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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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

Monday, July 23, 2012

Pay & Pension Anomalies : TV panel discussion on the committee formed by the Prime Minister


Detailed TV Panel discussion on pay, status and pension related issues affecting defence personnel and veterans. 

Panellists were Generals Surjit Singh and SPS Vains, and Maj Navdeep Singh. 

Part 1


Part2


98 comments:

Vasundhra said...

Good Consolation that some one from media has given some space to give vent to pent up anger!! Compare these two attitudes to form up your own opinion.Dont raise your expectations to zenith lest on 'Independence Day' you get a free fall and damage your bumps while stretching the neck far too high to see and expect from the guy standing on the ramparts of the 'RED FORT'

(A)From the demure sari-clad surprise candidate of UPA-I to the confident Sukhoi-flying Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Pratibha Devi Singh Patil, India's first woman President re-wrote history. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT HAVE TIME TO MEET HER OWN SOLDIERS

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/politics/outgoing-president-pratibha-patil-controversieslegacy_733753.html



(B)This Is What Real Presidents And First Ladies Do Even After They Served!
http://usnaorbust.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/an-american-patriot/

Dhoop said...

Very interesting to note how Maj Navdeep so politely countered a few of the not so convincing and potentially misleading assertions of the other two panelists. Why would anyone wish to muddy the waters is the question.

Anonymous said...

Navdeep Sir
“Army of Section officers……” Well said sir, It is surprising how clear you are on issues which relates us. not even our own officers are so clear about it and higher bosses are least bothered. Let us hope the Fight which you started in apr 2008 for the benefits of defence officers we win it.

Harry said...

Is there any transcript of the panel discussion available? My horribly-slow net connection just would not let me take a dekko at the youtube video of the same:(

Anonymous said...

From the Tv discussion it is clear that even among the three panelists there are disagreements about certain issues. But what is encouraging is that these panelists have a wealth of info about these matters.
I wish some retired and now wealthy officers sponsor a private brainstorming session of (say 30 of)these luminaries in some place for about 2 weeks. It could be a proper AF Pay & pensions anomalies Seminar and be hosted at Delhi or Chandigarh. The panelists could come prepared with everything they wish to raise. There could be moderators and eventually something concrete and UNIFIED could emerge. Then the entire retired and serving AF people would have one voice.
What say Navdeep?

PBOR said...

the best part was when Maj. Navdeep mentioned that OROP is required for every retiree, irrespective of AFs or civil services. An officer with broad mind and big heart. wish u were a PC.

Harry said...

Maj Navdeep

Sir,

1. Thanks for the video links (finally DID manage to watch these) and also for articulating very valid points as expected, Sir!

2. I was pretty dismayed by Maj Gen Surjit Singh (retd) stating that civ side had only 4 to 5 grades quoting Engg Service. How could He (of all the people, having served as Chairman Army's Pay Cell during 5th CPC) be so wrong?. Ofcourse the point was countered by you.

Let me again list out civ grades (Army ones are only too well known to be mentioned out here)

1. JTS
2. STS
3. JAG
4. NFSG
5. DIG Grade (For Police and CAP Forces)
6. SAG
7. HAG
8. HAG Plus
9. Secy to GoI
10. Cabinet Secy

PS: Sincerely hope ATLEAST Chairman, AFs Pay Commission for 7th CPC is made aware about these!

Anonymous said...

Maj Navdeep congrats...what Defence.Thank you.Doctor

corona8 said...

We could use two clarifications from Maj Navdeep:

*How does NFFU constitute OROP by back door for civilians? There'd be no benefit to pre VI CPC civilian retirees.

*If OROP is required for civilians as well, then how is the differential, to the detriment of AFs, caused by the truncated career aspect, to be compensated for?

Harry said...

Some more thoughts on the panelists (BTW moderator, Kanwar Sandhu did a pretty good job) on the programme:-

1. Maj Gen SPS Vains (retd) - Didn't have much to offer besides ofcourse talking about his landmark judgement which got much-needed respite for all the Maj Gens (and equivalents) who were hard done by the 5th CPC award.

2. Maj Gen Surjit Singh (retd) - I was disappointed with him to say the least. May be I had too high expectations from him as a former Chairman of Army's Pay Cell (for 5th CPC). He was patently wrong on civ pay grades but that was NOT the only error on his part. He claimed that less than 4% offrs became Maj Gens. WRONG SIR! Let us do the number crunching. Let us talk about Army. There are 222 vacs of Maj Gens, 95 vacs for Lt Gens, 1 VCOAS + 7 Army Cdrs + 1 ( Addl vac for Tri Services org, by rotation) = 9 Army Cdr equivalent vacs. So total No of offrs (above Maj Gen Rank,) comes to, 222+95+9+1(COAS)=327. Rounding off, we get to a figure of 330. Now sanctioned vacs for Army offrs are ABOVE 48000. Let us just take this lower figure of 48000. Now pls calculate 330 is what percent of 48000? ANS : 0.6875%. So there you are, NOT EVEN 1 percent!!! Mind you Gen Surjit was there WELL BEFORE AVSC came into picture(i.e. when the state was EVEN WORSE with fewer vacs at the top as compared to today), so his percentage figures would have been even worse, had it not been for the AVSC!

But Gen Surjit was very candid in admitting how civs (read IAS) highjack pay commission award and how faujis are ill-treated, both literally and figuratively.

Maj Navdeep - Well, Sir I was truly impressed by your articulation (saw you speak for the first time). Need I say more? :-)

JUSTIN said...

the q & a session was very interesting especially the q's handelled by Maj Navdeep was appealing and his ans's were assertive and very correctly presented. of course much talking was done on offrs concerned q's at least equall msp for all should haven been put across by panelist.
over all better presentation by Maj Navdeep then other panelist.

Anonymous said...

Oh Great GOD, May someone,anyone, at least one,amongst our top brass listen to Maj Navdeep and follow what he says.................

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Major Navdeep Sir, Seen your presentation on Given Utubeslinks. Very politely and well presented. Please keep us all updated on committee's progress till 15.08.2012. Thanking you. Yours faithfully
Tukaram V Manerajurikar

Harry said...

1. Pls ref my previous comment about civ grades. If the LOWEST and HIGHEST grade on Def and civ side is equal then how come the remaining grades have been made so badly skewed and lopsided (no marks for guessing favouring whom)?

Let us revisit the grades and see their skewed equivalence as it exists today.

1. JTS(GP 5400) - Lt(GP 5400)/ Capt(GP 6100)

2. STS (GP 6100) - Maj(GP 6600)

3. JAG (GP 7600 - No equivalence

3A. No equivalence - Lt Col (GP 8000)

4. NFSG (GP 8700) - Col (GP 8700)

5. DIG Grade (GP 8900) - Brig (GP 8900)

6. SAG ( GP 10,000) - No equivalence

6A. JS (GP 10,000) - Maj Gen (GP 10,000)

7. Addl Secy (HAG) - Lt Gen (HAG)

8. Spl Secy (HAG Plus) - Lt Gen (HAG Plus.Note: Top 1/3rd Lt Gens given HAG Plus.)

9. Secy (80,000 Fixed) - Army Cdrs ( 80, 000 Fixed)

10. Cab Secy ( 90,000 Fixed) - COAS ( 90,000 Fixed).

Harry said...

1. Pls ref my previous comment about civ grades. If the LOWEST and the HIGHEST grades on Def and Civ side are equal then how come the remaining grades have been made so badly skewed and lopsided (no marks for guessing favouring whom)?

