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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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

Thursday, August 9, 2012

What can be legitimately expected? : PM appointed Committee of Secretaries looking into Pay and Pension anomalies

It seems that the PM appointed Committee of Secretaries looking into the anomalies affecting serving and retired defence personnel is ready with its report.

What I’m placing on the blog in the following lines is broadly what is expected out of the committee’s recommendations.

However, please do be warned that the thought-process of the committee is only recommendatory in nature and is yet to be accepted by the PM, and also, that the final turn out could be different than what may be recommended.

The low-down below on the majority of issues is just what can be reasonably expected, however kindly be reserved about bouquets or brickbats as yet till the time the matter is officially announced.

One Rank One Pension for ranks other than commissioned officers: The concept of OROP as classically understood, may not be accepted. However the gap between pre and post 2006 pensioners would further be bridged. The last time this was done in March 2010 when the Committee of Secretaries had recommended the enhancement of pensions on 01 July 2009. The Govt would most probably implement further enhancement of pensionary weightages applicable to lower ranks to compensate them for their truncated careers thereby further reducing the gap. Not exactly OROP but would provide succour to lower ranks for sure. The weightages currently applicable are 10, 8, 6 and 5 years for Sepoys, Naiks, Havildars and JCOs respectively.

Widows’ Pensions: Family pensions would be enhanced in all probability. As reported on the blog earlier, pension of widows would now be calculated with reference to the notional top of the 5th CPC scale within the new 6th CPC scales rather than the bottom of the scales. It may be recalled that till the 5th CPC, the pension of widows was calculated with respect to the top of the scale which was brought down to the bottom of the pay-band as a result of introduction of pay-bands by the 6th CPC.

Enhanced Pension for Commissioned Officers: While the system of calculation of other ranks has always been different and more beneficial, the pension of Commissioned Officers has traditionally been linked with the system of calculation as followed for civilian employees. The Govt is however likely to increase the pensions of commissioned officers by calculating pension based not on the minimum of the pay band but by taking the basis of minimum of pay within the pay-band. This is totally in line with what had been decided by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Sqn Ldr SS Matharu’s case, and by the Delhi Bench in Lt Cdr Avtar Singh and Sqn Ldr Vinod Jain’s case. This is also in line with the orders of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal rendered for civilian pensioners as a result of the long drawn struggle led by Mr V Natarajan, President, Pensioners’ Forum, Chennai. The said stipulation shall bring much needed succour especially to officers who retired from the rank of Major and Major General. If ultimately recommended and implemented, in all probability, the stipulation may also be extended to civilian pensioners thereby particularly resulting in relief to officers who retired from the Junior Administrative Grade (Deputy Secretary to Govt of India) and Senior Administrative Grade (Joint Secretary to Govt of India). While the maximum relief would be for these ranks and grades, this would result in enhancement to other grades also. 

Dual Family Pension and Pension for married handicapped kin: Currently, widows of pensioners who were in receipt of two service pensions for two separate spells of service are authorised one family pension only after the death of the employee/pensioner. This bar on the second family pension would be removed in all probability. Handicapped kin of govt employees are authorised to family pension for life but according to the interpretation of authorities, such pension was being refused to married handicapped children. This was held bad in law by the Chandigarh Bench of the AFT in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs UOI and also by the Chennai Bench and hence was not actually required to be placed before the committee having been already judicially adjudicated upon. This regressive bar is also bound to be removed. Both these stipulations are also expected to be extended to civilian pensioners.

Non Functional Upgradation: NFU for serving commissioned officers of the defence services is likely to be accepted. Though the signals are highly affirmative, nothing can be said till the time the same is done.

Enhancement of Grade Pay and other pay+status related anomalies: Enhancement of Grade Pay and the status of officers of the defence services degraded by successive pay commissions may not be resolved at the instant stage though full efforts are being made by all parties. The major stumbling block is the report by a GoM headed by Mr Pranab Mukherjee that had placed a Lt Col of the Army in between the Junior Administrative Grade (PB-3/GP 7600) and the Selection Grade (PB-4/GP 8700) based on incorrect inputs by the Finance Ministry. In the said report, officers of the Finance Ministry had also reportedly informed the GoM that officers in the Army were being promoted to the rank of Brig in 23 years of service and Maj Gen in 25 years. Both figures are grossly wrong and since there was no chance or occasion provided for military representatives to rebut these incorrect facts, the injustice got solidified. It may be recalled that even earlier, wrong pay scales of military officers had been mentioned on Page 73 of the 6th CPC report as published in 2008 on this blog, which anomaly was only to an extent rectified when Lt Cols were upgraded to Pay Band-4. Fixation of initial pay for Lt Cols, Cols and Brigs is also linked to this issue. HAG+ to all Lt Gens may not be accepted.

I would request readers again not to strongly react to the above and wait for all recommendations, and then the implementation, to be officially announced after which a detailed analysis can be carried out further. 


Anonymous said...

right, then lets wait and watch

when can we expect the 7th pay commission?

Sailorboy said...

Wait and watch is the only recourse. But gut feeling says that better sense will prevail for grade and initial pay fixation. Hope so.

rajkumar said...

Iam again repeating that NFU under present rules that all conditions of regular promotions are to be met even for granting NFU , it effectively mean , to get NFU scale of LT gen one has first to serve in scale of Maj gen on substantive basis for a prescribed no of years .

Any counter thoughts from any body on this .

so NFU will be a scheme to grant just the next scale .not beyond that

Virendra singh said...

The training period of Army officers should be counted for NFFU, as it is counted in case of Group A officers, at least to begin with for parity.

armydoc_xyz123 said...

maj navdeep! i have recently started following your blogs. i am highly impressed with your vast knowledge and impartial analysis of various subjects. in this topic i hope the results will be in front of everybody very soon, so 'wait and watch' will be the best policy before starting the debate.
slightly away from the current subject, i would like to know the current status of DACP for army doctors. unfortunately i could not find much stuff relating to this topic. keep going gentleman, i am your big fan.

sunlit said...

I would be extremely reluctant to argue with Maj Navdeep on any of his views, but I would like to disagree with the word legitimately in the heading of the blog post. I think realistically would be more appropriate.

Now, why?

Major Navdeep has given a very accurate assessment of 'truncationn of career' being the basis of enhancement of pensions of all AF personnel below Officer rank. So it should be.

But it would be quite legitimate, in my view, to seek full compensation for truncation in the case of all AF personnel. Why just the weightages of 10, 8, 6, 5 years mentioned in the blog post?

What is fair and just must surely be legitimate.

And, what is fair and just? That the pension of armed forces personnel would not be less than their civilian equivalents when the latter retire at age 60.

It would also be fair and just that AF personnel received pensions that had an additional element to compensate the differential of earnings of the equivalent civilian employees who would continue to earn full salary, allowances for the extra time of service that they get compared to AF personnel.

So the concept of OROP can have another mechanism. At least another concept viz., compensation for truncation.

Maybe it could be called "Truncation Pension" or some such thing. But whatever fully compensates for the truncation is, I feel, legitimate.

Though it may not be realistic.

