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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Final order of the Supreme Court on the Rank Pay issue dated 04 September 2012

The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04 September 2012 wherein the Application filed by the Union of India praying for recall of the order of the Court dated 08 March 2010 on the rank pay issue was disposed, can be downloaded by clicking here.

As informed earlier, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused to modify or vary the earlier order except that the interest part has been modulated to be granted from 01 Jan 2006 rather than 01 Jan 1986. Hence, while the arrears of pay would be released from 01 Jan 1986, the interest on the arrears shall now be payable with effect from 01 Jan 2006.

The statement of the Solicitor General has also been recorded that the amount shall be paid within 12 weeks from 04 September 2012.

The original order of the Supreme Court dated 08 March 2010 can be accessed by clicking here. 


s bembi said...

Lot of us have not understood one thing- if it is only for those who were in service in 1986 or officers joined in 1990; 2000 and 2010 also. will be grateful; if some one can clarify.
(S Bembi)
Wg Cdr

Col Pradip Dax said...

Solicitor General has already submitted to Supreme Court - Cash Out Go Component of Rs 1400 Crores.

Hence, the AREARS of ALL OFFICERS must have been already worked out & compiled to arrive at the figure submitted to Supreme Court.


Anonymous said...

A little unintended faux pas.... "original order of 08 March 2010".... Itz written as "2012"... Not a earth shattering discovery, just letting you know :)

Rahul said...

Thank God, its over. Next battle for RDOA is the OROP issue. Why not form just one group instead of having 200 groups of veterans.
Please contribute generously and lets take up this matter again with the SC with the best lawyers. Even Rs 10 per year will do from all pensioners.

Anonymous said...

navdeep ji,
implication to clear karo. Please clarify with examples. NHQ worksheets do not seem to be correct and these do not say anything abouut offrs who became capts after o1 jan 1986.

Ashish Karan said...

Does it mean that the lost status of a major who used be in junior administrative grade in 3rd CPC will be restored.

Will majors and equivalent will be placed in grade pay 7600 [currently 6600)

plz reply?

-- said...

Finally, the matter is closed and we may rest in peace on Earth.

Air Mshl (retd) S Y Savur PVSM AVSM

sunlit said...

@s bembi: If the pensions get affected, maybe, it could have an impact on earlier pensioners through the parities that have been granted along the way. That's a bit of a complicated situation to assess right now.

@Anonymous:"..implication to clear karo..:" I don't know if this will help ;-)

No, on a serious note, Maj Navdeep may consider clearing the doubts of so many blog followers.

Anonymous said...

completely off beat from the current subject.. indian express is critical of not only armed forces but of DRDO also.



Airco said...

A reading of the SC Orders dt. 08 Mar 10 and 04 Sep 12 makes it clear that the Order dt.08 Mar 10 did not specify the effective date for payment of interest on arrears of pay. THAT DATE IS NOW FIXED AS 01 JAN 06.
I modify my earlier comment:

Harry said...

@ All

Post SC Verdit on 4th Sep, even though correction in Basic Pay (4th CPC), Rank Pay (5th CPC) and Basic plus Grade Pay (6th CPC) is pretty obvious even to a layman but trust UoI/MoD babus to nit pick and try every trick in the book (and outside) to keep the pay out to the barest minimum. Though the above is implicit in the SC Order but seeing the past record UoI is sure to demur.

Even though UoI's own affidavit in SC (on implications) makes things amply clear but expecting GoI to now, all of a sudden have a change of heart and show magnanimity and undo all past wrongs would be fooling oneself.

RDOA is requested to keep contempt proceedings drafted and Services HQ requested to immediately prepare and forward a fresh case for re-fixing Basic Pay for capt to Brig ranks post 4th, 5th and 6th CPC (incl fixing of correct Grade pay). As per my own understanding though the Verdict affects Capts to Brigs only but if implemented in true spirit with roll-on effect on 5th and 6th CPC, Brigs pay will disturb Maj Gens pay and hence pay for Maj Gens may also need upward revision. Talk of history repeating itself!!!

Pls start working post-haste!

Harry said...


- It is really a no-brainer now! Simply let GoI fix pre and post 4th CPC Basic pay of AFs offrs for each rank from Capt to Brig AT THE SAME LEVEL as fixed for an equivalent(3rd CPC era) civ offr and simply add rank pay to the revised Basic. Same needs to be done for 5th CPC (and Rank pay needs to be multiplied by a factor of 3.586 and NOT 2 as was done).