Let us revisit the grades and see their skewed equivalence as it exists today.

1. JTS(GP 5400) - Lt(GP 5400)

1A. No equivalence - Capt(GP 6100)

2. STS (GP 6600) - Maj(GP 6600)

3. JAG (GP 7600) - No equivalence

3A. No equivalence - Lt Col (GP 8000)

4. NFSG (GP 8700) - Col (GP 8700)

5. DIG Grade (GP 8900) - Brig (GP 8900)

6. SAG ( GP 10,000) - No equivalence (as Maj Gens are NOT equivalent to SAG officers but JSs)

6A. JS (GP 10,000) - Maj Gen (GP 10,000)

7. Addl Secy (HAG) - Lt Gen (HAG)

8. Spl Secy (HAG Plus) - Lt Gen (HAG Plus.Note: Top 1/3rd Lt Gens given HAG Plus.)

9. Secy (80,000 Fixed) - Army Cdrs ( 80,000 Fixed)

10. Cab Secy ( 90,000 Fixed) - COAS ( 90,000 Fixed).

(...contd)

Harry said...

(...contd from previous comment)

Now let us see what ought to be the MINIMUM grade equivalences on both sides (even in the PRESENTLY status-downgraded era for AFs and disregarding EXALTED historical equivalences of the past).

1. JTS - Lt
2. STS - Capt
3. JAG - Maj
4. NFSG - Lt Col
5. DIG - Col
6. SAG - Brig
7. HAG - Maj Gen
8. HAG Plus - Lt Gen
9. Secy - Army Cdr
10. Cab Secy - COAS

Fitting 10 civ grades with 10 military grades is actually a child's play, isn't it? But BRIGHT IAS think otherwise!

PS: Two SMART moves by AFs which need to be made on priority are as follows:-
(a) Reintroduction of 2/Lt Rank and calling him Trainee Lt (rank applicable ONLY during trg at academies). This will lead to twin benefits. Firstly an addl rank will help to 'favorably readjust and realign' equivalences (vis-a-vis civs) and much needed trg period will get counted towards Service.

(b) Brigs be rechristened Brig Gens as on NATO lines (and why go far even some of our neighbours have this designation). Now giving SAG to (Brig) Gen offrs and making them equivalent to JS ( Snooty JSs don't want to talk to anyone under Gen Offr, right?) ;-p

Anonymous said...

Heard you for the first time Maj Navdeep and need I say you never cease to impress me with your clarity and grasp of the issues. As someone else has commented there is a strong case for you to be a part of the team in the 7th pay commission, if not as a regular member, then as an outsourced expert, a specialist. We hear a lot about the civilian supremacy over the AFs but does it imply being subservient to the IAS? When and how have they been superimpossed over us? The civilian supremacy was supposed to mean the established institutions like the parliament, the law of the land and the democratically elected Leader of the country, IAS is just an arm, another spoke in the wheel as are the AFs.
NIX

Anonymous said...

Very pertinent and well informed discussion. We will require more such debates across the mainstream electronic media till 08 Aug nay 14 Aug 12.

Ats

V Natarajan, President, Pensioners' Forum, Chennai said...

Dear Interested,

I as a Civilian Pre 2006 Pension Injustice crusader/ Pre 2006 Military Pensioners' Campaigner/ a sort of co-crusader with Maj Navdeep, was delighted to see the intiative of the TV Media highlighting the recent Defence Committee formation and related issues.

I agree with most of Mr Harry's well made out comments/points (whether I matter or not- the points do matter- he is a knowledge base on these ). Average "Civilians" - pl do understand are different from Babudom Civilians . They are as much sufferers as the Miliatry personnel in so far as Revised Pensions that too post 2006 era-are concerned.

To me and many, dear Retd Maj Gen SPS Vains is a SUPERMAN GOD for having fought a great battle and won it too on pre 1996 pension disparity/ injustice!. But where was he at the Media? I EXPECTED FIREWORKS FROM HIM! DEFUSED? The issue he won brought back Nakara again alive! NOT SIMPLY RETD MAJ GENS should DRAW MORE PENSION THAN RETD BRIGS as he made out is not the only point - BUT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OF "EQUALITY UNDER ARTICLE 14OF CONSTITUTION " WAS NOT FOCUSSED UPON. a very significant outcome OF THE JUDGMENT- ACCORDING TO ME IS- NO RETD MAJ GENERAL CAN DRAW LESS PENSION THAN ANOTHER RETD MAJ GEN OF EQUAL STANDING- LET IT BE PRE 1996/ PRE 2006 OR ANY DATE- IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CUT-OFF DATES!
WHY MAN- SPSV-PERHAPS WAS NOT WELL PRE PREPARED.

SO ALSO RETD MAJ SATHBIR SINGH- FROM WHOM I AND MANY OTHERS WD HAVE EXPECTED MORE TO FLOW OUT- BECAUSE OF HIS FAMOUS BLOGSPOT WRITE-UPS- WAS LACKING MUCH THRUST-TYPE INFO OR SUFFICIENT ELUCIDATION- I FELT UNCOMFORTABLE AT THE VERY RESTRAINED ORATION!

CONSEQUENTLY- MY GOOD FRIEND - MAJ NAVDEEP- YOUNG AND ENERGETIC- STOLE THE SHOW. NO DOUBT I AND MANY LIKE ME AMONG CIV- ELDER- PENSIONERS APPREIATE HIS SHARP REPLIES, UNMINICING WORDS OF CRITICISM CLOAKED IN WISDOM,GRASP OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED. HE IS "THE CAMPAIGNER" WHO WOULD MATTTER TO UT THINGS ACROSS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE!

Maj Navdeep- I personally felt- (like I blow lids out many times)- some more "soft fireworks" to flow from you on the "legal aspects". WHY SUCH A "LOW PROFILE" ON THE LEGAL FRONT! WHAT IS SUBJUDICE? CO MANY CONTEMPT CASES AND NO ACTION BY GOVT? SEVERAL (MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN)CLEAR CUT "TRIBUNAL PR BENCH" VERDICTS ( ARMY AND CIVIL) COVERING MORE THAN 30 OAs ON SCPC RELATED PENSION INJUSTICE ALONE RELATED TO MIN GUARANTEED PENSION OF COM OFFICERS/ CIVILIAN OFFICERS ARE BEING THROWN TO WINDS AND ALL ARE MADE TO RUN FROM PILLAR TO POST FORJUSTICE. FOR EVRY CASE, HON SC APEARS TO BE THE ULTIMATE VENUE FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THAT TOO AFTER "CONTEMPT"? WHERE IS SO CALLED "NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY"?

Or are we discussing a "Stunt"ed Show on Pensions of Old Hags?

Hats off to you once again Maj NS- Regards-vnatarajan

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

Friends,

I don't think it's proper to comment on the knowledge level of any of the participants. Life per se is a learning process and we can be right or wrong every now and then, here or there. And of course, due to the limited time available in TV discussions, profound elaboration of concepts may not be possible.

So let us respect the viewpoints of all, nobody is better than anyone, everybody has a right to his or her opinion, so let it rest at that only.

@Corona8: NFU does not result in OROP for pre-2006 civil retirees. However NFU results in OROP of an extreme kind for civilians in the sense that everyone from the Group A org services gets to the point to HAG and retires from that very grade with that much pension and now from the next pay commission onwards, every such civilian Group A retiree would receive pension in accordance with HAG grade. Actually it's not just OROP, its AROP - All ranks one pension, for organsied Group A services.