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Why the IAS Jani Rajkumar is so worried about NFFU for AFs. I think he is advocating pre-2006 Civil side of Mr. Naaaatrajan Saab. Don't worry about AFs, our services cannot be compared with Civilian counterparts at all. We shall defend our cases. Whyyou have appered on 09.08.2012 and from nowhere on this blogsite. Do not feed your cheated by 6th PC. We have been cheated for last 39 years by beuracrats like you or your brother from 3rd PC 1973. Keep your thoughts for your civil side only. God bless you and US all. JAI JAWAN JAI HIND.

pawan said...

Dear Navdeep,
Could you please elaborate -
The Govt is however likely to increase the pensions of commissioned officers by calculating pension based not on the "minimum of the pay band" but by taking the basis of "minimum of pay within the pay-band."
Are the two statements not the same ?

Anonymous said...

sometimes one must learn to ignore minor irritants like narajkumar.

JUSTIN said...

bad news no orop likely link;bnlive.in.com/news/no-one-rank-one-pension-for-exsoldiers-sources/280513-3.html
but v should not be fooled in the name of modified parity.

Anonymous said...

@ Pawan
Arre oh mere Bhole. Coz of nice guys like you these Babus made a fool of us all in uniform. Wake up my friend it's time to read between the lines. Emphasis on each word and then the sentence. I agree angrazi is a foreign language.
Take Care

Dhoop said...

@pawan: The two statements made by Maj Navdeep are not one and the same as you have queried.

The concept is, though Majors and Lieutenants are in the same payband, the pension for the former rank would be based on the min pay applicable to Majors in the common pay band NOT on the minimum pay of the common payband. The minimum pay, within the payband, applicable to Majors would be higher than the minimum of the common payband.

But now we learn the anomalies committee is toying with the idea of defining separate paybands for each rank for the purpose of fixing pension, as reported in this telecast.

Let's wait and see how and when the proposals are officially made public.

corona8 said...

@JUSTIN: The link provided by you needs to start with ibn and not bn. Anyhow, it's interesting. But, how will they now create a pensionary payband for pre 01 Jan 2006 Lt Col (TS) retirees? Or will they be considered in a pensionary payband meant for Col(TS)?

Anonymous said...

Dear friends, i have been following this blog for some time now. i have one doubt regarding NFFU.
My doubt is whether every officer even if he is not promoted beyond Lt Col or Col(TS) with 32 yrs of service will be able to get a pay of Lt Gen (non functional) with only condition that an IAS officer with 30 yrs of service is promoted to Addl Secy or is there any other condition to be met by the officer like minimum stipulated service in the rank of Maj Gen etc to get the pay of LT GEN pay (non functional). Regards

PBOR said...

Dear sir, app aam khaiyee, ped kyu ginat'te hai. how does it make a difference if its called OROP or enhanced pension for PBORs.

rajkumar said...

As per rule in civil side one has to be in regular scale of maj gen and also meeting other promotional norms

Col Pardaman Singh said...

Veterans had high hopes this time but it is utter disappointment especially for Lt Cols who form majority of Veterans .Navdeep,what you have given on ur blog is no where near OROP.Civilians have already won this case ie Pen to be fixed at Min of Pay in the Pay Band & not at Min of Pay Band in CAT & some of Majs in AFT.If this is finally accepted, Revised basic Pen for Majs to Maj Gens will be as under. Rank Old Pen Rev Pen Diff
Maj 14464* 18205 3741*
Ltcol 25700 26265 565 Pea nuts
Col 26050 27795 1745
Brig 26150 29145 2995
Maj Gen 26700 30350 3650
* Worked out with multiple of 2.26 as it is more beneficial to Majs. some of Majs who retired after 5 th CPC are drawing more Pen
Col Pardaman Singh

Dhoop said...

As an example, let's consider the following scenario:

*NFFU is implemented, even if only to the next higher scale.
*Separate pay bands are made for pensionary purposes, as speculated upon in the news item on IBN.

Now, a current retiree with Col rank would be in Brigadier's payband as per NFFU norms and would have his pension fixed as per the Brigadier's pensionary band.

But what about a pre 01 Jan 06 Col retiree with equal service? His pension would be fixed at the bottom of the pensionary band for Cols. Or would he be considered in the Brigadier's pensionary band based on NFFU norms?

sunlit said...

@Col Pardaman Singh: Another thing being overlooked, again, is the pre AVS Maj retiree would be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis with a post AVS-I retiree with equal service who would be in Lt Col pensionary pay-band. Similarly, a pre AVS-I Lt Col/Lt Col(TS)with 26 years or more service would, again, lose out vis-a-vis a post AVS-I retiree with equal service who would be in the Col pensionary band.

This issue would apply to all those time-scale based armed forces ranks which are now granted faster, within shorter time spans, as compared to the past

That is why it is important to bring in some concept of length of service and rank for equalising pensions, or even for granting modified parity, as I had stated here.

Anonymous said...

Sir, let us see what comes out from the bag of PM on 15th Aug. Thanks Fr : JC Rana

Penmil said...

@Col.Pardaman Singh.After the V CPC,Major's starting pay was supposed to be readjusted to 11925 from 11600.In that case a Major would have ben drawing a pension of 14831.25( exact figure) and the corresponding new pension now should be 18510. Is it not?

Anonymous said...

It will be again a rubbing of salt on our wounds if OROP is not accepted in its true form. Further enhancement or bridging of gaps will be like a penny to begger just to make him quite. I don't understand how once it has been recommended by a committee of elected representatives can just again be overruled by some selected buffoons.

Ex Sgt Mukesh Vaid, Amritsar


R.Nagireddy -From the year 1947 to 2012 , except foreign affairs all other departments are managed by IAS/IPS . Now where is China ? Where we are ? In olympics not even a single gold . As far now China got 80 + medals , where as we can able to get only 4 .In the name of sports , how much we have spent since independence ? Not only sports , each and every field we are failing . We got spectrum from military and civil administration allowed corruption in the name of 2G . To divert attention , now systematic propaganda is initiated that military is corrupted . Really military officers are suffering in their real family life . Honable prime minister must act now . Status of military officers from Lt to Lt General , must be equated with IAS/IPS .

rajkumar said...


to rest all doubts please see promotional prospects and and other data regarding civil servises please see the link above .
for info of all

SAG means GP of 10000 ( Maj Gen )
HAG means Addl secy level or GP 1200 ( Lt Gen scale )

the above data is from authentic DOPT site . DOPT is ultimate managing authority for civil services . what is give here is true , rest all are rumors

rajkumar said...


please also see the link above to realize conditions of GP a services .

execpt IAS , IPS and IFS rest are worst than AF"S

rajkumar said...

please count the total strength of all civil services and calculate the total strength of SAG and HAG posts , this will give the true picture of civil services

JUSTIN said...

i think this is "gaheri chal" by govt the dues of 01/2006 offered at min rate in 08/2012,then gen election,next pay comm due 01/2016 will be effective in 2018 and 3/4 th due of 01/2006 will be given.

kamal said...

Dear Navdeep
Can U please clarify whether NFU to armd forces is likely to be linked to IAS as it is done for organised group A services or to the ranks held in the army

Venkatesh said...

One more relevant issue is the pre mature retirees.As per 6 th PC one will get full pension for 20 years service.This was not the case with pre 2006 retirees

PBOR said...

