For all those who are wondering why the Prime Minister only briefly touched the matter regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries examining pay and pension anomalies of the services and did not fully discuss the details in his Independence Day Speech, it would be worthwhile to inform that firstly the Committee could not submit the report by 08 August 2012 as envisaged by the order of the PMO and there still were some loose ends and some dissenting voices from the side of the Defence Ministry. And secondly, it has come to note that the implementation could not be officially announced because of the lack of a cabinet nod and hence the absence of the formal acceptance of the report by the govt. Mr Deshmukh’s untimely demise added to the delay.
On implementation, which should be in the very near future, the military community can expect bridging of the gap between pre and post 2006 retirees by further enhancement of weightages for pension, enhancement of pension of commissioned officer retirees on the principles of modified parity, dual family pension for widows, removal of bar of continuance of family pension on marriage of handicapped kin, introduction of common pay-scales for ranks below commissioned officers and non-functional upgradation (NFU) for commissioned officers. Civilian pensioners can also be expected to be benefited as a result of modification of pensionary modalities.
Enhancement of Grade Pay for commissioned ranks and enhanced initial pay fixation for Lt Cols, Cols and Brigs may not be recommended by the committee and would in all probability be kept pending for further deliberations.
Still, there’s many-a-slip in the domain of officialdom, as we all know, hence reactions on the fresh provisions should be reserved till the time the recommendations are officially notified as accepted with full details.
67 comments:
Thanks for the update NAvdeep, you are doing a Great job.
Dear Interested,
Brief by Maj NSji explains perhaps the ground truth vis a vis expectations. BESIDES THE OROP ISSUE, COMMON PAY SCALES FOR JCOS/ OTHERS WILL BE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO RESOLVE MANY ISSUES AND ALSO FOR UNINTERRUPTED FINANCIAL BENEFIT WHILE IN SERVICE. SO ALSO THE SCALE SEGMENTS WITHIN RESPECTIVE PAY BANDS WITH CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF "INITIAL PAY" FOR EACH RANK/ GRADE WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO REMOVE PAY/PENSION DISPARITIES AND "FIT IN THE NFU CONCEPT FOR SERVING PERSONNEL. THE NEW SYSTEM OR SCHEME FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL NEED NOT BE A REPLICA OF CIVILIAN PAY STRUCTURING BUT CAN BE EVEN MORE "WELL DEFINED AND EQUATABLE" WITH INTER-SERVICES AS WELL AS CIVILIAN SIDE WHEN "PROTOCOL" FORMALITIES ARE TO BE OBSERVED.
I HEAR SOME TABLES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT "REALISTICALLY"- OF COURSE TO BE SEEN IN "BLACK & WHITE" TO BE BELIEVED!!
I believe this time there is "higher level COMPETENT and RESPONSIBLE inputs" so that controversies can be minimised unlike the last time "when the fiasco was caused for both serving and retired personnel" by BIASED INPUTS FROM GOD ONLY KNOWS FOR WHY AND HOW?
Hoping for the best outcome for all...
VNatarajan
This was expected. Navdeep can we expect the resolution soon as our honourable PM announced but how soon is soon. Soon is a relative term and can be tommorrow for some or years for others.
Thanks for the update maj Navdeep
Thanx maj navdeep for the valuabla inputs. U r doins a great job.
Sir, How soon we can expect it? This month or next month? Please update as and when it comes.
U R DOING GR8 JOB FOR DEF PERS. KEEP IT UP. BEST WISHES...
Dear Maj Navdeep Sir,
Kudos and hearty gratitude for all that being done by your good self,
towards keeping Def Personnel and Veterans rightly informed about their most concerned issues.
This is an single largest example of rendering selfless service to the most neglected community of the nation.
As we all understand and have widely accepted that, the pensioners retired pre Jan 2006, in the Major and equi ranks in Navy and Air Force, happens to be the Bigest Loosers due to the Pay Band Funda of VI CPC award. Even with implimantation of AFT decision
on the minimum of basic pension amount i.e. Rs 18205, the gap betwn pension in comparision to the next immediate rank remains to be Rs 7495, which is very ridiculous and unfortunate for the Govt-MOD, suffering comminity and their widows.
Could you please do us a favour to clarify, how this Modified Parity now being worked out by the CoS, is likely handle this resultant blunder of VI CPC, clubbing Def ranks in some or other Pay Bands
without application of serious thought process.
What basic pension a Maj rank pre 01 jan 2006 retiree can expect on implimentation of latest CoS recommendation?
Thanks and regards,
One Of The V i.e.(Victim)
The composition of the Committee does not inspire much confidence about any positive outcome.The service people have been relegated quite systematically over the years. Not being prophet of doom we can expect some hope against hope on the eve of next elections only.Hope I am proved wrong?
maj navdeepji,
thanks for your above psot. May I request u to bring out the NFU as demanded by the Army. If it is for 200 Rs from colonel to brigadier, then I would say we might as well not get it. I hope pay commission cell people and senior officers have deliberately upon it. please at least bring out as to what has been asked for NFU by defence services as there is no communication from defence services. Keeping everyone in dark is their motto. please bring out as u would be aware.
a must listen/see video on one rank one pension
link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNwH3ptWNnQ
Sir,
May I request you to kindly post the details of the proposals that army has made to govt.
I am sure the environment would like to know what exactly has been proposed by armed forces.
Really grateful to our commanders who have projected Jawans'(Serving & Ex) interests along with the those of officers as I feel this is the main issue which is very much necessary to maintain a harmonious relationship across different ranks during war as well as peace. Also grateful to you for giving this update. Can we expect something special during this festive season!
Mr. V Natarajan Sir,
Will you like to clarify/ elaborate source of "Competent and Responsible Inputs".
@Individual Continuing To Describe Himself As PBOR: Wherever the truncation is the greatest, as, for example, in the case of ranks equivalent to Havildar, parity of pensions assumes the greatest significance. Where is the doubt about it?