Secondly, why not OROP for civilians? I never said that defence personnel should not be compensated for truncated careers I only stated that OROP is an ideal concept which should with time be made applicable to all retirees. Give defence pensioners more for their truncated careers or an element for hardships (such as the prevalent system of 50% of MSP in pension) but let us not berate civilian pensioners. The price index hits them as hard as defence pensioners.

Harry said...

@ Maj Navdeep

Sir,

What a humility! True sign of a great man. May your tribe grow Sir. AMEN!

PS: Nanak neevan jo chale, lagge na tti wao !.

Anonymous said...

@Harry: Sir you stated that SAG is not equivalent to Maj Gen rank, but in Railway Ministry SAG officers of railway services are posted as Executive Directors Railway Board (ex-officio Joint Secretaries to GoI) along side IAS/IPS officers who have been empanelled as JS. And after completion of their tenure, they can again be posted as Chief Engineers at Zonal Railway HQrs. Currently, 1986 batch IRSE officers are being empanelled as JS to GoI, but 1989 batch is already in SAG, so some 89 batch officers are being posted as EDs. Then how can you say that SAG is not equal to Maj Gen rank?

V Natarajan said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

A lively debate encourages me to blog.

While I appreciate your observations on individual experts/ their knowledge etc , it is not that the comments are directed towards the INDIVIDUALS themselves. Everyone is a great man in his own way. NONE CAN UNDERRATE THOSE TWO RETD STALWART- PANELISTS WHO HAVE DONE GREAT/YEOMAN SERVICE TO THE RETIRED MILITARY SENIORS AS WELL AS SETTING THE TEMPO FOR OTHER VETERANS TO FIGHT. they are the "pioneers" whatever anyone may say!

Referring TO YOUR OBSERVATION ON "AROP", my view is apparently different. Already a "great wedge" has been driven by "dehomogenising" the past pensioners (pre 2006 and older) from the post 2006 pensioners and may be all the pre 2006 retirees upto the level of JS posts (equal to Maj Gens)will end up at the min levels of the respective pay bands for revsion of pensions, whereas post 2006 retirees of same/ similar stature will be in the realm of "AROP" as you had observed.

(I dont know how the picture is being visualised for pre 2006 and post 2006/ future military pensioners!)

V Natarajan

Anonymous said...

the discussion was on OROP[OFFICERS REQUIR ONE PENSION]..poor officers, they need, more quota from CSD, they need old age home with bar etc. not a single person talked abour soldiers, who are 95% stekholders, who are throw out at the age of 33,35,40 etc.But they must be happy, so they are not a part of OROP.

SOLDIER

corona8 said...

@Maj Navdeep "AROP" : That is what I'd thought too. So, do correct me if I'm wrong, simply put, parity can be brought about by the following essential elements in any attempt to remove anomalies:
*Rectification in pay bands of all AF personnel in uniform vis-a-vis those of civilians.
*NFU in respect of AF Officers on the lines of those given to central govt. officers. This should be retrospective from the date the civilian officers were given the benefit.
*Compensation for truncated careers in the case of all AF personnel in uniform in the shape of OROP or higher rates of pension.

Anonymous said...

Sir,The whole talk was about getting benefits 4 offrs.See the fate of Hony commissioned offrs.They have been lowered and equated with Jco 4 pension.See circular 482.Major Navdeeps reference 2 civ staff 4 OROP was too much.OROP compensates the lose due 2 early retirement 4 military personnel. Thank u

Harry said...

@Anony at 10:08 am

Sir,

If you are comparing Grade Pay of civ SAG officers and Maj Gens then both have identical GP of Rs 10,000. But for 'fixed' functional relativities Maj Gens have been pegged as equivalent to Jt Secys to GoI. Ex-officio JS and empanelled JS to GoI are not exactly same, isn't it? Hope that clarifies your doubt.

Penmil said...

@V.Natarajan,July 24, 2012 10:09 AM
Dear Sir,
It is nice to see you back after a long time.You had spear headed the campaign in many blogs, to make the powers understand the meaning of the 6th CPC phrase"minimum of the pay in the pay band" as opposed to "minimum of the pay band itself" !
I thought you stopped after hearing the verdict of the Principal CAT at Delhi, accepting your plea.

<>

True. The great divide between the pre Pay Commission pensioners and the Post Pay Commission pensioners remains, and
the fate is the same for the civilian as well as the military pensioners.

Just as the JS post equiv. of pre 2006,the Maj. Gen equiv of the pre 2006 military pensioners have also dropped down to the minimum of the pay band 4 and will be firmly there even when pensions are revised.
In this fate all are equal!

One should not forget that nothing short of OROP will set the injustice right to the military as well as civil pensioners of Pre 2006 vintage.

I wish to ask, do you think in actual practice, will all present serving officers of Organized GP A cadres, attain the AROP( as Navdeep phrased it), with NFFU awarded post 2006? If you think yes, please explain how.

I did not see any such provision in the government order, introducing the mechanism for NFFU.

I join you in your appreciation for Maj.Gen. S.P.S. Vains. None can forget the great victory he led in bringing back the principle of equality in Article 14. You had the right phrase.He brought back 'Nakra'.His is still the only case where the unbreachable barrier across pay commisiion awards, was lifted.
It was great to see him on the screen.
Thank you.

Penmil said...

@Corona8,July 23, 2012 5:39 PM
July 24, 2012 12:15 PM
<<*Compensation for truncated careers in the case of all AF personnel in uniform in the shape of OROP or higher rates of pension>>
I think you missed the meaning of parity,in the context of pensioners.Compensating for truncated service lengths is only one part of the problem. The other and equally pressing part is parity of pensions across the pay commissions.In this problem the civil pensioners are at the same disadvantage as the veterans.
I do not know if this will be the case for Post 7th CPC civil pensioners, after NFFU.Arguments that there is no pension scheme for those who joined after 2004 in civil are not applicable here, considering that one serves for at least 60 years in civil, there will be civil pensioners until 2033.

NAGIREDDY said...

" The day your soldier has to demand anything , you will have lost all moral sanction to be king " .This is the advice given by CHANAKYA to CHANDRAGUPTA . Day by day military officers are losing status and previlages already availed by them . In our society , brides are more willing to marry sub inspector of state police who are group B or C employes whereas searching of brides for young commisioned officers is a herculean task . This is the position i have faced . In real life military personnel are facing many hardships .Hence genuine demands of military personnel such as OROP/NFU/Fixation of pay of Lt cols/cols/brigs and enhancement of grade pay of captain to Rs 6600 and major to Rs 7600 must be accepted by the Honble Prime minister .

PBOR said...

@SOLDIER : thank you, thank good jii and and bade wala thank to Maj. Nadeep. i was all alone here. phewwww

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

To corona8 said 'Sir, Granting AROP is a problem itself for pre-2006 retired Civil officers pensioners as is said by Mr. Natarajan.He is also not fighting for civil officers pensionrs for Pre-1996 Class, forget about Pre-1986 Class. Whereas our OROP is asked for all pre-1996, 2006, Post 2006 etc. Because some OROP is already given for prior to 1996 veteranss in the past. Let us hope for the best on 15.08.2012. JAI HIND.

Anonymous said...

Dear PBOR, there is no term as PBOR, you are Indian SOLDIER NOT A PERSON BELOW SOMEONE [M/F], if you need any support stop writting PBOR. contact me at my ID airwarrior612692@yahoo.in


SOLDIER

corona8 said...

@Penmil:"...I think you missed the meaning of parity..."

No. I think you have mistakenly equated OROP with parity.