- Factor of 3.586 reached as follows:-

Lowest Basic pay for juniormost offr rank in 4th CPC = Rs 2300. Lowest Basic pay for juniormost offr rank in 5th CPC = Rs 8250. Now (8250/2300) = 3.58695652173. For 5th CPC work out new (enhanced) rank pay for each rank. Merge this newly worked out rank pay with the Basic of 5th CPC to derive new 6th CPC Basic AND GRADE PAY! Pls note that present Grade pay DOES NOT include component of Rank pay for its determination.

My prognosis is as follows:- Firstly, NO way GoI is going to be able to (even if they want to) pay rank pay arrears to all affected officers within 12 weeks from 4th Sep (Don't we all know how Sarkari babugiri works?. Secondly, MoD is NOT repeat NOT going to automatically correct 5th and 6th CPC Pay fixation 'chicaneries' (nah ..these are NOT anomalies) so UoI/MoD would have to be S-L-A-P-P-E-D with a CONTEMPT Case. That would be to our advantage. As ONLY then a fresh SC diktat would corner MoD to do the needful.

BTW RDOA may also highlight to the SC GoI's ulterior machinations and may seek penal interest rather then a simple one (which DOES NOT even cover inflation). I'm sure if hon'ble judges' pay was docked for more than 25 years and GoI offered to pay them 'simple' 6% interest for only 7 years (rather than for the full duration) then they will have a rethink on passing such a benign (for interest payment purpose) judgement!

JRF said...

Many offrs have already worked out their net entitlements based on various rks they held between Jan 86 & Dec 95. On an average offrs will get Rs.1.25 lakhs to 1.55 lakhs(net as on 1/1/1996 incl DA difference between July 86 to Dec 95). To this fig add 6% interest per anum wef Jan 2006 & you will get your average fig on arrears of rk pay.Lt Col JRF DSouza

Dhoop said...

@JRF:"..Many offrs have already worked out their net entitlements.."; Really? Imagine that!
Could you share with the less enlightened like us how to work out the details?
Much obliged.

Anonymous said...

All CTGs on Perm postings and HRA will also get affected with increase in RANK Pay which is part of BASIC.Supplementary Claims required!?Anyone any idea?

sunlit said...

This is a gist of some comments made on the chatroll posted here, as advised, for a more permanent record. The logic being advanced in scattered corners for the "naval brief" is that the calculations of basic+da+ir+20%basic+(now)rank pay would give the revised TOTAL emoluments, not the revised basic. To get the revised basic one would have to subtract the rank pay and then fix the remaining amount to the next higher stage in running scale. I can also understand the logic being advanced elsewhere that the 20% portion should also be of (rank+basic), not just the basic, and fixation should be at the next higher stage in pay scale for one and all.

That appears to be the only logical way of side-stepping the point-to-point matching of scales or granting of additional increments, spoken of by some.

But, then RDOA and Maj Navdeep are in the best position to clarify.

Anonymous said...

Here is Gist of SC 0 R D E R

I.A. No. 9 in T.P. (C) No. 56 of 2887:

1. We have heard Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Solicitor General of India and Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

2. On thoughtful consideration of the entire matter, we are satisfied that the order dated March 8, 2010 does not require any modification or variation save and except the interest part.

3. As regards interest, on totality of the circumstances including the circumstance that Special Leave Petition ar1s1ng from the judgment dated July 4, 2883 in the matter of Major A.K. Dhanapalan was dismissed by this Court in August, 2885 and the Kerala High Court had not ordered payment of interest on the arrears of pay, we direct that the interest shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondents @ 6% p.a. from January 1, 2886 instead of January 1, 1986. It is clarified that this order shall govern all similarly situated officers who have not approached the court and also those who have filed Writ Petitions which are pending before various High Courts/Armed Forces Tribunal.

4. We record and accept the statement of the learned Solicitor General that arrears of pay with interest, as directed above, shall be paid to the concerned officers expeditiously and positively within twelve week from today.

Anonymous said...

Has the SC only ordered payment of arrears or have they ordered refixation of pay also.
If the latter is the case then refixation from 4 CPC to 5 and then 5 to 6CPC will mean several increments, restoration of (higher than) S 25 scale and nothing short of a 2 grades jump for each rank in the case of 6th CPC Grade Pay.

Is there even a remote chance of all this happening??? Wouldnt this mean that a Lt Col will move to 8900 and Colonel to 10,000. This will not be agreed to by even the most stupid of the Babus.
I can see how the Babus will look at the GP issue: They will stick to the Jt Secy - Maj Gen equivalence and ask the MoD to fix Lt Col, Co, Brig GPs below that.