Dear Navdeep
What exactly is the modified parity. If cal is going to be based on min of pay in the pay the pay band, it is no where near modified pay parity.It is as per the cpc report as accepted by the Govt and further winning the case in CAT & AFT.
welcome PBOR. kyaa hum kumbh ke mele mein bichade the :-)
Sir, I think seeing the problems faced by the NEST in Assam and DESW, MOD in New Delhi, they should be posted and shifted to Assam in place of New Delhi.They will come to know the cost of filing appeals against AFT & HCs in SC as disabled soldiers are facing now because of them. Armed Forces should be removed from Assam and Higher body of DESW & MOD should be placed there now. Hope it will reduce the suicides of soldiers. JAI JAWAN JAI HIND
HUM ‘FAUJI’ HAIN, ‘CIVILIAN’ NAHI. Let there be no doubt that we are not Civilians but Soldiers and to bracket the Soldiers with the civilians is the cruelest joke played on the Indian Armed Forces Soldiering is not a Profession, it is a PASSION. Since 1973, under the umbrella of 3 CPC & at the unholy and inauspicious celestial time when the AFs of India after 1971 were at ZENITH as a reward were sabotaged by the nexus of BABUDOM & EVERSUSPICIOUS Political Class, were rewarded with the “GIFT OF” so called Scientific management, also called Taylorism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management ) and since than have successfully have been able to push and reduce the Armed Forces to a work force which falls supposedly under the category 3D i.e. Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning (often Dirty, Dangerous and Demanding or Dirty, Dangerous and Difficult), also known as the 3Ds, is an American neologism derived from an Asian concept, and refers to certain kinds of labor often performed by unionized blue-collar workers. The term originated from the Japanese expression 3K: kitanai, kiken, and kitsui,[1] and has subsequently gained widespread use, particularly regarding labor done by migrant workers who in the country of their work place have no dignity or ‘ ‘NO IZZAT’ in our parlance. The result SOLDIER has been reduced to Taylorism . Traditionally, workers in 3D professions are generally well paid, (depending upon the availability of labour force) due to the undesirability of the work, and the resulting need to pay higher wages to attract workers.This has allowed the uneducated and unskilled to earn a living wage by foregoing comfort, personal safety and social status. This concept proves itself in the economic theory of quantity supplied and quantity demanded (see Quantity adjustment), the wages paid to these workers would always be higher than other wages due to the work's undesirability.Unfortunately, by design & treachery BUREAUCRAT has been successful in confusing the terms SOLDIERING & TAYLORISM
In contrast to Taylorism as defined above PASSION in Soldiering is compatible to The suffering of Jesus leading up to and during his crucifixion. [BALIDAN] . NO PRICE can be “FIXED ON CRUCIFICATION” It is the tragedy of this ‘NATION’ to have a Government headed by an economist who also believes in Taylorism and has a SCOTOMA towards the concept of “CRUCIFIXION” [ BALIDAN ] . EVERY THING IN THIS COUNTRY IS BEING MEASURED FROM THE ANGLE OF DEMAND & SUPPLY and the job of soldiering as perceived in so called modern concept falls under the category of 3D. This speaks volume to explain to what extent taylorism has overtaken the NATION http://epaper2.mid-day.com/showtext.aspx?boxid=21434758&parentid=179868&issuedate=14082012&edd123=mumbai.
To give justice to the IZZAT and Security of NATION Armed Forces should reject this Committee of Cabinet Secretary and as a first should demand divorce from the Civilian unholy Alliance subsequently the rest will fall in its place.
Responding to Anonymous's query Aug 16 07 26 pm; I think you have heard the panelists in the NDTV Discussion did try to convey how the lower levels in administrtaive heirarchy churn out reports/decisions and the higher levels blindly follow the same without applying their "COMPETENCY / REPONSIBILITY" to review and decide on the final recos. PR BENCH CAT DELHI in its judgment dt 1 11 2011 have not minced any words to convey their diapleasure at the unauthorised alterations of core Cabinet Decision which was Gazette Notified on 29 08 2008 by lower levels of heirarchy (went unchecked by higher levels) etc.SUCH UNAUTHORISED ALTERATIONS/MODIFICATIONS IN THE GARB OF CLARIFICATIONS DENIED MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS A "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" (ie on par with the Minimum of Revised Pension an the minimum of the revised scale of pay of the post last held by the pensioner (ie also called Modified Parity popularly after 5CPC).THE LOWER HEIRARCHY EFFECTIVELY CHANGED THE BASIS OF REVSION OF PRE 2006 PENSION FROM "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH OPENSIONER RETIRED" to repeat to "MINIMUM PAY OF THE PAY BAND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER RETIRED"!!!. What a colossal distructive action. NEITHER THE "COMPETENT HIGHER LEVELS CHECKED THIS UNAUTHORISED DICTAT" nor any one there acted with "RESPONSIBILITY" when thousands of Civil and Miltary pensioners protested!Result as you know - several Cases came up in TrIBUNALS (MILTARY AND CIVIL) and also in COURTs, ALL TRIBUNAL (AFTs/ CATS) VERDICTS ON THE "MODIFIED PARITY" SO FAR HAVE GONE IN FAVOUR OF THE PENSIONERS!. Throwing ALLthe judgments to winds, the AUTHORITIES ARE EMBARKING UPON ANOTHER ROUND OF LAWDVENTURE IN HIGHER COURTS! no respect to THE FAMOUS NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY which smacks of not at all being responsible to respect teh same!. Let us hope the current developments draw the curtain down on the sad tale so far. NEW COMMITTEE IS "COMPETENT": ENOUGH TO ACT "RESPONSIBLY" TO OVERCOME ALL NEGATIVE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE EMERGED SO FAR!- V Natarajan
CORRECTION:- HUM FAUJI HAIN
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2012/aug/140812-Mumbais-most-wanted.htm
@V Natrajan: All these tinkerings with the basis of parity are the means to an end, whether it be a "minimum of pay in bay band" or "minimum of payband" or whatever else.
Post CPC pensions need to have parity based on sound fundamental concepts which would be just and fair. All this modified or full parity business can be worked out to ensure the basic principles of equity are not infringed.
If a person has joined a certain sort of service and served it in for a fixed period of time, then the pension he earns should not be fixed in a manner so as to place him at a disadvantage as compared to another individual with an identical service. All this placement in payband business must meet that basic premise.
Of course, post CPCs, pensions do differ for equivalent service as full parity is considered an incorrect concept by UOI (hence the denial, so far, of OROP). But even with modified parity, the basis of selecting an appropriate pay band for establishing the pension parity needs to be thought of with great care. For this the old ideas of "rank in which retired", "pay band of rank at retirement" etc may need to be rationalised as the "rank in which retired" may no longer be a sufficient yardstick of establishing the equivalence of identical service.