Parity with a civilian employee involves taking care of the truncation aspect. Why does an 'equivalent' civilian (Who joined his dpartment at the same time as a person signing up for AFs) get more out of his employment and retirement? Because, he serves longer, drawing full pay, allowances, benefits, increments for the entire period of his service. When he retires, his pension is pegged in relation to the pay last drawn, which will be way higher than the 'equivalent' serviceman who would have retired 6/10/15 years previously.

That is why parity would involve taking care of this disadvantage arising out of truncated careers in the case of AF veterans.

OROP would only partially redress the problem. If without compensating for truncation in the case of AFs you give OROP to civilian pensioners as well then the disadvantage to AFs will remain.

The disparities across CPCs can be addressed, in the case of civilians as well as AFs, by OROP or other adjustments such as not pegging pensions of previous retirees to the bottom of a revised scale. But the disparity between civilians and AFs are primarily due to truncation and also, now, because of the downward fiddle of pay-bands for AFs and the grant of NFFU to civilian Officers.

So, basically, for mere parity, there's a need for NFFU, rationalisation of pay bands and a new formula for calculating pension for ex-servicemen to cater for truncated careers.

The across the CPC anomalies need to be addressed through OROP, unless ten-yearly CPCs can be dispensed with and a monthly/six-monthly system of reviews can be put in place.

Dhoop said...

On the subject of civil-military equivalnce in terms of pensions, there are several ways of reducing, if not altogether eliminating disparities.

V Natarajan said...

I am deeply gratified to see the lively, honest and pragmatic poits and replies made out by the participants like corona8/ harry/ and penmil.

I was always "fighting for the pre 2006 pensioners- apparently" - this peripherally includes the pre 1996 and earlier lot- but unfortunately, I could not get much access to pre 1986/ pre 1996 pension injustice papers to make out solid cases. I ALSO CONCEDE I AM A "NOVICE' AT THIS GAME AS I WAS ONLY A SCIENTIST- CUM-ADMINISTRATOR- hence my omissions.

To be some what more "true" to the plight of the MILITAR PENSIONERS, a "Modified OROP" woukd have to be adopted - also taking in to consideration the lacunae of "non-compensation" for tuncted careers.

CAN NOT HE OROP BE BASED ON a REALISTIC RATIO related to the "MAXIMUM PAY OF (repeat OF ) THE PAY BAND ( that too irrespective of pre-reuised pay scales")- instead of pegging the same wrt MPB or MPPB?

(If my suggestion is "horrible" pl ignore the same and pardon me).

VNATARAJAN

Anonymous said...

Ideal solution would be OGOP( One GP One Pension) instead of OROP( One Rank One Pension )

This would be applicable at all levels across all pay bands.

For HAG+ cases a separate One Pension can be fixed higher than the rest of the GP's.

This would take care of the all Defence and Civilian Pensioners whether pre 1996, pre 2006, and post 2006 cases also.

Anonymous said...

@Harry: Sir, with due respect I beg to differ. Ex-officio JS is the same as JS (just like CBDT Members are ex-offico Special Secretaries to the Govt and Railway Board member are full secretaries). Ex-officio means "By virtue of one's position or status". Even the WoP equates ex-offico Secretaries with full Secretaries.
EDs in the Railway Board are called ex-offico JS to GoI because there are no JSs in the Railway Ministry. EDs excercise the same powers as the JS in other ministries, and even represent the railways in committees as JS Ministry of Railways.
Maybe this is an isolated case.

corona8 said...

@Anonymous:"..Ideal solution would be OGOP.."
One ought to be careful while using words like ideal, perfect etc.

How would that be ideal??

A person who retired prior to VI CPC had no GP. How do you propose to accommodate all those pensioners?

How will you adjust those who were in lower ranks, even though with the same or more years of service, prior to AVS-I?

Penmil said...

July 25, 2012 9:24 AM
@Corona8,July 25, 2012 9:24 AM.
Thanks for elaboration of the point made earlier.
I indeed, did miss that point ! I was refering to only pensions and not pay scales/ bands &grades. In pensions too I was only refering to parity between pensioners of the same class(military in my case)but from different regimes of pay commissions such as those earlier to 2006 and those after 2006.
This was adequately addressed in the 5th CPC report but it stopped at a 'modified parity' and not full parity.There was full parity between all the pensioners of the previous regimes.All this was discussed by bloggers as well as the visitors many times so I will leave that now.
But what is now realised is that even a modified parity of the variety enunciated in the 5CPC, was not given in the 6th CPC by resorting to interpretations and explanations. Hence those appeals in AFT and CAT .This is also published in blogs.
I was saying that the OROP to veterans should be so designed as to obviate recurrence of such disparities( in future).

Anonymous said...

dear all contributors and readers,

Agree with the convincing remarks of the contributor about status of ex officio JS at par with regular empanelled JS in Ministries. But, please be informed that even 1989 batch officers of Railways have completed nearly 23 years of service and they have been rightly placed as EDs on Rly Board (ex officio JSs) and correctly comparable to empanelled Jt Secys of various Ministries. Therefore, to compare them with JS of IAS/IPS/IFS or Gp A Central Services or Maj Gen/eqvt is absolutely in order. However, it is correct that a SAG officer drawing GP 10000 without empanelment as JS to GOI or say without appointment as ED on Rly Board (an isolated case though for the reason that Rly Ministry reportedly has no post like JS) can not be equated to a JS to GOI or a Maj Gen/eqvt.

Hats off and kudos to Maj Navdeep Sir and, of course to other panelists for their witty and rich remarks. One thing that perturbs all concerned is that even when Grade Pay of Military Officers is equal to IAS etc posted in Ministries they (civilian counterparts) are placed higher than military officers posted/deputed to such ministries/civil depts. For instance, a Brig/eqvt (GP 8900) gets posted in a ministry/dept or in an Indian mission abroad as
a Director/Counsellor (GP 8700). A colonel/eqvt (GP 8700) is equated to Dy Secy/Ist Secy (GP 7600). Are these ministries / depts/missions are part of the same Central Govt or they are allowed to function the way they wish to. If they create such anomalies with concurrence, which Govt is allowing them to resort to such erratic actions resulting in belittling of commissioned officers and lowering morale of fighting forces.

A District SP even in GP 6600 is allowed to wear rank badges of a Lt Col (GP 8000). It is heard that in J&K a District SP even in GP 6600 is authorised to wear rank badges eqvt to a Colonel. It's appalling. Maj Navdeep sir had taken up this issue, however final outcome is not known.

Not all bureaucrats are foul players. But, a handful of them with hegemonistic attitudes in Govt machinery need to reconcile their acts and refrain from intentional downgradation of their own brothers in uniformed services including our brothers in Paramilitary services of the Great Nation.

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Sir, I think the suggestion of Mr. Natarjan of Highest in Pay Band in revised scale ( As there was no Grade Pay prior to 01.01.2006) should be taken as OROP or OGOP for Defence and Civil pensioners. Earlier PBORs were getting the same in IV & V PC ( only counting pro rata for 33 years of service). Now after VI PC service is 20 years even PBORs prior to pre-2006 can be given full benefits. Even 15 years service plus 6 years Reserve taken comes to 21 years. If agreed, please share the comments and views.

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Sir, I think the suggestion of Mr. Natarjan of Highest in Pay Band in revised scale ( As there was no Grade Pay prior to 01.01.2006) should be taken as OROP or OGOP for Defence and Civil pensioners. Earlier PBORs were getting the same in IV & V PC ( only counting pro rata for 33 years of service). Now after VI PC service is 20 years even PBORs prior to pre-2006 can be given full benefits. Even 15 years service plus 6 years Reserve taken comes to 21 years. If agreed, please share the comments and views.
Yours faithfully
Tukaram V Manerajurikar

Anonymous said...