@Sgt Mukesh. Sir its not penny to beggars. to know this may please read point (a) of 30 July 2009 blog by Maj. Navdeep. Futher bridging the gap would be as good as OROP for PBORs. i thanks to the govt for this.

PBOR said...

here is the link http://www.indianmilitary.info/2009/07/main-features-of-accepted-report-of.html

PBOR said...

@justin : Gaheri chaal aur Uthali chaal. this chaal is good for PBOR thereby good for the country

sunlit said...

A few issues, raised by what has emerged so far, have been collated here. Views and opinions are welcome.

dattatreyahg said...

After reading the various postings above,and articles elsewhere,there should be no doubt that the mechnism existing (IF AT ALL) in Services HQs/Ministry of Defence(!!!)for presenting our cases in Pay Commissions sadly lacks even the basic competence needed to handle such delicate matters involving the life & living of a special group(and a vast number) of serving and retired Defence Personnel. I do not blame anyone. Our training&development is not focussed on these issues at all.We are vigourously indoctrinated throughout our service life to only think about sacrificing for protecting the nation,and constantly reassured(and also fed on the belief) that our own interests will be specially looked after by the highest authorities. But,alas,this whole motivated group has been let down so badly over decades.Can you imagine the existing situation where this group has had to resort to the extremely costly and time-consuming litigations to claim their legitimate dues? And having won their cases even in Supreme Court/Tribunals based on facts and merits, being subjected to the agonies of Reviews of these Court Orders time and again by the same authorities who are supposed to protect the interests of this group? Is there a solution,not just in the interest of this group,but in the larger interest of National Security? Yes, there is. Just make a proper evaluation of the equation of each and every rank of Civilian hierarchy with that of Defence personnel (after giving special consideration for the unique situations prevailing in Defence Services) and leave it at that. Let the brighter brains on the Civil side(who have developed expertice in this field) project and fight for what is their legitimate claims and get them.Let it be made applicable to Defence Personnel also automatically. This way,we will eliminate a large number of anamolies.And the Defence Personnel will be left alone to do their jobs for which they have been created and are good at.

bidyut chatterjee said...

What would modified parity mean for commissioned officers. Is the huge disparity in pension between Majors and Lt cols being addressed. All these talk is about bridging the gap for Maj Gens and Brigadiers and PBORs nothing nothing about Majors. Very disappointing

Dhoop said...

@bidyut chatterjee: As pointed out by Maj Navdeep, amongst Officer veterans, retirees in the rank of Major are expected to be benefited most of all by what we are reading about the likely results of the work of the government committee.

But your doubt about this whole concept of modified parity has a very genuine basis. This may create disparities instead of parity between veterans with the same amount of service, themselves. I had pointed this out in a comment. Here is a link.

JUSTIN said...

what would modify parity mean for lower ranks say or's. here is some statisticts
for post/pre 2006 15 yrs pension of iaf
rank post 2006 pre 2006 diff %
lac 6445 5519 926 16.77
cpl 6760 5519 1241 22.48
sgt 7750 5519 2231 40.42
one can easily make out how the senior rank of sgt is sufferer.
@ PBOR YES, "this chaal is good for PBOR thereby good for the country"

255907 JWO R.JAYARAMAN said...

dear friends we can not get any justice from the babu's until unless we get a separate pay com. for us
jwo r.jayaraman

corona8 said...

"..let us see what comes out from the bag.."

Well said, Anonymous!!.

What comes out of the bag would be, most likely, "considerable improvements" and "significant enhancements" or equivocal political statements of that nature.

With NFFU and pay-band refixation, some pressure would be definitely off the Government as the requirements of serving personnel would have been met.

There's always the possibility that with this the serving and veteran interests would have been differentiated, leaving the field open for greater intransigence towards the requirements of the retired AFs population.

But, let us not get too cynical. As someone said, let's wait and watch, even if the temptation is to agree with the peanuts comment on this blog.

Spooky Gupta said...

In this buzz of confusion we must not be carried away and given into deliberating on delusions. Its for everyone to understand that the Govt in its current state of paralysis is very unlikely to upset the national consensus that nothing must be granted to members of military by way monetary / material benefits. This is an informed consensus among the opinion makers across the interested cognitive spectrum, formed after careful painstaking efforts in national interest and everyone must accept it in good faith in the interest of all of us. I am amazed at the utter poverty of ideas and lack of imagination in the Raisina Hill in keeping our military in high morale. Why not grant them a military NFFU which could be nuanced to mean Non Financial Functional Upgrade. Such upgrade will certainly bring cheers to the military whose functions now range, in addition to their primary job, from mundane clearing of drainages to probing in bore-wells to dealing with natural/manmade calamities in the most non descript places where you and me normally never wish to venture. To maintain edge, the military can be granted their NFFU in the same year when their corresponding IAS batch attains the grade, instead of two years later as for the other assorted civil services. As for the parity in pensions with the civil services the govt must not hesitate in granting them full parity by extending the same pension benefits under the new pension scheme as applicable to all civil services from 1 Jan 2004. Few other additional benefits for our servicemen and women could also be included for the PM’s announcement from Red Fort. A very exclusive benefit is now enjoyed only by members of military for purchase of LMV through CSD through a highly privileged procedure of depositing the cost directly with the Consolidated Fund of India instead to the sundry dealers. Pm may announce its extension to purchase of liquor, grocery and toiletries. If the PM deviates from the informed national consensus formed by us and announce granting the military any benefits of monetary nature my instinct seasoned during 30 years of reporting tells me that the boys in the Finance Ministry under the twice born FM will find enough ways to scuttle it. Its child’s play to spook the military.......PBOR my offer to you still stands!

Ashim Choudhury said...

Dear Major Navdeep Singh,
I feel a lot of disadvantages have accrued to the Armed Forces (AFs) due to one clever manipulation by the bureaucracy. You may recall government servants were classified as Class 1, 2, 3 and 4. Someone convinced the unsuspecting political boss that this classification brought about psychological discrimination and hence the classification should be changed to Class A, B, C and D services. This was a most dubious logic but got pushed through. Before this re-classification AFs Commissioned Officers and Central Govt Class 1 officers, which covered all the Civil Services such as IAS, IPS, IFS, IAAS, IOFS, IRS, IRSE, etc, were all covered by the same classification. Now the bureaucrats have started talking about Group A Organised Services. May I ask which government service falls under the "unorganised" or "disorganised" sector?
Both the AFs Officers and the civil services are appointed through a Gazette and were thus called "Gazetted Officers". Also, both serve at the pleasure of the President. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the manipulative bureaucracy intentionally brought about the re-classification with the pre-meditated motive of carving out a niche for themselves, clearly dintinctive from the others.
I feel it would be a good idea to take up a case with the Supreme Court to restore the pre-reclassification parity. This would automatically remove the anamolies that have crept in to the disadvantage of the AFs.
One more point that needs to be taken up is that the period spent in training should count towards service rendered, just as the service for the bureaucracy counts from the day he/she reports for training.
Before signing off I must tell you that I do not draw any pension from the Government, civil or military.
Ashim Choudhury

Col Pardaman Singh said...

Pemmi I had mentioned in my mail that majs who retired after 5th CPC are getting more than Rs 14464/- depending upon increments they received after 1996 in the pay scale of Maj.As for as revised Pen of Maj is concerned it will be Rs 18205/- ie50% of( pay in the pay band of Maj Rs 23810+GP+MSP).