Just one example could be that of higher ranks having been automatically given to subsequent retirees after much shorter periods of service as a result of changes in promotion policies. So a past retiree who retired in a lower time-scale rank after an equivalent service ought to be fixed in the same pension table as a subsequent, also pre CPC, retiree, who retires in a higher time-scale rank with the same length of service in the same cadre.
dear maj navdeep
thanks for the initiative taken by you... i just came to know about your site. we were busy in serving through out without realising the problem.....
yogender
We are the only in enslavery after 50th independence day we feel the heartfelt agony by the people who serving in high rank because all we know there is no way to out from the slavery because"pahle angreji gulam the hum abhi desi baby ke gulam hai pharak much nahi hai, ki develop much nahi his hai, sabhi some swarth ke lite hi jite hai,
It seems there is unnecessary debate on NFU. The concept has been amply clarified by Maj Navdeep on his blog. I am reproducing extract from his blog. If an IAS offr with 20 years service becomes Jt Secy then group A offrs with 22 years of service will start getting the grade of Jt Secy irrespective of post he is holding.And when an IAS offr with 30 yrs of service becomes Addl Secy in HAG grade a group A offr with 32 years will also start getting grade of Addl Secy on a non-functional basis irrespective of whether they are actually promoted or not..As a result, almost all organised Group-A civil officers are retiring with the pay and pension of a Lt Gen.So I hope if NFU comes through for Armed Forces, it will be on the same lines. so do not loose heart and hope for the best.
"For the uninitiated, NFU basically implies that whenever an IAS officer gets empanelled at a particular appointment at the Centre, all other Group-A service officers are also upgraded to the same level after a period of two years from the date of empanelment, on a non-functional basis irrespective of whether they are actually promoted or not. For example, if an officer of the IAS of 1982 batch is empanelled as an Additional Secretary to Govt of India, then all other Organised Group-A civil officers of the 1980 batch shall also be placed in the ‘Addl Secy to Govt of India’ pay grade of Rs 67000-79000 (Higher Administrative Grade/HAG) which is the same as a Lt Gen of the Army. As a result, almost all organised Group-A civil officers are retiring with the pay and pension of a Lt Gen whereas less than 1% of defence officers are retiring in the said grade
@ Col Pardaman Singh - Dear Sir,
Although the intention of 6th CPC was same as u said in your post but the reality is that none of Gp A civ officers are getting that. DOP&T has put a rider of residency period of one year in a particular grade in order to get the next grade. So if an EE(SG) of MES has to get the pay scale of Jt Secy, he cannot get even if he is eligible as per 6th CPC norms. To get the Jt Secy's pay he has to first get functional promotion of SE / PD. So all is not good even for civilian officers of GOI as being projected.
NFU can go up to the level of HAG/ Addl Secy only if there is a provision for such posts in the respective Cadre Structure of the Service/Dept concerned. For example in some Depts/ Organisations, the highest post may end at Jt Secy level and so the suo moto NFU upgradation may be possible up to only that level.(Of course in Miltary, posts up o HAG levels do exist).
(What I ahev understood/ learnt pl)- VNatarajan
@Clo.Pardaman Singh.
Why not read the original Office memo of GOI on NFFU?Please see...
24 Apr 2009 – AB.14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR). Government of India. Ministry of Personnel ... NIC
colonel pardaman ji above,
i hope ur interpretaion is correct. but when it may not be as simplistic rule for faujis.
even if CoS gives it, CDA(O) and fauj HQ will not give it and put spokes in it.
life is like that.....
@Col Pardaman Singh:"...unnecessary debate on NFU..."
Actually, debate, per se, is seldom "unnecessary".
However, the clarification of Maj Navdeep's blog post posted by you does serve as a useful reminder of the salient features of NFFU as it applies to civilian officers.
However the main issue the debate was about related to which Group 'A' civilian officers are eligible for being empanelled for the higher post. The contention of some of the participants was that not all group 'A' officers would automatically qualify for the higher post even if an IAS officer, with a service of two years less than their own, is empanelled for the same post. The point being made was the officers eligible to be empanelled would have to be eligible for promotion to that higher post. So, that does not work in the case of armed forces where the present system permanently sidelines Officers on an official basis after a certain stage.
It is also far from clear how NFFU would affect the pensions of existing pensioners. Would a refitment become necessary for pre VI CPC retirees, for instance?
So further debate may well be necessary to arrive at a better appreciation of how NFFU may or may not affect AFs.
WE HAVE SEEN FAUJIS FALLING OVER IN ENSURING THAT WE FOLLOW WHAT CIVILIANS HAVE GOT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATIONS. EVEN IF nfu HAS PROVISIONS THAT ONE HAS TO BE IN FUNCTIONAL SCALE FOR A YEAR OR (EXACT DETAILS NOT KNOWN) FOR CIVILIANS FOR HIM/HER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR nfu OF NEXT RANK, STILL ALL OF THEM WILL BECOME DIRECTORS (BARRRING ONE ODD % IN SOME CADRES) AND BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR JOINT SECRETARY'S PAY nfu AT 22 YEARS OR SO. AND MOST OF THEM WILL BECOME FUNCTIONAL JOINT SECRETARY AT 30 YEARS OF SERVICE SO THEY WILL GET ADDITIONAL SECRETARY'S NFU AT 32 YEARS. AND PLEASE REMEMBER MOST OF THE CIVILIAN OFFICERS WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 32 YEARS OF SERVICE INCLUDING THEIR TRAINING PERIOD. SO ALL OF THEM WILL BE BENEFITTED TREMENDOUSLY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE BOGIE AND DELIBRATE MISREPRESENTATION BY FRIENDS LIKE RAJKUMAR AND HIS ILK ON THIS BLOG.
FOR DEFENCE SERVICES, NFU HAS TO BE WORKED OUT KEEPING IN VIEW THE SERVICE CONDITIONS. IT CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE ON SIMILAR LINES AS CIVILIANS BUT SHOULD CATER FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF DEFENCE WHERE 90% OFFICERS WILL NOT GET FUNCTIONAL RANK OF COLONEL IN THEIR LIFE TIME. NFU FOR DEFENCE SERVICES HAS TOBE IN A MANNER THAT FINANCIAL BENEFITS ARE EXTENDED TO THE SAME EXTENT AND AT SAME TIME FRAME(IF NOT EARLIER FOR DEFENCE SERVICES AS TRAINIG PERIOD IS NOT COUNTED) AS FOR CIVILIANS. REST ARE ALL THE FORAMLITIES WHICH CAN BE WORKED OUT.