@corona 8,

All pensioners whether Defence or Civilians including personnel in lower ranks have been notionally fitted in 6th cpc pay bands and also in relevant Grade Pays.

With this notional fixation in the 6th cpc pay bands only one is able to draw 6th cpc pensions.

The comments that there was no grade pay in prior to 6th coc scales and how they will be adjusted is not understood.

All past pensioners have given equivalent notional 6th cpc grade pays while fixing their pensions

pl clarify which old cases have been left behind and who are not drawing pensions in 6th cpc grade pays and pay band !!!!.

Such cases will not exist at all.

corona8 said...

@Anonymous: "notionally fitted"
At the bottom of the pay band!! Are you happy with that, btw?
What happens when the grade pays get rejigged? Where would you fit a pre AVS-I Lt Col(TS) (Retd.) with 30 years of service? Higher or lower than a post AVS-I Col(TS)(Retd.) with 26 years of service? That is just one example of an issue that could arise with simplistic formulations like OGOP

sunlit said...

@Penmil: You have correctly brought out the aspect of the full parity that was accorded prior to V CPC. Please do clarify whether or not a one-time-full-parity was also granted to past pensioners as an offshoot of either V CPC or IV CPC through a subsequent amendment?

Frankly, even if some such one time measure is announced in respect of VI CPC, it would be appropriate as a stop-gap measure till VII CPC. But the issue of getting NFU at par with civilians is a separate matter and ought not to be compromised upon.

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Major Navdeep Sir, is not it better to start chatroll now? Are you waiting for 15.08.2012 or any muhurat for that? Sir going to comments on the blog and reading it one by one takes a lot of time. Please organise some checks for following the rules of chatroll i.e. Net Measures for avoiding illintentioned bloggers.
Yours faithfully
Tukaram V Manerajurikar.

Anonymous said...

Why should we blame babus for all the misgivings when our own so called "babus" are blocking DACP and early promotions to rank of Col for own brother officers(AMC).....

Anonymous said...

Agreed EDs of Rly Board are Joint Secys, but all railway officers are reaching maj gen rank in 22 yrs as compared to <1% AF officers, that too after 30 yrs! Also, how many of us know that GMs of railways are going to be given apex scale and spl secretary status soon. Also, cadre review is being instituted for IRSE, so soon 1991/92 may become EDs!
My question is, if the railway lobby is getting its way, why are AF officers given step motherly treatment?

Anonymous said...

@ corona8

If OROP can resolve all issues raised by you on COL (TS) , then certainly OGOP will equally resolve all these issues in the same simplistic manner.

Penmil said...

@ Sunlit, July 25, 2012 9:23 PM.
Again I am referring to parity of pension amongst the veterans of various vintages and not parity with civilians, of which I do not know how to compare.

Of course, you are aware of the CoS report that culminated in PCDA Circular 430 and subsequent amendment to it. In this almost full parity is granted. It is said that in some instances the pension of a Pre 2006 pensioner was more than the pension of a Post 2006!There is a post by Navdeep on this titled 'Reverse discrimination...etc'.

There is still an anomaly with the pensions of Honorary Commissioned Officers that does not seem to have been rectified.

In V CPC there is the famous case of Maj.Gen SPS Vains and Others where the pensions of Pre 1996 Maj Gen were brought at par with post 1996 officers of the same rank and service.
But a 'pucca' rule for this what the OROP should achieve.

About 'parity' of pay with the civilians and restoration equivalence, the services have to start from the equations after 3rd CPC and establish the new equivalences. I am not sure how this would be done.
About NFU we just do not know what the proposal is.

By the way, you would have noticed that each time the equivalence/status was pulled down, the total take home pay of serving officer was never reduced! But that element of the total pay, which defined equivalence, was brought down.
The case of Major's pay and grade pay after the 6th CPC is an example. See the tables in SAI 2/S/08 for Majors and the pay of the Major commissioned after 2006, to find the difference

corona8 said...

@Anonymous:"..If OROP can resolve all issues raised by you..."

OROP, or OGOP for that matter, cannot by itself resolve these issues. Fine tuning would be required so that OROP does not lead to new anomalies.

Being simplistic or using thumb rules straight away will not address the matter of understanding these issues.

That is why, I was querying Maj Navdeep in a previous comment with the aim of listing out broad principles of what needs to be done.

There is a need to think in layman terms about what should and what shouldn't happen first. Only then we can get to which payband, grade-pay, rank we should be targetting.

Dhoop said...

In the meantime, it is not clear whether all this talk of 'removal of anomalies' by the Govt will have any repercussions on the IV CPC rank pay case.

Anonymous said...

please read this news dated 25th july in Asian Age.

http://www.asianage.com/ideas/defence-pay-disparity-may-lead-serious-command-control-implications-641

NAGIREDDY said...

" We live in perhaps the most troubled neighbourhood in the world . In this troubled neighbourhood , there are countries with governments that are extremely fragile. All of this increases the threat to our security and independance . I call upon all security forces to defend our independance , sovereignty and security . We will provide the best training , equipment and WORKING CONDITIONS that we can provide " -- Honble P Chidambaram , Home minister ... We are hoping that honable primeminister may make grand announcement from the ramparts of the RED FORT on august 15 . If it is considered as that parliament is in session and no policy decision could be announced outside parliament ,then Honable Prime minister may announce in parliament itself on the last working day perceding august 15 th.If possible all the comments appeared in your blog may kidly be communicated to PM /RM / UPA chairperson .

Anonymous said...

I do not think all blame go to Govt or babus. Majority of problems are due to our own people sitting at AHQ or other HQs

ashish subba said...

navdeep sir

thanks for the link.. hope is still there

Anonymous said...

REPLY TO "I do not think all blame go to Govt or babus. Majority of problems are due to our own people sitting at AHQ or other HQs"

you are very right the problem lies with our COLs and GENs only. and it can be explained like "KHATE BHEE HAIN GURRATE BHEE HAIN" means they are corrupt as well try to humiliate the juniors. therefore the juniors just give the tips to media against the GENs like it happened in NDA. and i assure you this will increase. Just go and see the attitude of the commanders at any level. they will not mind to misuse everything for themselves only but expect all honesty from juniors.

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Sir, Somebody is worried about OROP for Officers only, Some for Jawans Only, Some for NFFU only,and Some for some for Rank Pay only. I think everybody thinks that on 15.08.2012 they themselves to be benefitted. Nobody including Mr Natarajan Civilside have thought of Disabled Soldiers/Veterans and their widows, which is a major issue ( inline of OROP), but I think there is no well wisher of them in all of your regular/irregular bloggers except you and now me. Shame of thinking only of self awarding souls.They should be sent to Dr Anna Hazare's Anashan Clinic in New Delhi.Amen.
Yours Faithfully
Tukaram V Manerajurikar

corona8 said...

@Tukaram V Manerajurikar:"...Shame of thinking only of self awarding souls..." If you have something to contribute, then why not do so instead of trying to be judgemental or super-critical about views expressed by others? Comments on a blog post need to be responded to and one's own views expressed. But trying to be one-up on others and expressing contempt for others' views is hardly constructive online behavior.

sudeshkumar_bh said...