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,

One of the items before the High Power Committee appears to be the NFU for Milatary Serices Officers/Others eligible.

Though such a benefit/ application ahs been brought in for Civilian/ Org Services in/of sevral Depts/ Ministries, because of lack of proper understanding of the Scheme/ and also the formalities to be fulfilled, many of the incumbents are facing problems in getting the same implemented in their respective organisations. NEW REC RULES ARE TO BE FRAMED AND HENCE DELAYS WILL BE INEVITABLE. ALSO RRs can not be applied retrospectively. SO COURT CASES HAVE STARTED.

To understand some basic features of Civilian NFU prvisions, interested may like to go theough a FAQ circular of DOPT wh I am posting in the next post. VN

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,
This is in contn of my earlier poist on NFU provisions FAQ in Civil Org Services:


August 6, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment


S.No.Point of doubt Clarification

1.What are the recommendations of 6th CPC for grant of Non-Functional Upgradation to for Officers of Organized Group A’ Services?

The Government should, consider batch-wise parity while empanelling and /or posting at Centre between respective batches of IAS and other organized Group A services with the gap being restricted to two years. Whenever any IAS officer of a particular batch is posted in the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in pay bands PB-3 or PB-4. grant of higher pay scale on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches of organized Group A services that are senior by two years or more should be given by the Government.

2.Whether the recommendations of 6th CPC have been accepted by the Government?
Yes. This will also be applicable to the Indian Police Service and the Indian Forest Service in their respective State Cadres for which the relevant cadre controlling authorities will issue the orders, (Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Notification dated 29rd August, 2008 refers)

3 When were the guidelines on NFU issued by DOPT?
DOPT have issued instructions on grant of officers of Organized Services in OM No. 14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR) dated 24th April, 2009.
4 To whom the instructions are applicable?
NFU is applicable to the officers of Organized Group A services in PB-3, PB-4 and in HAG scale also where there is such a Grade in the Service

5 From which date the grant of NFU to officers of Organized group A services is to be made?
The benefit is based on the recommendations of 6th CPC and will be available w.e.f the date of posting of IAS officers in various grades on/after 01.01. 2006.
6 What are the eligibility conditions to be met for grant of NFU?
The terms and conditions for grant of NFU are prescribed in the Annexure to the OM dated 24.4.2009. As per the same all the eligibility criteria and promotional norms including ‘benchmark’ for upgradation to a particular grade pay would have to be met at the time of screening for grant of higher pay scale under these orders.

7 What is the definition of the term ‘Batch’?
For the purpose of grant of NFU the ‘Batch’ for direct recruit officers in the induction grade shall be the year following the year in which competitive exam was held. In subsequent grades the ‘Batch’ would remain the same provided the officer is not superseded due to any reason. In case an officer is superseded the officer would be considered along with the ‘Batch’ with which his seniority is fixed.

(Contd in next post)

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,
(Contd from previous post on NFU Civil Services):

8 Where the entry of officers in Organized Group A Service by DR is at STS, JAG level, how the ‘Batch’ shall be reckoned?
In respect of officers entering Organized Group A service by DR at STS, JAG level, they shall be assigned the benefit of ‘Batch’ corresponding to the ‘Batch’ of the officers with whom the seniority is clubbed.

9 Whether the benefit is available to Group B officers inducted into the Organized Group A service?
Yes. Such officers shall b assigned the benefit of ‘Batch’ corresponding to the batch of the ‘direct recruit’ officers with whom their seniority is clubbed.

10 Whether the officers can exercise option regarding date of fixation in the higher scale as provided in CCS(RP) Rules?
Provisions of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 will apply.

11 Whether retired employees are eligible for the benefit of NFU?
Retired officers who are other wise eligible as on due date shall be considered for the benefit of pay upgradation.
12 Whether the scheme is applicable to Scientists, Doctors, etc. who are covered by their own in-situ promotion schemes?
Non-Functional Upgradation and other in situ promotion schemes are separate schemes and it would not be desirable to mix one with the other. The benefit of NFU to Organized Group A Services shall not be applicable to the officers in those Organized Services where FCS and DACP Schemes are already operating and where officers are already separately covered by their own in-situ Career Progression Schemes.

13 Whether DOPT OM dated 13.4.2010 on communication of ACR prior to 2008-09 is applicable while considering cases for NFU?
The instructions issued in this Department’s OM dated 13.4.2010 on communication of ACRs prior to 2008- 09 shall be applicable for considering cases of NFU also.

14 What is the due date of upgradation if found unfit on the date assigned to a batch?
If an officer is not found eligible during a vacancy year and is found fit in the next vacancy year, NFU may be granted from the 1st April. i.e. the 1st day of the next vacancy year.

15 How to consider cases where the officers do not meet the qualifying service in the vacancy year in which the batch is covered for non functional up gradation?
If an officer does not meet the eligibility requirement as on the 1st January of the corresponding vacancy year then such officer is to be considered for grant of NFU in subsequent vacancy year on completion of qualifying service w.e,f. 1st April, i.e. 1st day of the next vacancy year .

16 How the NFU shall be given in respect of officers given penalty?
The NFU becoming due after the expiry of the penalty period may be granted w.e.f. the due date as per DOPT instructions. In respect of officers for whom NFU becomes due before the expiry of the penalty period, the same may be granted from the day next to the date on which penalty gets over.

17 Whether the instructions regarding counting of past Group A service at the time of lalteral entry on DR basis to higher grades as per DOPT OM dated 1.9.98 shall be applicable for grant of NFU also?
In view of the provisions on meeting the prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms in DOPT OM dated 24.4.09. these instructions shall be applicable for the purpose of grant of NFU also.
sd/- (Mukta Goel) Director
Source: www.persmin.nic.in

bidyut chatterjee said...

Will NFU be factored in for calculating pension of all commissioned officers. For the civilians it is taken into account.

PBOR said...

@justin> Thanks for the statics as these establish my "good for PBOR" C pension of lac and cpls have enhanced and made equal to the sgt. what more we can ask :-)

PBOR said...

@spooky gupta : sab kuch sur ke upar se nikal gayaa :-(. i must say u could be a great comic writer. kabhi try kijiyeega. it would be great hit :-)

Vasundhra said...

@ sunlit said... A few issues, raised by what has emerged so far, have been collated here I FULLY CONCUR WITH YOUR SUGGESTED probable scenarios, Yet there is an apprehension of some thing terribly amiss. It seemsall these calculations are exercise in futility.It is a question of DNA matching. How come all of us are expecting a conception out of two different species being forced to cohabit since 1973!! A round peg(AFs) is being hammered to get fitted in a square hole(Civilians) having flexible expandable interiors. To a simple problem a non workable complex solution is being imposed by trying to fill up the gaps between round peg and the square hole & than to expect a perfect orgasm to the satisfaction of Civilian mistress.