I HOPE OUR PAYCELLS ARE NOT BANGING THEIR HEAD FOR 200 RUPEES INCREASE FOR 10% COLONELS FOR NFU OF BRIGADIERS. THAT WILL BE THE BIGGEST BLUNDER EVER FOR DEFENCE SERVICES.
THEREFORE IT IS IMPERATIVE, THAT SOMEONE WHO IS INTHE KNOW AS TO WHAT IS THE PROPOSAL FROM DEFENCE SIDE FOR NFU NEED TO INTROSPECT AND ACT ACCORDINGLY.
@Sunlit. Your point is that the benefits that have been implemented with respect to reduction of qualifying years for TS promotions should be positively reflected in the pensions of past retirees.
But sadly the max that was done was to bring the past retirees to the bottom of the respective new band pays. This CoS may lift them up to the bottom of the pay scale. Nothing more can be anticipated.
It will be interesting to see the actual form of the NFFU that is being recommended.
“The point being made was the officers eligible to be empanelled would have to be eligible for promotion to that higher post. So, that does not work in the case of armed forces where the present system permanently sidelines Officers on an official basis after a certain stage”.
The way NFFU is available to the organized Gp. A Services officer leads one to understand that NFFU only assures a non functional financial upgrade to the immediate next higher grade pay, provided an officer is otherwise eligible to that higher grade pay. See the annexure to No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR),Government of India,Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training,New Delhi, the 24th April, 2009.
That means even in the civil services, only an officer who is already, functionally, in the grade pay of Rs. 10,000/- will be eligible to get an NFFU of HAG scale. Not all officers of the same length of service, resident at various lower grade-pays, as is being said.
Are not, NFFU and OROP, for officers, mutually exclusive?
While in service, one would welcome higher grade pays and pay scales even if the rank, unfortunately, does not progress, Thus in the same rank, there might be a different grade pays and hence after retirement, there will be different pensions( in the same rank).
OROP on the other hand, reduces all these advantages to a single pension to a given rank.
Hence OROP is not beneficial if NFFU is available, unless the OROP promises more than what NFFU will yield.
To all those who are already pensioners, OROP will be beneficial.
Therefore there have to be two provisions. OROP for all those past pensioners and a different scheme incorporating the benefits of both NFFU and OROP, to the future pensioners.
Its a sorry state affairs as to how some of us think about the rest of the world .The negative approach has been grilled in the defence services.Everyone thinks no end of himself when it comes to writing without responsibility .When it come to do the same task when in position they let out the air from the wrong place .The most selfish lot is the defence lot ,it includes the Jawan ,the NCO ,The JCO and top it all the officer and the General in particular .I wish there was more togetherness ,it would have served the individual as well as the service much better .
NFU in its present form will ensure 100% Gp A serv get scale of Addl Secy at 32 yrs which is equival to Lt Gen as of now.So effectively all Gp A will get pension of Addl Secy which is 37750/- so for them it is OROP via NFU. Comparatively only 0.02% AF offr reach that level. 99% are superseded at COL rank that too at 26 yrs if not promoted earlier.1/2
2/2 to provide NFU to AF, COL at 22yrs, Brig at 26 yrs. It has to be ensured that all offrs get NFU of Maj Gen at 32 yrs and also Maj Gen has to move to HAG+ scale. Only then there can be parity in pension of AF / Civ.
Without NFU, OROP will serve no purpose. In fact it will become a damn squib.99% will get pension of COL. Just Think!
@Penmil: That's an extremely insightful comment from you. There would be a contradiction, I feel, between the concept of NFFU on one hand and the process of 'permanent sidelining' on the other.
An armed officer gets permanently sidelined only on account of the steep pyramid. NFFU is intended as an antidote for exactly that steep pyramid. So why on earth 'sideline' an officer permanently due to there being insufficient vacancies and then talk of NFFU only for those who are eligible for promotion to the next higher rank?
The only logical thing to do would be, TS or not, three boards having been done or otherwise, an Officer not having picked up the next rank ought always to be eligible for NFFU subject to the other conditions being met. Otherwise we could run into another anomalous situation of disparity, viz., a pre NFFU-introduction and a post NFFU-introduction officer would receive different treatments. The former would never have been permanently sidelined and missed the NFFU advantage if it had been introduced before his third board.
I have myself posted elsewhere and also read comments from others to the effect that for complete parity, AFs need the benefit of NFFU plus OROP.
OROP itself needs to be modified to signify that a past pensioner ought to receive the same pension as an Officer of the same cadre with an equivalent service in the highest equivalent time-scale rank would receive in the present. If the current retiree receives the pension of the next higher rank because of NFFU, then so should the past retiree of equivalent service. The "OR" in "OROP" is in need of a rethink.
Now if the "OP" in OROP is to be changed to ORMP, 'M' being for modified, then also the past pensioner's pension needs to be on a modified parity basis in relation to the pension of a current retiree of equivalent service after the concepts of the highest attainable TS rank and NFFU have been applied.
Mind you, even with this, the past retiree's pension will not enjoy parity with that of an equivalent civilian officer retiring about 6 years later than the armed forces officer.
This concept would apply to non-commissioned officers, JCO's wherever truncation of career takes place and wherever current time-scale promotions are faster than previously.
Briefly, the quantum of equivalent service put in is a vital basis for establishing pension parity.
Expecting any thing substantial from this committee will be foolishness.
What Penmil said:
"Therefore there have to be two provisions. OROP for all those past pensioners and a different scheme incorporating the benefits of both NFFU and OROP, to the future pensioners"
IS THIS NOT HAPPENING NOW?
FOR "PAST OR OLD PENSIONERS" , IT IS MUTILATED NON-OROP OR MOD PARITY
WHERAS FOR CURRENT(POST 1 1 2006) / FUTURE PENSIONERS, IT IS IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND FOR ALL RANKS/ GRADES (4 OR 5 BUNDLED TOGETHER) WITH LITTLE DIFFERENCES IN GP.ALL THESE WILL GET MUCH MUCH HIGHER PENSION THAN THE OLDIES, AND.......
IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN AFTER 1 1 2016,(NEXT PC) IF THEY ARE ALSO WOKEN UP FROM THEIR SLUMBER AND THEY ARE ALSO BRANDED AS "PAST OR OLD PENSIONERS" AND SUFFER LIKE US NOW. OF COURSE THERE IS SOME JUBILATION THAT T LEAST 10 PER CENT OF THEM MAY REACH THE PINNACLE OF NFU/ CADRE PROVISIONED TOP LEVELS AND GET MAXIMISED PENSIONS.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT REST WILL SINK WITH US AT " MINIMUM PAY OF HE PAY BAND" FOR PENSION REVISION?