SIR NOT A SINGLE SOUL HAS ASKED FOR PENSIONERY BENIFITS FOR HONORARY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WHO ARE THE MAXIMUM SUFERERS AS THEY ARE AGED AS WELL AS THEY HAVE GROWN UP CHILDERENS.AT THE SAME TIME THEY WERE JCO!S All their life except last one year OF SERVICE .I HAPPENED TO ASK ONE OF THE SENIOR RETD OFFICER IN IESM DELHI .AND HIS ANSWERE WAS U ARE GETTING ENOUGH AND MAXIMUM PENSION.WHEN ASKED HOW HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN.IESM/IESL OTHER ORGANISATION WANT ONLY MONEY/DONATION AND MEMBERSHIP .U CAN GO TO THIER WEBSITE AND SEE FOR UR SELF.MORAL IS THIER IS NO UNITY IN EX SERVICEMEN ITSELF.FRIENDS COME TOGETHER AND FORGET ABOUT UR PAST SERVICE IF U WANT TO FIGHT WITH PRESENT GOVT.

amit said...

dear navdeep sir, i asked cda for additional increment for officers who have been promoted between 1jan 06 and 30 jun 2006 as the orders for same has been published by the govt but cda has replied that they are awaiting orders, what is the soln,amit

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Sir, I am a daily Rum/Whisky drinker in the evening. So do not accept my comments posted after eight o'clock in evening. Please start chatroll pl's.
Yours faithfully
Tukaram V Manerajurikar
Ex-Sgt, Clk/PA, IAF

sunlit said...

@sudeshkumar_bh:"...SIR NOT A SINGLE SOUL HAS ASKED FOR PENSIONERY BENIFITS FOR HONORARY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS..."

Well, what is stopping Hon'y Commissioned Officers to ask for these benefits, themselves? No special invitation is required for any section of AF veterans to express their views.

Harry said...

Foremost, my apologies for posting an irrelevant (to the present blogpost) comment. But I cannot help but share my thoughts.

I have been closely following two cases (unrelated ofcourse) which were pending before Courts.

(a) Rank Pay Case

(b) ND Tiwari's Vs Rohit Shekhar case.

Now that the hon'ble court has finally decided and adjudicated the latter (what the whole world knew all along) could the decision on the former be far away? BTW even in rank pay case, the chicanery of the UoI is as clear as Tiwariji's machinations in trying every legal loophole to wriggle out until ofcourse he ran out of all options.
Hopefully the seemingly endless wait for justice for all affected Servicemembers/Veterans would end soon, after all 4th Sep isn't too far away now. AMEN!

PBOR said...

Phewwwww. itta bada bada baatein. BTW. kitna deti hai :-) i mean, would PBORs would be benefited in any way

Anonymous said...

@sudeshkumar_bh", sunlit, is very true, WHO stopped honn. Officers from representing themselves,first thing,secondly... JCOs die sweat but they are not given Hon. Commission,only few get Honn. Commission, how ? by TLC only, no other qualification is required for them so, TLCs can not represent themselves...hahaha.

Any way OROP, or PIP is in sight,we
must be thankful to IESM.

SOLDIER

Anonymous said...

Ref to Post of Mr. Harry on July 23,
if 1200 (approx) officers are being inducted in Army every year and as per ur data given, 327 officers are of rank Maj Gen and above; then the chances of getting promotion of at least Maj Gen is 27% (approx)form every Year/batch.

Harry said...

@ Anony above

" ...chances of getting promotion of at least Maj Gen is 27% (approx)form every Year/batch."

Ah.. I really wish the picture were that rosy as being painted by you Sir.

Cadre vacs are NOT repeat NOT dependent and calculated by the yearly intake BUT based on sanctioned strength. Not all 327 Maj Gens and above are retiring every year! And haven't you heard of approx 25 % shortage of officers in the Army? So that means fewer officers are getting commissioned in comparison to the actual reqmt.

Anonymous said...

There is a chance that the NFU may not be accepted by the govt in totality....we really have to wait and watch

sudeshkumar_bh said...

Dear SOLDIER and sunkit please refer to ur remarks on Hon Officers.They did fight the case in AFT Chandigarh and won without any helpfrom any outside agency.and kindly go through the orders on Hon commission and u will come to know the reality its TLC or service.

corona8 said...

@Anonymous:"..NFU may not be accepted by the govt in totality.."
What is this "totality"? NFU/OROP/Or Whatever "may not be accepted" even partially, forget about "totality".
It doesn't take a PhD in rocket science to know that.
At least have some sort of a clear benchmark in mind, like parity with NFU granted to civilian Officers and the effective date being synchronised with the one on which the civilians got the benefit.
Then we'll all know what is being discussed here.

corona8 said...

@sudeshkumar_bh: "..and kindly go through the orders on Hon commission.."

Which outside agency should come and fight others' cases?? If the case has been won, as you say, then where is the problem?

I don't know in what context @Anonymous aka SOLDIER and @sunlit made their remarks, but it seems the general impression is that a few individuals whining about things not having been done for them by others spoil the whole environment.

If one feels strongly about an issue, these blogs are meant for expressing one's views. What is stopping anyone from starting their own blog. If there are any orders to be read, a link can be provided so other participants can view them and offer their own views.

What is the benefit of saying, "Go and read such and such orders from tribunal xyz"?

Anonymous said...

NO member from Armed Forces????

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/pay-parity-panel-has-no-military-representative-navy-chief-to-defence-minister-250002

corona8 said...

"NO member from Armed Forces????"
The whole defence community has been crying itself hoarse over this issue.
I don't know why they did not have the courtesy to send this information to @Anonymous as he seems to have just woken up to this fact.

Anonymous said...

Sir,
Great whoever get a chance ask for himself. have we ever thought what a NC'e lowest in the services get. The highest will be automatically getting more. Please find what is pay scale of a Gp D in a public sector unit.

Anonymous said...

Nobody is talking about PBOR's Salary all officers are sitting there and talks only about their salery hike. Most anomolies are amongs PBORs salery. Here the commettee are set up look up in to the all anomolies.
Here i want to memories all of about the PBORs salery.
1. Govt announced the 70% of pension for PBORs But this kept silent by all officers because it is not related with the officers.
2. Common pay structure of PBORs. there is huge gap between x group and other group pay. No officers are interested in it.
3. Earlier UDC of civilian are equallient of Hav of army but now HAv kept Rs 2800 Grade pay and UDC is in 4200/-
4. What is the criteria for MSP 6000 for officers and 2000 for PBORs. It sholud be equal for all defence personnel beacuse enemies bullet does not recognise rank and MSP.

Plase do somthing for PBORs this time. Every time commette is set up for all ranks but our officers started shouting for their salaery hike.

Anonymous said...

Udc grade pay is 2400/-. Please do not mislead.

Anonymous said...

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/government-not-to-allow-defence-representatives-in-pay-panel-say-sources-251167?pfrom=home-otherstories
HERE IS THE OUTCOME OF DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC.
PLS CHECK THE LINK

Dhoop said...

Could the panel recommend, for instance, the immediate withdrawal of application by UOI for recall of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the IV CPC rank pay case? OROP and NFU are big issues that certainly need to be addressed. What about the clear cut issue of the IV CPC rank pay where the apex court had already given it's ruling and over which MOD is dragging it's feet?

Anonymous said...