Solution to our woes is simple. (a) Divorce from the present cohabitation policy immediately because this ‘LIVE IN’ arrangement with Civilians is simply not workable (b)PENSIONS:- As interim measure to ALL RANKs up to Lt Gens be granted at 75 percent of Pension of the last pay drawn subject to the limitation of fixed Pension granted to the Army Cdr and above. (C) SERVING:- Based on these pensions the starting pay of each rank be calculated.( d ) Guiding Principle:- ( i )Fix the emoluments of the lowest RANK first with in the Existing Band & than move upwards Rank wise ( Minor adjustments of course will be carried out) ( ii )Factor 75 percent is taken because when you calculate the CIVILIIANS Pension with factor NFFU it will come to 75 Percent of last pay drawn , of course subject to limitation of fixed Pay COAS & ARMY CDR or equivalent level (e )This methodology will cater for all ie (i)OROP (ii) NFFU & (iii) Early truncated Service. (f ) ABERRATIONS:- SUBSEQUENT TO AVS REPORT THE RETIRED fraternity of Majors in PARTICULAR and Lt Cols in general were the victims of AVS largesse. To rectify this injustice, AS A ONE TIME MEASURE all Officers of the Rank of MAJORs and Above who had completed (i ) 21 Yrs of service be promoted to Lt Cols and those who had completed 26 yrs be promoted to Colonels for the purpose of Pensions. ANY TAKERS PLEASE

sunlit said...

@Vasundhra: Your comment constitutes an amazing coincidence. I had just finished trying to give some form to the same concerns of pre and post AVS-I issues when I read your comment.

I feel, VI CPC should have ensured parity of pensions on the basis of qualifying service even if the rank structure had changed after AVS-I.

As far as pension parity was concerned, the pension-table for pre AVS-I Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) could have been modified so that the pensions of pre AVS-I Lt Col/Lt Col(TS),with qualifying service equal or greater than 26 years, were the same as those of post AVS-I Col/Col(TS)with the same qualifying service.

The same consideration would, I'm sure, apply to Majors and Capts as you have stated.

For this purpose, there would be no requirement to promote previous retirees to the next higher rank. A suitable modification of pension-tables used for fixing pensions would have sufficed.

In this regard my line of thinking could be accessed by following this link.

Views and opinions would be higly appreciated.

Spooky Gupta said...

Hi PBOR…… isn't comic to comment on my credentials? Look at my Padma award which was conferred just 3 years ago in recognition to my services to the Govt. I always took up the causes of PBORs. Haven't you hear my editorial call for open mutiny against officers in the aftermath of the tough stand adopted by the then CNS post effecting of degradation the officer cadre in the services. Even the Moody's doing the same with our economy……! Lets team up and we are going to spook them. You know what I mean....!

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,

Lots of constructive suggestions are being made in regard to the anomalies/ disparities/ discrepansies wrt the Military Pensions. Some comments - whether unknowingly or not- are being made against Civilain category-I do not know to whom it is meant. MANY TIMES I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT "CIVIL - MOST OF THE NON BUERAUCRAT PENSIONERS " ARE TEATED AS "LEAST PRIVILEGED CLASS" - WORSE THAN or almost as the "MILITARY PENSIONERS" and that is how pensioners like us DECIDED TO TAKE UP SOME OF THE ISSUES. Perhaps you are aware, when the famous MAJ GEN SPS VAINS CASE WAS BEING CITED BY US IN MANY PETITIONS FOR RECOGNISING THE "PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 14" AS IN THE CASE OF NAKARA'S CASE EARLIER, the DOPPW went out of the way to issue a special OM to convey that what is applicable to MILITARY PENSIONERS, the CIVILIAN PENSIONERS can not claim aprity or similar application. EVEN IN RTI REPLIES THE SAME WERE CURTLY EXPRESSED BY THE AUTHORITIES.

Now what is to be addressed by all PENSIONERS- miitary or civil- is to decide on some strategic common principles based on Natural Justice and Parity enshrined with DIGNITY and the "VALUE" of the services rendered.

1.Bottom line for Minimum Pension.Pl NOTE THAT no pension revision can/ should be allowed to be divorced from the "PRE-REVISED SCALE OF THE POST FROM WHICH THE MILATRY OR CIVIL PENSIONERS RETIRED FROM/ MADE TO RETIRE"- its minimum being at the equal stage of the bottom of the pre-revised's scale , whether in the NEW PAY SCALE OR PAY BAND.

2.Top line for pension revision: THIS HAS TO BE ALWAYS BASED ON "FULL PARITY" and this has to be related to the LAST OAY DRAWN by the pensioner at the time of his retirement.

3.EQUAL BENEFITS OF REVISION OF PENSION MUST BE ENSURED FOR ALL, FROM BOTTOM TO TOP. For example, some have the benfit of an exhorbitant Multiplication Factor of 3.10 whwreas others have factor of only 2.26 or so!. THE ELTE WHO MAKE THE DECISION EAT THE PUDDING, FED BY AND THRU CHAMCHAS who make the notes.

Above poits may form the core principles based on which anything can be worked out wrt any SCHEMEs that may emerge in future.

My views pl- VN

Anonymous said...

well, 15 august is not far off. Committee of secretaries probably will submit the report on 14 august night so that there is nothing that anyone can do before announcment on 15 august by hon'ble PM. And then, we will see the fun in the confusion galore incorporated in the report. CGDA and PCDA(O) must be licking their lips to get another chance of shortchanging the faujis with their cunningness and absurdity. what can do about it, absolutely nothing. Why cannot we have severe punishment for deliberate incorrect interpretation on the part of CGDA and PCDA(O) of a simple rule. And what about the delay that it causes in implementation of same order wherein there is no dispute and even when the same has been implemented for civilian side. Take the example of one increment for officers whose increment date fell between 01 february and 30 june in 2005. So far, nothing has been heard about it whereas our civilian brethren have already got it just because it affects all them including officers of audit authorities.

PBOR said...

@spooky gupta : you are equally good at fiction. good going

sunlit said...

@V Natarajan:"...no pension revision can/ should be allowed to be divorced from the "PRE-REVISED SCALE OF THE POST FROM WHICH THE MILATRY OR CIVIL PENSIONERS RETIRED ..."

Such a rigid interpretation can, in fact, result in anomalies and disparities. Another very important yardstick has to be the extent of service of an exactly equivalent nature renderted by a past retiree belonging to the same cadre.

What would happen if a sub-cadre was fitted into a higher pay-band following some re-adjustment on promotions, as happened in the case of armed forces officers following implementation of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee.

Do have a look at my previous comment.

Spooky Gupta said...

Errata:- The paper regrets error in our posting on 11 Aug above at 10:53 PM. For the 5th line of the post “ Haven’t you hear my editorial call....” be read as “Haven’t you heard my editorial call.....”. (Sincere apologies to my KV School English teacher for still having to continue with my limited bandwidth notwithstanding its easy availability now under auction. I must confess it was my same complex; well the awareness on my limited bandwidth that inhibited me from interviewing Gen K Sundarji, though the questions tailored on our agenda were ready. But whenever I figured him out mentally a deep shiver, a sort lightning discharge passed my interior. Not that I ever feared uniform which you all know. It was perhaps... well, the robust bandwidth of the General which was even commented upon so admiringly by my own Guru which somehow deterred me. I had to bid my time.... till I got even with him by writing an editorial when he passed away. Now things are so simple and its child’s play to spook the Raisina Hill and the military in one go).

Anonymous said...


Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Mr. V Natarajan SIR, on your above comment
"Now what is to be addressed by all PENSIONERS- miitary or civil- is to decide on some strategic common principles based on Natural Justice and Parity enshrined with DIGNITY and the "VALUE" of the services rendered." There is no common strategies or principles for military and civil,as there is no truncation of career on civilside before 60.And nobody from civil side ever talked of their pension anamolies before 01.01.2006 or treating equality with military pension. Two reasons for that 1) Minimum years of 20 years made apllicable for civilside and NPS wef 01.01.2004. 2)Maj. Gen Vains or Nakara case was related to military as there was no such cases of asking parity from civil side prior to 6th PC. Please inform on the issues and guide us all.

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,

I do agree with the observations of sunlit in his post dt Aug 12 and his earlier post.
Some anomalies and disparities may arise but if senso stricto the 'equality at the minimum" or "equality stage by stage' is prescribed taking into consideration the length of service/ pay scale vs pay band stages, such disparities must be evned out. IN FACT THE AFT JUDGMENTS ON MOD PARITY MUST HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THIS ISSUE. May be I am wrong.

Let me try to see if a sub cadre is fitted into a higher pay band structure. A similar situation appeared to ahve prevailed in a Civil case whose judgment has come out in Nov 2011. (Again I may be wrong but pl go thru the judgment if it can throw some light on comparable situations):

CWP No. 9581-CAT of 2011 -1-
CWP No. 9581-CAT of 2011
Date of Decision: August 24, 2011
Agia Ram and others …Petitioners
Union of India and others ...Respondents
(Now Op part of Judgment):
6. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ
petition is allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside.
It is directed that respondents shall re-fix the pay of the
CWP No. 9581-CAT of 2011 petitioners in the pay scale of ` 5000-8000 by treating them
under new nomenclature given to the post of Mistry-cum-
Supervisor i.e. Junior Engineer-II. Accordingly, their pension
be revised w.e.f. 01.11.2003. However, arrears of pension
shall be confined to three years from the date preceding the
date of filing of the original application i.e. November, 2009.
7. Let needful be done within three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
August 24, 2011



Anonymous said...


Can U plz tell us what exactly(Details) has been proposed by Armed Forces to the CoS on OROP,NFU,Grade Pay Upgradation etc etc.

Vasundhra said...

Dear Colleagues,
There has been a flurry of emails from net user ESM where anger against the government is palpable. Admittedly, the veterans have had a raw deal from the authorities and our displeasure and annoyance is not unjustified. In some cases the Service Chiefs also come under castigation. It is not uncommon to hear some of us even demanding that the Service Chiefs resign for not pursuing the issue that the originator feels strongly about. Unfortunately, that may amount to taking a somewhat simplistic view of the charter assigned to the Chiefs. It needs to be assumed that they are one of us and would be pursuing our interests to the best possible extent. Since internet has a wide reach reading such angry outbursts can only result our detractors gloating over such messages. We need to introspect what we send.
We have all been loudly and repeatedly proclaiming that soldiering is a unique profession, distinct from all other vocations. This is an undeniable truth. However, some of us while stressing the uniqueness also list out comparisons with other government services; perk to perk, allowance to allowance. This is self contradictory and weakens the main argument. The strength of our argument hinges on soldiering being a distinct profession that bears no comparison. It may be advisable to stick to that.

(E mail Lt Gen Raj Kadyan)

Venkatesh said...

V Natarajan said...

" Above poits may form the core principles based on which anything can be worked out wrt any SCHEMEs that may emerge in future."
Dear Mr Natarjan
I have been following your yeoman efforts for the cause of the pensioners.
How ever no one till now has fully compensated for the truncated service of the armed forces personnel.Apart from the truncated services most of them are not able to find a suitable job.Most of the lower ranks can only find security guard jobs.
After being a proud soldier they are forced to take up jobs which are humiliating at its best.
The real issue then is how to compensate for this ie truncated services & humiliating experiences.
The only saving grace for them is the 7 year old medical scheme called the ECHS.How ever most of the good hospitals being located at Metros, this has also skewed towards the urban population areas.
I have known of many ex soldiers who are moving away from their rural footings to cities just to make use of the ECHS facilities.
To add to this if they are disabled it gets only worse.
The issue can not be measured just in monetary terms.OROP has to be seen in that light.

Anonymous said...

My dear friends wait and pray upto 15th August for a positive announcement from PM at red fort.
MG Kavu,Thrissur.

Anonymous said...

As it is, the government had rejected the demand put forward by the three service chiefs last month that a military representative should be part of the committee that will decide matters military. Perhaps to make amends, the CoS once again held a detailed meeting with the three service chiefs on August 7. During the prolonged meeting, the three service chiefs are reported to have once again forcefully argued on why the 5 basic issues need to be resolved forthwith.
As a result of these strong inputs, the Cabinet Secretary-led CoS is now reported to have decided to recommend granting at least three main demands--NFU, OROP and common pay scales for JCOs and ORs--in the next couple of days in their report to the Prime Minister.

The other core issues are minor in comparison but important nevertheless.

corona8 said...

@rajkumar: If what you have stated about NFFU applies also to the form of NFFU granted to AFs, it'd lead to interesting situations.

What happens to a serving Col(TS)? He's in the same pay-band as a Col. So if the serving Col gets fitted in the pay-band of a Brigadier after getting NFFU, would the Col(TS) continue in the existing payband? Such a fitment would not resolve the matter of the steep pyramid, or of parity with civilians which necessitate NFFU in the first place.

This is in reference to your comment.

Anonymous said...

well, just a thought about NFU.

it is my gut feeling that NFU will be implemented in the most stupid form. What I mean that colonels will be given NFU for brigadiers (an increase of 200 rupees) and more than 90% of the army officers will be duped. And if Mr Rajkumar's interpretation of NFU is applied, then only 10% of the officers will be benefitted as this is the percentagw which gets promoted to colonels and as per rajkumarji interpretation if only one becomes a brigadier then only one can get major general's NFU. and in army one does not become a brigadier as in civil (where after director, joint secretary's nfU becomes applicable).so, be prepared for an increase of 200 rupees per month. so much hulla gulla for do so rupaiye.. i hope i am wrong.

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

@spooky Gupta (or Shekhar Gupta) SIR, If it s easy to sppok military, you do it single handedly. Why ask help from PBOR?

Anonymous said...

what about the report supposed to be submitted on 08 Aug 2012.Any idea wheather it was submitted or not? Can we expect PM's anouncement on Independence Day?

Spooky Gupta said...

Hi PBOR@August 12, 2012 11:21 AM. Equally good at fiction....? That was twitterati’s unfair toast to my little three deck jarring headline spook on April 04. It didn’t hurt me when you repeated it though it reminded me of the free obituary service that we ran which is still to be reimbursed as promised. Can’t even count on the Rs 500 Cr suit and now the Govt seems to renege on our enlightened consensus formed with lots of hard work on informed national interest! It’s not going good PBOR...! Still, we being on the same page on the issue we must pull together hard....to spook them!

Pradeep said...