Are we discussing /, and or this on NFFU, If so where is the doubt!!!:-
http://circulars.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/AB-14017_64_2008-Estt.(RR).pdf
Reference some of the discussion above, the Heading it self says “:Subject:- Non-Functional upgradation for Officers of
Organised Group 'A' Services in PB-3 and PB-4”
Obviously those who come under PB-3(Where Masters are IAS/ or, & IPS) may or may not have vaccancy slots at Jt Secy or above level, situation may vary from service to service and Ministry to Ministry.
Now if the the Answer to the PDF mentioned here in above is” YES !!” than the question arises how (if accepted for AFs) NFFU is going to be applied to the AFs. Principles of Application of NFFU for CIVILIAN SERVICES is a settled issue, Procedures for its application may be an issue leading to IRRITANTS. “WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THAT IN CIVILIAN SERVICES EVERY ONE FROM ‘CHAPRASI TO CABINET SECRETARY SERVES AND RETIRES AT THE SAME AGE AND TO TOP IT IRRESPECTIVE OF HEALTH OF THEIR ‘ACR’s GET KICKED UP & PROMOTED UNTIL & UNLESS an unlucky GET CONVICTED ENROUTE PRIOR TO RETIREMENT. Where as in AFs at every stage if not promoted due to pyramidic structure and on availablity of vacancies get ‘STAMPED- NOT APPROVED’ & gets BOOTED OUT.Applicability is universal from JAWAN TO GENERAL. Under these circumstances out of authorised Strength of 42000 thousand of officers it is doubtful even a couple of hundred will get benefitted, where in for Civilian services the benefits of NFFU trickles down to HUNDRED PERCENT !! EXAMINE the point under discussion in AFs only those who become Maj Gen will get qualified for NFFU may be at 32 yrs of service, out of Brigadiers for most of them NFFU will be a BANANA hanging on the top of Qutab Minar.NFFU is an EXERCISE in futility.
Now consider an “IMAGINATIVE SCENARIO” , ofcourse it can be made applicable, provided there is ‘Political Willingness’. Attach AFs for NFFU with Civilian terms & Conditions by hooking & hanging on the tail of IAS, this will enable each & every Lt Col to draw the Joint Secy(Maj Gen) Scale at 22 Yrs & retire as Col with Lt Gen’s Pension. A VERY HEALTHY ENVIORMENT FOR ‘MALINGERERS TO MUSHRUM’. I again reiterate :-
Non Functional Finance Upgradation (N F F U) is unconstitutional and violates the Article 14 of the constitution .There fore ‘NFFU SHOULD BE ABOLISHED FORTH WITH’. NFFU is discriminatory both in nature and application. NFFU IS ‘HARAM KI KAMAI’ & TO ACCEPT IT WIL BE UNSOLDIERLY & UNGODLY
On closer examination it gets amply clear that application of NFFU is a SCAM which has been legalized by blackmail tactics of a Group of employees for sectarian advantages and AFs should not become a partner in this NATIONAL LOOT and should advocate the abolition of NFFU
@Vasundhara:"..malingerers..."
You have touched on another issue which requires a critical introspection by one and all.
For far too long, the hierarchy has got used to managing subordinates through the illicit and unprincipled misuse of the appraisal and promotion system. In place of true military style leadership of the straight-shooter kind, we have seen machiavellian, smooth-talking, cloak-and-dagger type of superiors emerging who are too weak kneed to use the draconian provisions of the armed forces acts, rules and regulations at their disposal for straightening out indiscipline, malingering or non-performance.
Instead we have superiors resorting to threats of luke-warm reports, subtle hints of career-destruction and sometimes just plain wretched, unrestrained vengefulness borne out of personal frustrations, low self-esteem or troubled childhoods.
Such people, far too many ensconced comfortably in the pyramid, are a potential threat to any military set up. They breed resentment, suspicion and all the ills of sycophancy, inappropriate compliance and compilicity. All are potential morale wreckers.
Now to your point about malingering. Any person exhibiting those traits needs to be weeded out through direct means, viz, the written warning, court-of-inquiry, summary-of-evidence and court-martial route and NOT through intentional rendering of 'average' reports so as to make the one reported upon to fall off the pyramid.
There is a pyramid, people will miss promotion to the select ranks because of the shape of the pyramid. So, they need something like NFFU for sure. If people in-charge feel threatened they wouldn't be able to control subordinates or those placed under their charge will "show them two fingers", then they might as well put in their own papers and leave. Those who can't stand the heat have no place in the kitchen.
Just because some people exercising authority might be unequal to the task of enforcing performance standards is no reason for the vast bulk of people not being granted NFFU. It's reasoning of the nature, "This will cause malingering, non-performance, lack-of application, etc" that has kept cadres in AFs at a disadvantage compared to their civilian counterparts all these decades.
Dear Maj Navdeep,
Kudos for what you're trying to accomplish with your blog. The nation's military personnel deserve the best service benefits and gratitude both during and after their time in uniform. It is very sad, especially on the medical front, how men who've served the nation and have paid a price are treated with no sense of justice or humanity. That said, I have a genuine question on the pay parity factor:
Given that Lt Col & eq are now time-scale posts starting at 13 years of service are now placed in Pay Band 4 (37400 - 67000 + 8000 + 6000 MSP), shouldn't the pay of a very senior Lt Col (with 30 yrs of total service, which would be 17 years in PB-4) be 6000 + (37400+8000) * 1.03^20 = 81039! Given apex pay in the GoI is only 80,000 (and Army Commanders who are not eligible for MSP make only this), I am unclear as to how exactly a Lt Col upon reaching 30 yrs of commissioned service would make any less than a full Secretary to the Govt of India who also makes Rs. 80,000 basic does.
I understand the implications of not being accorded the same benefits (like executive air travel or size of accommodation/ diplomatic perks) as a higher ranking officer and that ought to be rectified, but on the pay front, since all commissioned officers will hit Pay Band 4 in 13 years, I can't see how they will make any less than Rs. 80,000 basic at 30 years of service given the simple logic of annual increment is 3% of pay-in-band + GP! Please advise as to where my math is wrong.
Penmil's observation:
"That means even in the civil services, only an officer who is already, functionally, in the grade pay of Rs. 10,000/- will be eligible to get an NFFU of HAG scale. Not all officers of the same length of service, resident at various lower grade-pays, as is being said."