GP OF UDC IS 2400 BUT WHAT MATTERS MORE THAN GP FOR THOSE IN UNIFORM IS THE RANK BADGES WORN. A SUBEDAR IN GP 4600 WEARS TWO STARS AND AN >>> AND DO EQUATE WITH ARMY HAV. NOT THEIR FAULT, BUT VIVIDLY A SYSTEMIC FLAW. EVEN A SENIOR ARMY MAJOR WITH JUST LESS THAN 13 YEARS CLASS I /GROUP A / COMMISSIONED SERVICE (EXCLUDING 3 - 4 YEARS ACADEMY TRAINING) WEARS AN ASHOKA EMBLEM AS AGAINST AN IPS OFFICER IN STS WITH 4 YEARS SERVICE INCLUDING ACADEMY TRAINING IN GP 6600 EQUAL TO A MAJOR WEARS RANK EQUAL TO A LT COL AND SOMETIMES THAT OF A FULL COLONEL. A CUSTOMS OFFICER/SUPDT IN GP 4600 EQUAL TO A SUBEDAR WEARS *** AND NEVER HESITATES TO QUOTE HIMSELF EQUAL TO A CAPT OF ARMY IN GP 6100. AGAIN NOT HIS FAULT. A FIERCE MOCKERY OF SYSTEM ALONE. WHO WILL RECTIFY THESE DISTURBING ANOMALIES AND WHEN. IS THE TIME YET NOT RIPE AND RIGHT????????????????? GP IN SUCH CASES IS ONLY ON PAPER AND WHAT IS WORN ONLY MATTERS. WE ALL RESENT THAT DIG USED TO BE A LT COL OR AT THE MOST A COL EQUIVALENT. FINE ONLY PENNIWISE BUT NEVER POUNDWISE. A DIG FLIES A FLAG ON VEHICLE BUT WOULD ANYONE ALLOW A COL LET ALONE A LT COL TO FLY A FLAG ON HIS VEH. EVEN GOD WILL HAVE TROUBLE IN RESOLVING SUCH COMPLEXITIES CREATED BY US ALL. MAJOR NAVDEEP SIR MAY KINDLY CORRECT IF ANYTHING HAS BEEN WRONGLY STATED HERE.

Unknown said...

an article by Mr. Nitin Gokhle


In continuation of the last post on 6th Pay Commission award to central government employees and the anomalies noticed in it vis-a-vis the military, here are some more examples of discrimination pointed out to me by friends in the military (and I have no reason to disbelieve them). When I ask friends in the Civil Services about this, they dismiss the issues as a minor aberrations and say the "military whines too much."


To which my counter is: who has brought the situation to this pass? There is no clear answer then.


In my view, these "minor quibbles" have created a reservoir of resentment that might just burst one day to everyone's detriment. In every interaction I have with soldiers from Andamans to Amritsar and from Kohima to Kargil, I hear the disgruntlement getting louder. I don't know if any one is monitoring/listening to these voices of hurt in India's cantonments.


For instance, a soldier or an airman posted in Shillong (which is not an insurgency area) doesn't get any extra allowance or is not allowed to retain any house in Delhi or elsewhere but when he hears a CRPF or a BSF employee posted in Shillong getting extra allowance just by virtue of being posted in the North-east (see table), naturally the Army jawan feels let down. He after all takes the same time to travel back home and faces the same hardship in dislocating his family. This is just one instance. One can quote many more examples.


But the powers-that-be better take heed before the situation gets out of hand.


I feel if the country wants to retain the edge enjoyed by the soldier, these anomalies need to be addressed forthwith, otherwise a day will not be far off when it will be difficult to even get soldiers to join the armed forces.


http://nitinagokhale.blogspot.in/2012/07/why-soldiers-have-right-to-be-angry.html?spref=tw

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

@Ananymous "A CUSTOMS OFFICER/SUPDT IN GP 4600 EQUAL TO A SUBEDAR WEARS **". You do not think beyond Grade Pay and shows you are too inteligent. Custom Superintendents do not think of their Indian Emblem on shoulders but think of undeclared Jwellery, Non Custom paid Goods and Indian/Foreign Currency you are carrying with you.Before commenting please learn by asking any Custom Superintendent atleast. Their Grade pay is Rs. 4800/- and not 4600/- as claimed by you. After 4 years they get 5400?-Nowhere is 6100?- as claimed by you. JAI HIND JAI CUSTOMS.

rajkumar said...

lot of hulla gulla about NFU here . but all please read rules of granting NFU . all terms and conditions for a regular promotion are to met for granting NFU .
so NFU can be given only in immediate next scale and not in next to next scale also unless one is promoted to next scale on regular basis .

dy secy can be granted only the scale of dir in NFU and not that of Jt secy unless actually promoted to dir on regular basis .

so dont be under impression that all GP A officers will get HAG scale .

we als0 had high hopes initially but in practice it is a scheme only for grant of next scale only . pl mark my word only next scale .

so after extension of scheme to armed forces a lt col cant get scale of brig unless he is actually promoted to col . or a col cant get scale of maj gen unless he is promoted to brig on regular basis .

rajkumar said...

HIGHY WRONG TO POTRAY THAT ALL GP A OFFICERS WILL RETIRE IN HAG SCALE BY VIRTUE OF NFU SCHEME . REALITY IS ONLY OFFICERS WHO ALREADY REACHED UP TO SAG LEVEL ON REGULAR PROMOTION AND SERVED PRESCRIBED NO OF YEARS IN SAG SCALE AND MEETING MANY OTHER CRITERIA WILL BE ABLE TO GET HAG SCALE ON NFU BASIS .

I THINK NET RESULT A VERY FEW PERCENTAGE OF ORGANISED GP A SERVICE OFFICERS , IN MY GUESS NOT MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF TOTOAL GP A SERVICE OFFICER TAKEN ALL TOGETHER .

Parameswaran MK, Hon Lt said...

what about the report to be submitted on 08th Aug 2012?Was it submitted in time? If so, what are the contents?

Anonymous said...

rajkumar ji above,
nice to see your views on NFU. At least u agree that all directors in civil (which every tom,dick and harry and sundries become) will get NFU for Jt secy and they will enjoy it till 60 years of age. and mind u, it is your interpretation of the policy of NFU. Well, we will see it tweaked to benefit of all and sundry in civil and eventually all will get the benefits by hook or crook as everyone is affected by it. Now think of defence forces, a meagre percentage gets to be promoted to colonel and even if granted NFU will retire at 54 years of age and of course,training period is not counted. and of course, Committee of secretaries, will ensure that no arrears are paid like for civilians who got all the arrears from 01 jan 2006 for NFU. mind u no arrears were also paid for MSP while all civilian officers got arrears for grade pay which was also a new element of pay. So, evenif one agrees to your contention that only 10 percent will retire in HAG scale (logic though not clear), it will be clear to u and your friends that defence forces have been taken for ride well and proper. And still do not worry as committee of secretaries will come out with such recommendations which will confuse the issue further. And if they donot,then we have CGDA and PCDA(O) who will play havoc with the interpretationof a simple statement in the order. And then, it will be time for next pay commission wherein civilians will compare with their status with NFU with defence forces. So please do not worry. Committee of secretaries is not going to give anything to defence forces which they have not given to their brethren in civil.

rajkumar said...

pl refer comment above .
firstly i have no objection to armed forces getting NFU or any scheme better than this .