One Rank one Pension-Aug-2012
AUGUST 13, 2012 · 0 COMMENTS

One Rank one Pension

On the recommendations of PMO, a Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary in June, 2009 to look into the issue of ‘One Rank One Pension and other related matters’. After considering all aspects of the matter, the Committee keeping in mind the spirit of the demand, suggested several measures to substantially improve pensionary benefits of Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) and Commissioned Officers, which have been accepted by the Government and orders for implementation of all the recommendations have been issued.

Government has constituted a Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary and consisting of Principal Secretary to Prime Minister, Defence Secretary, Expenditure Secretary, Secretary (ESW) and Secretary, DOP&T for looking into the pay and pension related issues of relevance to Defence Services Personnel and Ex-servicemen. The Committee has already had several meetings and the recommendations of the Committee are to be submitted to the Government by 8.8.2012. Action on the recommendations can be taken after the committee’s report is processed and accepted by the government.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Shri MM PallamRajuin a written reply to Shrimati Ingrid Mcleod and others in Lok Sabha today.

Anonymous said...

hello all,
just heard the speech of our hon'ble PM. He has said that they have constituted a committee and its recommendations will be looked into. What a dampner.... after so much of hype about submission of report by 08 August and grand announcements on 15 August. It is an indication of what is in store...actually nothing is in store for faujis.

Long live my beloved country, our politicians and bureaucrats.

rajkumar said...




PBOR said...

taye taye fusssssssss :-(

rajkumar said...

a part of official release of PM's speech regarding pay and pension anomalies . though PM has said little different .

"We have seen a lot of discussion in the recent months about the role of our armed forces and their preparedness. I would like to emphasise here that our armed forces and paramilitary forces have defended the security of our country both during war and peace with valour and honour. Our soldiers have made the biggest of sacrifices, whenever needed. Today I would like to reassure our countrymen that our armed forces and paramilitary forces are prepared to face any challenge. The Government will continue to work for modernizing these forces and providing them with the necessary technology and equipment. Today, I would like to thank our security forces, who are guarding our frontiers bravely, from the bottom of my heart. We will continue to make efforts for their welfare.

Our Government has set up a committee to examine issues relating to pay and pension of armed forces personnel. This committee will also look into matters concerning pension of retired men and officers and family pension being paid to their families. We will take prompt action on the recommendations of the committee, once they are received. "

Anonymous said...

"We will take prompt action on the recommendations of the committee, once they are received."-sms at red fort on 15/08/12 at 0700hrs

a k handa said...

Happy Independence Day to all the blog followers. Followed PM's address to the nation very intently. No announcements on OROP/NFFU/enhancement of family pension,except a passing mention of committee examining these proposals.15th August was tom tommed as a kind of a deadline when the PM would make a grand announcement. Lets wait till Republic Day - 26 Jan 2013..! I firmly believe, being an eternal pessimist that this committee of secretaries will be the equivalent of a 'black hole'. As in a black hole nothing veritable will/likely to come out of its deliberations. I would love to stand corrected, if someone has views to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

So the day has come, lets see if IAS top brains were employed to actually grant some genuine relief and remove anamolies or just to scuttle the demands.

Anonymous said...

finally nothing announced by PM ..only an assurance!!!!

Anonymous said...

Relevant portion of the PM's speech, so what have we got, another committee, great!

Brothers and sisters,

We have seen a lot of discussion in the recent months about the role of our armed forces and their preparedness. I would like to emphasise here that our armed forces and paramilitary forces have defended the security of our country both during war and peace with valour and honour. Our soldiers have made the biggest of sacrifices, whenever needed. Today I would like to reassure our countrymen that our armed forces and paramilitary forces are prepared to face any challenge. The Government will continue to work for modernizing these forces and providing them with the necessary technology and equipment. Today, I would like to thank our security forces, who are guarding our frontiers bravely, from the bottom of my heart. We will continue to make efforts for their welfare.

Our Government has set up a committee to examine issues relating to pay and pension of armed forces personnel. This committee will also look into matters concerning pension of retired men and officers and family pension being paid to their families. We will take prompt action on the recommendations of the committee, once they are received.

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,

“We are building the edifice of modern India on the foundation of the hard work and sacrifices of our soldiers,……….”

“We have seen a lot of discussion in the recent months about the role of our armed forces and their preparedness. I would like to emphasise here that our armed forces and paramilitary forces have defended the security of our country both during war and peace with valour and honour. Our soldiers have made the biggest of sacrifices, whenever needed. Today I would like to reassure our countrymen that our armed forces and paramilitary forces are prepared to face any challenge. The Government will continue to work for modernizing these forces and providing them with the necessary technology and equipment. Today, I would like to thank our security forces, who are guarding our frontiers bravely, from the bottom of my heart. We will continue to make efforts for their welfare.
Our Government has set up a committee to examine issues relating to pay and pension of armed forces personnel. This committee will also look into matters concerning pension of retired men and officers and family pension being paid to their families. We will take prompt action on the recommendations of the committee, once they are received.”

LOT OF CONCERN? - VNatarajan

Anonymous said...

Extract of PM's Speech:-

"Our Government has set up a committee to examine issues relating to pay and pension of armed forces personnel. This committee will also look into matters concerning pension of retired men and officers and family pension being paid to their families. We will take prompt action on the recommendations of the committee, once they are received."

Link is here:-


Anonymous said...

we sould now wait for 26january 2013. actually goverment through its bureaucrats is trying to tire the faujis out. government wants faujis to stop asking for their legitimate dues as it is only faujis who will feel shame in asking again and again. government is in any case shameless.

our dear honble raksha mantri ji should make an announcement on the status of committee report.

Anonymous said...

it is clear from PM speech wherein nothing has been announced for faujis,that finance minister is firmly in chair. faujis can forget their dues. that money is being spared for grand announcement for 2014 elections probably...

Dhoop said...

"....We will take prompt action on the recommendations of the committee, once they are received". Amen!

Full text of the speech is here.

rajkumar said...

pl refer comments and queries about NFFU above .

it is not my interpretation pf NFFU but the situation on ground , that NFFU will be just for next scale as all conditions for a regular promotion have to be met .

i dont know if a COL ( TS )meet all conditions of promotion to a brig or not .
answer is simple , if he meets then he is eligible otherwise not .

more over above LT col it is just a change in grade pay nothing else , so only a total benifit of few hundred rupee .

this i am saying from my experience from civil side .

rajkumar said...

for better clarification read FAQ of NFFU published above

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Major Navdeep Singh Sir, I hope that it can not be announced today due to various factors. The factor of Lokpal & Curroption raised by Team Anna & Baba RamDeo on one hand. Then Riots in Assam & Mumbai on the other hand. Further a question of launching Mr. Rahul Gandhi as PM Candidature for 2014 Elections. Would not it be better OROP to be announced by a Gandhian Family member PM ( Maybe it is 15.08.2015 or 15.08.2025)than Present PM? Because Real No. 1 is Madam Sonia Gandhi only. This seems the main reason for not announcing today in all probabilities.