I feel so far as NFU to HAG is concerned, this has been "implemented" retrospectively with effect from 1.1.2006 itself at least in one Deptt ( I have come to hear) for all those who had compleeted JUST ONE YEAR IN THE SAG SCALE AS ON 1 1 2006.
This is only to help in understanding the provisions and the likely IMBALANCE that are/may be emerging. iN THE SAID CASE, THERE WAS ONLY ONE "SANCTIONED" HAG LEVEL CADRE POST WHEREAS DUE TO THE NFU IMPLEMENTATION, A DOZEN MORE GOT THE HAG UPSCALE AS ON 1 1 2006. Great gesture of babudom?? For what? Keep all mouths shut........????
@ V.Natarajan.Thank you for the illustration.
In the civil it appears to me now,it is not difficult to attain the NFFU to HAG scale and thereby qualify for OROP of HAG .
All that it needs is to reach SAG scale which is attainable in 22 to 34 years of service, depending upon the cadre.The vacancies for SAG are also not less;8 to 14 %( from the statistical data of Rajkumar).
Thus all civil servises officers would be able to reach SAG and spend an year's residency without any problems.
But in the military service it is almost impossible for any one to hope to reach the Maj Gen Rank and spend an year there. There are not so many vacancies and many would fall down on the way side due to lower retirement age at lower ranks before a batch is considered for promotion to that rank( Sunlit had pointed out that many are permanently passed over,meaning not considered for promotion to the cadre vacancy of Col.).
What is becoming clearer is that NFFU in the current civil form will be of no benefit to the military.
But NFFU to SAG level is of no use since the increase in GP from 8000 to 10,000 is not significant when compared to regular annual incements, which on average, over 20 years after attaining Lt. Col rank,to more than 2000 per year.
Even with NFFU to SAG scale ,one may reach stagnation at 67,000.
Then why all this 'Kolavery' for NFFU?
@ Sunlit.Yes. The concept of OROP may have to be reworked to do justice to Pre AVS-I retirees and also to the Pre NFFU Retirees( who might be also Pre AVS-I) who will emerge after the award of NFFU.
With so many complexities surfacing, one is tempted to think in terms of de linking the rank from the pay scale.Does each rank need a separate pay scale?
Let the ranks be there, as many as we desire,but let the pay progress only by a time bound rule, so that a given length of service would assure a defined pay, irrespective of rank attained. If need be let the pay progress at two paces, one for the regular promotees and another with a phase difference of two years for the NFFU non promotees.
Then we can identify anyone with the years of service for pay and pension, and with the rank for organizational, structural and command and control functions.
With this the service officer's pay will fall in step with the civil service officer, scale to scale and GP to GP.
Was this not the aim of 4th CPC?
4th CPC had no formula for the rank pay upgradation with time; but this NFFU has a formula for the upgradation of pay as well as grade pay with time( well, not directly).
@Penmil:"..Pre AVS-I.."
I am still firmly of the view that AVS-I ought to have been synchronised with V CPC implementation. The implementation wef mid Dec 2004 was discriminatory against the post V CPC retirees who just fell into the category of pre AVS-I owing merely to the arbitrary act by UOI of selecting 16 Dec 04 as the effective date for AVS-I.
The fact however remains, that even if AVS-I hads been implemented wef 01 Jan 96, the pre V CPC retirees would have been in need of extra pension adjustments for parity.
GIVEN THE ALL OUT EFFORTS FOR RAPID PASSAGE OF OMBUDSMAN BILL, NFFU FOR AF OFFICERS, OROP FOR ALL, EXISTING MSP ELEMENT, RATION, UNIFORMS ALLCES, CSD ETC, WHY WOULD THE SO CALLED CREAMY AND MOST BRILLIANT (BOOK WORMS) HAVE FASCINATION FOR SO FAR SO LUCRATIVE CIVIL SERVICES? IF THEY MAKE WAY FOR AFs BY CRACKING SSB, IF AT ALL, JUST IMAGINE THE KIND OF HAVOC THEY ARE CAPABLE OF WREAKING IN A QUEST TO REGAIN THER DILUTED AURA AND POMP IN THE CIVIL DOMAIN. IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THEY WILL THEN WORK TOWARDS ENSURING BETTER EVERYTHING FOR AF OFFICERS THAN IAS. A GOOD OMEN FOR THE SERVICES OFFICERS, ISN'T IT SO?
The One Rank One Pension is the just demand and should be implemented for all AFs pensioners. What is the latest on Committee's report was to be submitted on 08.08.2012?
@ Dhoop. You queried earlier too, if V CPC had the origins of AVS in its recos. I too am with you in that the mid course correction of AVS I, if it had to happen, should have had its effect from 2006.But still there will be so many,pre VI CPC retirees, as Sunlit points out, that will be left out.
The symptomes for the pensioners, are these AVS-I, NFFU, OROP etc.
But actual cause is the way military officers' pensions are designed.When one retires his/her pension is based on his/her pay scale.But after each CPC, the pay scale disappears and the pensions are made rank based from out of the blue, where as there was no deal for OROP at all!
If pension was to be based on rank,why was it not so at the retirement stage?
I think instead of asking for OROP one must ask for pension based on one's scale at retirement. Then you will find that pre IV CPC majors will be entitled for what is now full colnel's pension since the Major's Selection Grade( equivalent of ) of that period is now Director's grade in the civil services.Therefore one should hang on to one's pay scale at retirement and ask for pensions equi. to those scales in civil in the present.Even those retired during the IV and V CPC regimes should ask for equivalent pensions in the civil corresponding to the pay scales at their retirement( pay scale includes addition of rank pay, as per Dhanapalan's case judgement).
Shri V. Natarjan is also saying the same that his pay scale must have a role in his pension.
Our dilemma is to own our rank or our pay scale? For past pensioners it should be our pay scale.
But for military pensioners other than officers, the current approach is more suitable.The trend is to give full pension irrespective of number of years served( that is to remove the hastle of weightages),to calculate the pension on max of scale instead of one's current pay and hopefully they will make the pension 70% of max pay scale instead of the present 50%.
Even in this case too it is necessary to hang on to one's pay scale and not let it be wiped out altogether from the scene.
@Penmil:I agree totally that a simplistic slogan like OROP ought to be just a slogan for highlighting the issue and for inviting debate. I had tried to highlight this in a blog post some time ago.
But the actual resolution needs to be made after a careful evaluation of all aspects of the matter.
