex-servicemen.If no then inform the rule position.

Thank YOU.

Biju K.M said...

I am a re-employed pensioner. I retired on 2007 from navy and reemployed on 2008 as a C.G. employee.My last basic pay was Rs.8100 with grade pay Rs.2400. My new Basic pay is Rs.5830 with Grade pay Rs.1900. How should fix my basic pay?
Please Help me.

Biju K.M

vyas hiren said...

Sir, My Self Hav Vyas Hiren Kumar retired from Army wef 31 Jan 2012 and my basic pay is Rs 9800/- now i got job in central Govt at present my basic pay is Rs 5,300/- and Grd Pay is Rs 1900/- How I pay my calculation

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,

Can you please clarify the difference between pay fixation by means of advance increments and pay protection. Is a PBOR re-employed in bank eligible for pay protection or he is given pay fixation by means of advance increments.

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep Sir,
I am Short Service Commissioned Officer from Indian Navy and is due in the coming year(2015) for release from the service after completion of 10 yrs service mandatory period. If I join the PSU banks as a second career will my pay will be protected. Kindly clarify in depth. If yes plz do guide how to approach.


virender said...

Hello Navdeep ji,
I have projected my case 4 times under the category of Ex-sm retired Prior 1.1.2006 and joined bank after 1.1.2006. But they have not at all considered the case under para 3(5)of DOPT OM No. 3/19/2009 Estt.Pay-II dated 5/4/2006 subject fixation of pay personnel/officer who retired prior to1.1.2006 and who have been re-employed after 1.1.200. Although fitment table for revised pay structure for pay fixation issued by AIR HQ/99798/126/NE/DAV/LPC dated 15.2.2013 was annexed with the representation. Pay has been fixed at the minimum entry level of RS 7200/- only as advised by IBA in terms of GOI DOPT OM no. 3/19/2009 EsttPay-II dated 08/11/2010 as per Ist reply.
On 2nd representation the reply was Bank protects the pay of Ex-servicemen on the basis of guidelines received from IBA and reckon protect-able components from Last pay certificate issued by Armed forces as on date of retirement.

On 3rd representation through DARPG complaint no.-:DEABD/E/2015/02298 dated 27 march 2015.
the reply given on portal on 12 may 2015 was same as 2nd representation's reply with an addition stating "Further we are of the view that DOPT OM No. 3/19/2009 Estt-PayII dated 05/04/2010 is applicable for pay fitment of those Ex-Servicemen who have been re-employed in Government service after retirement and whose pay is debitable to Civil Estimate." and Status of Complaint was "CLOSED".

On 4th representation through DPG vide Complaint No. DPG/B/2015/80368 dated 14/5/2015 the reply given was Same As 1st representation's reply.

Kindly Guide Me what action should be taken now my e-mail id is virenderbhatia63@gmail.com .

Thanks & Regards
Virender Pal Singh Bhatia