Secondly I was was just forewarning of pifalls , we also had very high hopes from NFU but all hopes shattered by conditions put later on .

thirdly for those who are already in Dir scale GP 8700 placement in GP of rs 10000 is not a very big deal .

forthly AF also got arrears of grade pay and they will also get arrears of NFU dont worry .

fifthly officers of GP A organised services are not tom dick or harry . I humbly request you to take back our words .ven Maj navdeep who owns your blog will not support you , I sincierly hope .

sixthly logic of 10 percent is very clear , not more than 10 percent of GP A officers are promoted to SAG level to be eligible to NFU scale of HAG
thanks and regards

Anonymous said...

rajkumarji,
sorry if a sentence in my comments hurt u. by tom, dick and harry, as u would have understood i meant, everyone and it was by no means a comment on their competence or intelligence. sorry for that.

for u every civil officer becoming a director and getting NFU of jt secretary 10000 grade pay and enjoy the same for more than 10 years till retirement may not be a big deal. in armed forces,becoming a colonel itself is a big deal. does it not clearly show the difference between civil governement official and defence officer. rest is for u to comprehend and argue. thanks.

Anonymous said...

continued fromabove..,
rajkumar ji,

u have mentioned that defence officers also got arrears for grade pay. yes they got. what i am talking about is arrears for MSP which were denied because it was said that MSP is a new element of pay for defence officers. Similarly grade pay was a new element of pay for civilian offcers in 6 cpc,but everyone was given arrears. so u see the difference in the perception for defence forces.

and thank u for making people believe that NFU arrears will be given for defence officers. we will all see what is announced and what is interpreted in a few days time.

Anonymous said...

Actually, ,mr rajkumar is wrong. Most organized Group 'A' service officers (except some in certain Services like CPES/MES etc where promotions are very slow) reach atleast SAG level on functional basis, so yes, they get HAG pay on NFU basis.

Infact in railway engineering services (IRSE), 90% direct-recruit officers thru UPSC are retiring in HAG on functional basis!

rajkumar said...

pl refer previous comments .

if railway people already reaching HAG scale on functional basis , then NFFU scheme has got no meaning for them .

If NFFU effectively mean elevation og grade pay by 1000 or 1500 , it is not that beneficial .

yes in the case where there is change of pay band from PB 3 to PB 4 , while raising GP 7600 to 8700 in PB$ , the rise is substantial . other wise it only amount to rise of about 2000 including DA .

pl dont take offence , i am not at all against AF's getting it .

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,
As lot of discussions are taking place on NFU Scheme for Civilian Org Services personnel, I have posted today 11 Aug 2012 0515 pm some FAQ details as available from DOPT source, in the other thread in this website- topic is entitled:
(Thursday, August 9, 2012)
" What can be legitimately expected? : PM appointed Committee of Secretaries looking into Pay and Pension anomalies"
VN

V Natarajan said...

DEFENCE HP ANOMALY COM APPEARS TO BE ALIVE- VN
Source: Gconnect.In
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Defence Pay Anomaly after 6CPC
Correcting Anomalies in Sixth Central Pay Commission
Recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and several improvements made thereon by the Government have been largely well received by the armed forces personnel including ex-servicemen. Some issues regarding service conditions, pay, pension and allowances have subsequently been received. These issues are examined by the Government on case to case basis.

In the matter relating to retirement benefits, an Anomaly Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Defence/Finance). This Committee identified some anomalies which have since been addressed to by the Government.

Improvement of service conditions, pay, allowances and retirement benefits of armed forces personnel is a continuous process. Recently, a Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary has been set up to look into certain issues of relevance to the defence service personnel and ex-servicemen and to provide suitable recommendations.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Mohd. Ali Khan in Rajya Sabha today.

Source: Press Information Bureau

Anonymous said...

FIXATION OF RANK PAY BY THE GOVERNMENT

Dear Sir,

Finally we won the case in Honourable Supreme Court of India after struggling for 26 years. The government (So called Beaurocrats may be thinking of fixing rank pay now for IV & Vth CPCs to honour the Honourable Supreme Court Judgment of 04 Sep 2012).

The following table clearly shows as to how smart were the Beaurocrats in fixing the rank pay for Vth CPC: -


Rank Month & Yr Rank Pay DA % DA Total Rank Pay
IV CPC Rank Pay Fixed in
Paid V CPC
Capt Dec-97 200 170% 340 540 400
Major/Lt Col (TS) Dec-97 600 170% 1020 1620 1200
Lt Col (S) Dec-97 800 170% 1360 2160 1600
Col Dec-97 1000 170% 1700 2700 2000
Brig Dec-97 1200 170% 2040 3240 2400

Though the Vth CPC recommendations were implemented with effect from 01 Jan 96, it took 2 years to pay the arrears. The Arrears of Vth CPC were paid in Jan 1998. Till Dec 1997 we were getting wrongly fixed rank pay deducted from the basic pay and shown separately with DA 170% there on. As on 31 Dec 1997 the total rank pay with DA 170% drawn by us is shown in rend font in the above given table. The rank pay deducted from basic pay and fixed as such in Vth CPC shown in green font in the table above, was much less than the rank pay received in IV CPC. The aim of pay fixation in successive pay commissions is to increase and step up the pay but not to decrease the pay drawn in previous CPC. The rank pay with effect from 01 Jan 1996 should be above the amounts shown in red font for each rank in the table given above.

We must keep a watch now as to what rank pay the Beaurocrats fix for both the CPCs it IV and Vth. The starting rank pay in Vth CPC wef 01 Jan 1996 should not be less than the IVth CPC rank pay plus 170% DA thereon.

Let us appraise our Service Headquarters apart from our own fight so that they can also keep watch on further progress in the Govt in this regard.

I have got valid evidence for payment of rank pay and DA 170% till the month of Dec 1997, immediately before paying arrears and fixing new pay of Vth CPC in Jan 1998. I have got all my monthly pay-slips right from date of my commissioning and date of retirement. These pay slips are authority for as to what we have got

Anonymous said...

Yes you have brought out things in very right spirit as to how and what the Bureaucrats are behaving. They always say yes for everything but never honour their "Yes", this is what their style of functioning.

See how smart are they in fixing the rank pay in Vth CPC. What ever rank pay they deducted from the emoluments and show and separately has fetched DA over it @ 170% till before the day the Vth CPC arrears were paid. Vth CPC arrears were paid to us in Jan 1998. Till before Jan 1998 ie till Dec 1977 the DA paid was 170%. The rank pay forms as part of Basic Pay and accrues DA over it. If a Captain's rank pay was 200/- per month, In Dec 1977 the DA over it @ 170% was Rs 340/- thereby making the total rank pay including DA was Rs 540/- in Dec 1997. From 01 Jan 1996 in Vth CPC the rank pay for a captain fixed was Rs 400/- which was much less than the total rank pay drawn by a captain till before the Vth CPC arrears were paid in Jan 1998. The rank pay of other ranks from Major to Brig drawn till Dec 1977 with DA @ 170% was much more than the rank pay fixed in Vth CPC. Fixing of rank pay was totally incorrect as the aim and purpose of successive pay commissions are to increase and grant step up in the pay. This was not ensured by the Bureaucrats. This is what the smartness. Let us hope at least now that the Govt fixes the rank pay correctly as per the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India of 04 Sep 2012 and then the arrears paid accordingly.

Anonymous said...

How can people say MSP is new element of pay. If it so, if we take it (MSP) as new element of pay then how about rank pay which was given in IVth and Vth CPC is not figuring in VI CPC. The rank pay was not given in VIth CPC instead MSP was introduced. If MSP was introduced in place of rank pay then how come MSP had become a new element of pay.

Anonymous said...

Please intimate regarding the new pension table & the pension of Honorary Naib Subedar who have served in Army as Infantry Soldier in Group 'Y' and retired on completion of 24 years service on or after 01 January 2006 as per instruction of Government of India, Ministry of Defence on accepting the demand of one rank one pension on 24 September 2012. With Best regards, Honorary Naib Subedar Vijai Kumar