At the risk of being repetitive, I am firmly of the view that the ultimate measure of parity and fairness would be a composite yardstick based on the type of enrolment or commission, the rank attained till retirement, the present rank that would have been attainable merely based on the equivalent tenure of service, the payband at the time of retirement, the present paybands applicable to the rank retired in as well as that of the rank that would now be attained on a time-scale basis, in the case of Officers, also the rank attainable after application of NFFU for an equivalent service.
The amount of 'equivalent service' rendered has to be a factor in the whole equation of parity as ranks, paybands vary from time to time as you have pointed out.
There could be other issues as well. But all such considerations need to be applied to obtain pre/post CPC, pre/post AVS-I and pre/post NFFU parity amongst just the veterans. The parity could be full parity (as implied by "OROP") or it could be modified parity. But a satisfactory resolution is not possible if these considerations are ignored.
Would forth CPC provisions satisfy -add increaments equal to no of years served in the last rank (at the time of retirement) to the Initial pay in the new pay structure-available to post 2006 employees in the same rank
Kalra
@Anonymous: That would make it a full parity OROP, wouldn't it? Was such a one time full parity granted at the time of IV CPC? I recall there was something like that.
Such a one-time full parity would be fairly acceptable to many, considering VII CPC is not that far away. Others may wish to clarify.
Who will give that? Mutilated Modified Parity for Com Officers and Identityless OROP for others is the ground reality for Military Pensioners as of now.
Full Parity OROP? No illusions pl -
In osite of the Hon PM's deadline of 08 08 2012 for submission of the Report/ Recos ,what is the Status or where is the new date now? ANY NEWS? ANY GUESS? ANY RUMOUR?
No dreams!
@Sunlit.You are aware of the paradox in the pension system of officers military inroduced by making it subject to Civil Pension Rules 1972.BCV had highlighted this in one of his comments.While the pay is linked to ranks not independent, like the pay scale system of the civil, the pension, after one revision by the CPC is linked to the rank.
It is just absurd.
That is why the pension gets stagnant with respect to rank.If post AVS promotees get higher pay and pension due to rank elevation, there is no way that can be granted to Pre AVS retirees.
With OROP this equation may get worse, if the current trend of lowering of pay scale of each rank, and but granting higher promotions at an earlier service is any indication.
As an example you can see that the Major's pay scale starts at 10000in VI CPC(in equi. rupees of V CPC) where as it was RS.11925+rank pay of 1200, in V CPC.
Therefore there is a likely hood rank linked pensions getting lowered with time.
You highlighted many factors that should be considered, if a rank based OROP is to be designed.
But will the services bother to go to such lengths just for the sake of retirees?
Can the retired persons get the benefit of promotions and increments that are granted to the later serving persons?
Dear Sir
I am working in the bank and drawing basic pay as Rs.8000/- as my initial basic pay. Recently I applied for re-fixation of pay on re-employment in the bank. As par the last pay certificate I was drawing pay as: Basic pay Rs. 9200+ Grade pay Rs. 2800 + DA Rs. 1080(9%)+ GCB Rs. 120(Total Rs. 13200/-) Bank has re-fixed my pay as Basic Pay Rs. 9400+ DA Rs. 4342(46.20) (total Rs. 13742) resulting the benefit of presently Rs2500/- in basic pay +DA which is presently approximately 4700 now. However, I was asked to forgo my DA on pension which is approximately Rs. 5040/- kindly suggest what I should do. Should I accept this, can I approach to any of the court to get any kind of relief.
Sir,
The following is for info of all eagerly waiting ;
Ministry of Defence27-August, 2012 15:53 IST
Pay & Pension Matters of Personnel
The committee chaired by Cabinet Secretary is comprised of Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister; Defence Secretary; Secretary, Department of Expenditure; Secretary, Department of Ex- Servicemen`s Welfare and Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training. Consequent to change in charge of the then Secretary, Department of Expenditure to Department of Revenue, Secretary, Department of Revenue has also been co-opted as a Member of the Committee. Chief of Naval Staff & Chairman, Chiefs of the Staff Committee made a presentation to the Committee. The Committee further interacted with all the Service Chiefs (Chief of Naval Staff & Chairman, Chiefs of the Staff Committee; Chief of Air Staff and Chief of Army Staff). The recommendations of the Committee have been submitted to the Prime Minister.
This information was given by Minister of Defence Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri M.B.Rajesh and others in Lok Sabha today.
HH/NN
(Release ID :86796)"
The MSP - Was it given in the recomendations of the 6th CPC to cover for the incremants lost due to truncated service-at that time the Lt Col's who had the maximum truncation were in Pb-3.,for higher ranks although the increamants were higher but then the truncation was lower
For NFU suitable T/S already covered this aspect
Kalra
Dear Veterans and Serving Officers,
There is something more in pay fixation in Vth CPC. Civilian counter parts have been given the rank pay. Just see your pay slip for Jan 1998 and the pay fixation sheets attached there to. The rank pay fixed in IVth CPC becomes three folds in Vth CPC which was not granted.
I already took up case with CDA (O) long back in service and again now with reference to the SC judgment on of 04 Sep 2012. Let me see what reply CDA(O) gives me.
Am a retired Officer and an author in Accounts, Audit and Management.
@Lt Col (Retd) MS Raju: It's nice of you to share information, but is it possible to be a little clearer in the description of the issue?
When you say, "Civilian counter parts have been given the rank pay", do you mean their basic pays were increased by amounts equivalent to our rank-pays or were they granted a specific emolument called rank pay?
How is it that, as you've put it, the "rank pay fixed in IVth CPC becomes three folds in Vth CPC"? Could you please consider sharing this with others in terms all can follow?