JUSTIN said...

it seems the defence fraternity is bowled by a googly the long wait has started for minimum benefit."1,2 3....and back"

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,

Though not related to the topic directly - ther appearss to be some side-line actions, true or not! DIVERSION?:
Ministry of Defence13-August, 2012 15:40 IST Re-Employment to Ex-Servicemen
Central Government provides 10% reservation for Ex- servicemen in civil jobs in Group 'C' posts and 20% in Group 'D' posts. Most State Governments provide reservation for Ex-servicemen which varies from State to State as it is based on the total population of Ex- servicemen domiciled in the State and the rehabilitation policy of the concerned State. It is the responsibility of the concerned Government to implement the reservation policy. Since applying for Government jobs by Ex-servicemen is voluntary, data in this regard is not maintained.
This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Shri MM PallamRajuin a written reply to Shri Anurag Singh Thakur in Lok Sabha today. DM/HS/NN (Release ID :85984)

corona8 said...

@rajkumar:"...if he meets then he is eligible otherwise not...";
That's a really intelligent answer!!

But, just see the discrepancies and anomalies that will arise.
Due to the steep pyramid, truncated careers, an Officer becomes a Col(TS) after 26 years of service. There was some consolation on the pension front that at least he'd be clubbed with a Col(Select) who would have picked up the rank years previously.

With only the Col(Select) being eligible for promotion to Brig, NFFU would be denied to the Col(TS) and he would not be clubbed along with the Col(Select) for pension parity post NFFU in the pension table of Brigs.

So, inspite of the loud cries of One Rank One Pension, even amongst people who were drawing the same pension, there would be differences.

The parity principle is being thrust further and further away.

Anonymous said...

inspite of what all has happened for pay n pensions of faujis, faujis are still expecting miracles. they are forgetting that it is fauj which is supposed to produce miracles and not the bureaucrats or the government. it is height of expectations from ungrateful nation led by our dear hon'blePM who at least would have given timeframe for addressing issues regarding pay and pension. 8 august was the date given by PMO with some intention. not a word about reasons for delay.

Anonymous said...

The most imp aspect is that we in uniform are unable to make ourself important to the political class and make them start recognizing us. We are mostly entangled in our own self. Keep pulling down each other - Koan ka maeduc. The benefits which are given to us are not being utilised properly. Disability pensionary benifits not being granted due to ignorance or high headedness of medical community. The day we are all together and start working for the good of the org we will be recognized and will start getting everything. Wake up. Still there is time - especially the forward looking. Dont compromise the basic tenets of our great org.

JUSTIN said...

here is latest on CoS report
link http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=182986&tp=on

amit said...

dear sir,
another dud
somebody tell them the story of atlas shrugged as can't hope they will read by themselves. it is time we do what the hero did, make thinkers go on strike.we too should start with doing only what is official and nothing else, start asking for all the permissions before jumping to finish the task and once permission recd finish the task at the 12 th hr,

Anonymous said...

Dear friends, i went through the FAQs and clarification for the same by DOPT regarding NFFU. i think it will be one grade up at the max and that too the % benefiting this one grade up also will be very small. i think it is better to go and ask for something like academic grade pay like professors or DACP for doctors which assures them of grade pay of 10000 in twenty years. for a service like us where 60% make only till lt col/Col(TS) it is more prudent to ask for DACP which assures that every body gets 10000 grade pay atleast

Anonymous said...

even if NFU is given on the lines of civilian officers, the issue of status and functional problems on ground will still remain. in defence, only maximu of 10 % will be eligible for brigadier's NFU. even if we leave issue of just an increment of Rs 200 in grade pay for faujis after this much of commotion, how the issue of functional problems on ground
(direcors getting 10000 grade pay at 22 years) will be solved.

in my view solution lies that colonels be given NFU of brigadier at 20 years and that of major general equivalent in 22 years as for civilians. number of years should be left flexible to cater for faster oromotion for themselves by IAS.

rajkumar said...

most prudent option will be automatic functional scale without any board up to col level and then increase in grade pay up to Lt gen after fixed no of years of service. some negative points may be introduced to maintain discipline like those under COI or any vigilance angle may be debbared till they are cleared . no other condition is required .

corona8 said...

@rajkumar:"without any board up to col level.."

Ah! But how will we deal with the nostalgic veterans who used to moan endlessly on that old chatroll about the old rank structure having been changed and argued endlessly why ranks should not be diluted. :-/

Anonymous said...

@ Pbor, With all humility I would say that please think it broadly don't simply take the things as it comes. Now the question is why there is no OROP. If govt. is going close to OROP, then why not OROP in its totality. Because we don't have say at the top level. OR once again will be ignored just like that. I have seen fourth and fifth pay commission in service, the gap is widening as ever. Again this committee has been mainly set up to consider NFU and other points have just been added. If govt is really interested it should take decision at Cabinet meeting and then form a commitee for implementation.

Ex Sgt, Mukesh Vaid Amritsar

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Maj. NS Sir, When is the report of PM appointed Committee to be submitted to PMO and when it is going to be implemented? If possible start chatroll please.

V Natarajan said...

Dear Interested,

Some reported news- relevant to some of the issues involved;

"Fresh instructions on family pension of deceased armed forces personnel-Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 19

Dependent parents of deceased armed forces personnel are directly eligible to receive family pension in case the deceased individual is not survived by a spouse of a child, according to fresh instructions issued by the government.
A circular received here by the establishments concerned a few days ago from the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) at Allahabad adds that if a deceased individual is survived by a spouse of a child and the position changes subsequently because of death or remarriage of the spouse or death or ineligibility of the child, the dependent parents become eligible for pension.
The circular also clarifies that a childless widow subject to dependency criteria is entitled to family pension even after remarriage and in such a case the parents become entitled to family pension only after the childless widow dies or when her independent income from all sources exceeds the prescribed limit under rules.
Family pension is the pension that is paid to eligible surviving next of kin of a deceased government employee. The rates of family pension are lower than those applicable to the employee.
Another long-pending issue related to family pension is under consideration of the committee of secretaries ordered by the Prime Minister to look into pay and pension anomalies of Armed Forces personnel.
At present, widows of pensioners who were drawing two service pensions for two separate spells of service, are authorised one family pension only after the death of the employee/pensioner. It is now proposed to remove the bar on sanction of the second family pension.
Also, handicapped kin of government employees are authorised family pension for life but such pension was being refused to married handicapped children. This was held bad in law by the Chandigarh as well as Chennai benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal in separate cases. This issue is also expected to be resolved.
Posted By SCM to Bharat Pensioners Samaj at 8/20/2012 01:47:00 AM

Tukaram V Manerajurikar said...

Mr. V Natarajan Sir, After reading above I want to know that 2nd family pension to the families of exservicemen ( reemployed) is a proposal in the present Committee of COS by PM as "Dual Family Pension" oris it accepted by Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) at Allahabad's a/m circular. Please clear the doubts.

V Natarajan said...

Only Maj NS ji can clarify Shri Tukaram's doubt pl.

Rajeev Kumar said...

Dear Navdeep sir,

Please forward a copy of Ministry of Financial services letter dated 28 Aug 2012 regarding consideration of MSP for fitment in re-employment. My earlier fitment was included MSP. However, I have been told that, MSP won`t be considered as per IBA instruction. PLease forward a copy on my email a/c rajeev.kumar372@gmail.com. And I wish you all the best in your noble endeavour in helping the ESM. Thanks.


thanx a lot to navdeep sir for updating the warriors about their benefits also apart from duties. hopefully the extension of age relaxation to group A & B posts will help us to serve much better in civil as we know the basic problems of people deeply