Lt Col: 8500 ( below Director)
Col : 8900
Brig : 9500

This upsets no IAS plans and the Faujis will be overwhelmed with happiness.
Watch as this unfolds...

corona8 said...

Good thing Anonymous is Anonymous. I mean, sentiments like, "..Faujis will be overwhelmed with happiness.." go to show how little self-respect exists in some quarters.

It's as if by giving people in uniform their basic dues after decades, the paymaster will have earned their everlasting gratitude.

And to top it all, we get a query, "...ordered payment of arrears or have they ordered refixation of pay also...".

Oh, pulleeease!

If friend Anonymous is really from the defence brotherhood, no wonder civilians make fun of us with that saying in Punjabi that goes, "Mahekma Jangi, Ukkal Di Tangi.."

Col NR Kurup said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

With the increase in pay of Lt Col to Brig their pay automatically stand to a position higher than the basis on which their pay was fixed after 6 CPC. With the revised pay their grade pay can never be less than that of the civilians whose pay was less.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous @6:14 PM: I seriously doubt if this will happen anytime soon (or will happen at all)! Because if GP fixation is changed, soon other disgruntled central services are going to start clamoring for their bit. For example, a General Manager of Zonal Railways used to be one notch higher than a Chief Secretary or DGP at the time of 4th CPC. Now in HAG+, he is one notch below a CS! There are many such anomalies in other central services as well.

And about Brig being given GP 9500 and Col 8900, this will definitely upset the IPS and other Gr A services CSS etc whose officers are posted as Directors in GP 8700 (currently at par with Col). Very low chances I feel.

Harry said...

Dear All,

Pls read below to understand how AFs offrs were shafted and boos defalcated at the time of pay fixation during 4th CPC. The details have been very well worked out by Wg Cdr P Shanbag (retd).

Error was seen in the pay fixation for officers who were Flt Lt to Air Commodore as on 31-12-1985.
Pay was fixed as given below:-

A. Basic Pay of 3rd CPC (31-12-85)
B. DA as on 31-12-85
C. Interim relief as on 31-12-85
D. 20% of A as weightage

A+B+C+D=x (say)

x, was to be fixed as basic pay nearest to the slab in the scale 2300-5100 as applicable to the rank . Rank wise minimum for Flt Lt to Air commodore was 2800,3400,3900,4500 & 4950 ( for minimum length of service 5,11,16,20,23 years respectively for officers other than medical and dental). While fixing basic pay an amount equal to admissible rank pay was deducted from x and pay was fixed in the slab with some additional increments in some cases keeping the minima in view. Rank pay was given in addition, as authorised.
That is to say that the basic pay fixation had problem and not the rank pay. The arrears therefore,should be short fall in basic pay. This amount is not a constant figure and varies for individuals depending on what length of service and rank one was as on 31-12-85. It may differ even amongst officers from same course.

Having said the above, let me give example of my own case.

In my case A,B,C,D were 1950,1813.50,275,390 respectively as per statement issued by Air Force Central Accounts Office. x, in my case works out to 4428.50. I should have been fixed at a basic pay of 4500 (nearest higher slab in the scale ) with rank pay of 800, totalling 5300. But I was fixed at basic pay of 3900 (4428.50-800=3628.50, extended to 3900 being Min for Wg Cdr), and rank pay of 800, totalling 4700. Therefore the short fall in my case is 4500-3900=Rs 600 in basic pay,and not full rank pay of 800.

My arrears of pay +DA for the next 77 months I served in the same rank till voluntary retirement will work out to 52213 as per my interpretation and calculation.

PS: Hope the above illustration wakes up our Brass and corrective action begins without any delay!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

@Sunlit and others,
This is how UoI/MoD showed its calculations in the Addl Affidavit: -

For Captain

Existing Basic pay 1300
DP/ADA at Index 608 1650
and Interim Relief
Existing emoluments 2950
Add 20% of Basic pay 260
Total 3210
Pay to be fixed in integrated Scale + Rank Pay 3100+ 200

Now, if that is the logic that it follows that Total emoluments would be 3200 to next slab or 3300 Plus Rank pay 200 = 3400

Sathye said...

The highest court of the land adjudicated on the status of “rank pay” as being an element of “basic pay” as it was always despite blatant short changing by unaccountable mandarins. Services seek no charity from anyone but what is already granted as per established norms to everyone. The existing fitment table worked out with the basic excluding rank pay will have to be reworked with the actual basic by adding the rank pay. One will see the status of AF officer cadre restored in such a fitment table. Period.

sunlit said...