Dear Dhoop,
If you see your pay slip for Jan 1998 and the pay fixation sheet attached there to, the CDA has added Unrevised basic pay of 01 Jan 1996, Unrevised rank pay, IR I, IR II, 40% of unrevised basic pay, DA as on 01 Jan 1996 and deducted revised rank pay, the figure arrived was granted to us as revised basic pay and made us at par with civilin counter parts. This pay fixed includes unrevised rank pay and it automatically passed over to civilian counter parts. In my case what all they added was 3600+200+5180+100+380+1520-400=10580/- the pay was fixed at 10800/- at par with civilian counter parts in the pay scale of 9600-300-1140. The pay fixed includes the previous unrevised rank pay which automatically passed over to civilian counter parts. See how smart were they. They should have worked out the pay fixation with basic+IR I+IR II+DA+40% of Basic then it comes new basic for us and civilians. For AF officers they should have worked rank pay in parallel to basic pay fixation. Rank pay forms part of basic pay but not part of basic pay. Unrevised rank pay of Capt till 31 Dec 1995 was 200, add DA at 170%, and 40% of rank pay, it comes to Rs 620/-. Then the Captain's rank pay in Vth pay commission should have been fixed at 700/- and not 400. Have you got it now how smartly the MOD cheated AF officers and benefited civilian counter parts with our rank pay?. Let us wake up and ask CDA in writing to get their reply in writing. if the basic and rank pay fixation is done in parallel ways, our basic may go down but rank pay comes up, and no portion of unrevised rank pay goes to civilian counter parts. If Capt starts getting Rs 700/- as rank pay then Maj will get Rs 2100 as rank pay not 1200 and the other three ranking officers will get rank pay more than three folds in Vth CPC. See pay slip of Jan 1998 and work out yourself.
One more thing which MOD did was, they paid DA @ 170% upto basic pay of 3500 and 153% over the basic pay of 4500/- till Dec 1977. In Jan 1998 new pay was fixed and no DA was given from 01 Jan 1996. The DA given from 01 Jul 1996 to 31 Dec 1997 was all recovered in pay fixation sheet. What ever increments and IR were paid before fixation of revised pay can be recovered as even new pay gets increments but the DA once granted and paid can not be recovered it being an allowance granted on AICPIN & inflation. once inflation goes up and the Central govt staff is given DA it will in no case be recovered after fixing pay from back dated. DA was already paid till 31 Dec 1997, the govt should have fixed the revised pay on the last pay drawn on 31 Dec 1997 and not 31 Dec 1995. If the new basic is fixed from two years back then the DA paid during this two years time can not be recovered. This effects all AF as well as civilian employees. Just apply logic, you will get the hints as to what the MOD has done. The delay in pay fixation does not penalize the employees. Hope it is clear to every one.
Col Raju
@Anonymous: That incorrect reduction of rank pay at V CPC has already been discussed on the chatroll and other blogs, of course. But this DA business is new. I think you could consider adding some corrections because sometimes the comment reads 1977, sometimes 1997. It is confusing to many.
It is Dec 1997 and not 1977, sorry for typing mistake.
Dear All,
The brief which I made is in several pages and the examples are in excel sheets, they can not be attached here.
If you give your email ID I can send it to your mail id.
Col Raju
Dear Dhoop,
The rank pay case has not been discussed fully.In Vth CPC the unrevised rank pay first added to unrevised pay and after adding 40% of basic, an amount equivalent to double the rank pay was deducted and balance emoluments were fixed as revised pay at par with civilian counter parts. That balance emoluments still contain more than the amount equivalent to unrevised rank pay and it has been passed over to civilian counter parts to bring them at par with our pay. We have yet to define rank pay, then only every one of us understand how to account for the rank pay. Just go through the following.
The Rank Pay is not part of basic pay but it forms part of basic pay of the Armed Forces Officers as far as their allowances, perks and pension are concerned. Whatever basic pay accrues over the time, the rank pay also accrues the same collaterally. Thus, it is most appropriate to define the “Rank Pay” as “The Rank Pay forms part of basic pay of Armed Forces Officers only and runs parallel & collateral to their Basic Pay to ensure immerging of rank pay of Armed Forces Officer’s with their basic pay to remain at par with their civilian counter parts”. But has the MOD kept this rank pay of Armed Forces Officers parallel & collateral to their Basic Pay? No, the CDA(O) has merged it to basic pay while fixation of revised pay which is totally wrong.
Col Raju
Dear Dhoop,
Your query about DA. Go through the following:
CDA took two years time from the retrospective effect of the pay commissions for fixation of pay, payment of arrears and recovery of pay drawn during this intervening period of two years.
While the recovery of basic pay, IR I, IR II and DA drawn on the first day on retrospective effect of the pay commission were in order, the recover of DA increased after the retrospective effect of pay commission till immediately before payment of arrears after fixation of revised pay was incorrect as it was not added to the total emoluments while fixation of the revised pay.
During the intervening period of the two years time between the date of retrospective effect and fixation & payment of revised pay, the DA on the unrevised pay was increased several times based on AICPIN due to inflation. The last increase of DA drawn in the six months time immediately before fixation of pay & payment of arrears was not added to the unrevised pay to fix the revised pay. Recovery of such amounts which were not included in the fixation of revised pay was incorrect. The reason why the increased DA installments can not be recovered was that the DA increases were based on inflation and such inflation during the period already elapsed can not be recalled. Such DA increases can only be recovered if the total DA with its last increase immediately before fixation of revised pay was included in the total emoluments while fixation of revised pay, which was not done. Such irregular recovery was a penalty to the employees for the delay on the part of the Govt for fixation of pay. Employees can not be penalized for the delay on the part of the Govt in fixation of the revised pay.
Col Raju
Dear All,
Please refer to my comment of 07 Oct 2012 at 7.16 pm.
There was a wrong word typed in rank pay definition. it is now corrected.
"The Rank Pay forms part of basic pay of Armed Forces Officers only and runs parallel & collateral to their Basic Pay to avoid immersing of rank pay of Armed Forces Officer’s with their basic pay to remain at par with their civilian counter parts”
rest no changes in my post.
Col Raju
@ Col Raju: Do keep us apprised of the progress on your representations regarding this matter. Thanks.
Dear Sir,
The increse in the pension of officer and PBORs is notified , But no indication of increaseof pension of Hony Oofficers. The Hony Lt is Getting RS 13500/- and Hony Capt RS 13850/-. The AFT Chandigarh give its judgement on pension of Hony officer that Hony Lt would get Rs 15465 and Hony capt will Rs 16140/-and applicable from 1 Jul 2009. But the cabnet commitee ignore the judgement and did not increase the pension of Hony officers. The increase on the basis of 5th Pc basic pay*1.86+GP+MS formula used to fixed the pay of officers. So the pension of Hony Lt will be Rs
10500*1.86=19530+5400+6000=30930 and pension whould be 15465/ where the committee fixed 13500/-, Hony Capt Rs 10850*1.86=20181+6100+6000=32281 Pension 16140/- committee fixed Rs 1515/- At present Sub Maj (X GP) is getting more pension then Hony Lt. It is unjustice to Hony officers .
Sub Maj Hony Lt
Puran Singh Aswal
New Delhi
Post a Comment