@Harry and @Anonymous: There is a need for a relook. Firstly, @Harry needs to check the pay fixation for IV CPC again. There was NO subtraction of rank pay for the simple reason rank pay was NEVER added to the sum of of unrevised basic, the DA, the interim relief and 20% of the basic. The point is rank pay should have been added. I feel that 20% should have been of (basic+rank).

Also, the example given by @Anonymous does not hold for Majs. as cited previously in the chatroll or comments in blogs.

So only RDOA can clarify on what basis is the calculation required to be done.

Satyam never Jayate said...

@ Anonymous 8.27 pm, There is a grapevine news that UoI/MoD is considering legal remedies to challenge the SC order of 4-9-2012.

People are talking about a Review Petition (probably an excuse that what was filed was an Interlocutory Application) or even a Curative Petition.

So watch this space.

sunlit said...

To have a graphical idea of the stage-shifting aspect of inclusion or exclusion of the rank pay with the basic pay in the running pay scale of IV CPC, one could have a look at the table in this blog post.

bidyut chatterjee said...

There are two issues here. One the Supreme Court Judgement on Rank Pay, and the other,the recommendation of the Panel set up by the Prime Minister, to look into the pay and pension issues of both serving and retired personnel. It appears that both are in a limbo. Can anyone let us know the stage, where these two issues are awaiting implementation.

col (Retd) G K SHARMA said...

Dear Maj Navdeep
At the outset I would like to congratulate u for the wonderful job and service ur rendering to the service personals through uy web site and also through ur professsion. Many ,many thanks.
Now as regard the sc jugdement on Rankpay is it possible for u to put on website the details of the rank pay calculation as claimed by Mag Dhanapalan And IN defenc by RDOA. I am sure couut must have gone through the detail calculations before finalising the case. It is important otherwise knwoing our Cda O they may again come out with some diffrent set of calulations.

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

Please let us not float rumors or working of arrears of rank pay illogically. Let us not get involved in this line of action. CDA (O) is part of MOD and it was MOD who cheated us in IVth and Vth CPCs. It is not that they cheated us but we got cheated because of our ignorance in our pay matters. We take pride in our operational commitments but we never take interest in our administrative commitments. If we take little interest in our administrative commitments towards our men and our selves how can we get cheated by any other people or organisation.

The gist of the whole case of the rank pay for Capt to Brig and their equivalents in other two services on which The Honourable Supreme Court of India gave judgment on 04 Sep 2012 was that the Bureaucrats in IVth and Vth CPC very cleverly and smartly fixed the rank pay and after adding the rank pay so fixed made us at par with our civilian counterparts. In other words out of our total monthly emoluments which were at par with our civilian counter parts the rank pay was first debited and shown it as a new element as Rank pay in IVth CPC. The rank pay forms part of basic pay and after adding the rank pay to the basic pay then only our total emoluments came nearer to our civilian counter parts thereby allowing our civilian counter parts also to draw the rank pay merged in their basic pay. But how come the army pay commission cell has accepted this at that time. It was because of ignorance as we never give thought and priority to our own administration. Now the judgment of The Honourable Supreme Court very clearly says that the Govt to fix the rank pay with effect from 01 Jan 1986 which mutadis mutandis apply to the successive pay commission (Vth CPC where the rank pay stayed as fixed in IVth CPC). When this judgment is very clear about fixing of rank pay then why are we working out our total emoluments drawn since 1986, what will be new emoluments after fixing the rank pay and what amount of arrears we do get. Let us not get involved in volumetric exercise. Let us wait and see as to what amount of rank pay for each rank the Govt fixes now with effect from 01 Jan 1986 to 31 Dec 2005 (in two successive pay commissions of IVth and Vth) and then work out your own arrears from date of your promotion to the ranks of Capt to Brig and equivalents, then add the half yearly DA percentage to the re-fixed rank pay as the rank pay forms part of Basic Pay.

Many are raising doubts whether the judgment applies to only those who were in service & in the ranks of Capt to Brig as on 1 Jan 1986. Absolutely No. This judgment applies to every one who was in service or retired in the ranks of Capt to Brig between the periods of 20 years right from 01 Jan 1986 to 31 Dec 2005. Officers who were in service during this period and in the ranks of Capt to Brig will get 100% rank pay of the ranks held by them with DA announced six monthly and those retired pre 31 Dec 2005 will get half the rank pay with DA at the DA percentage at par with serving officers. Hope this is clearly understood.

Now for those who wants a ready reckoner as to what was the DA percentage in IVth and Vth CPC, a ready reckoner is given below which is authenticated from my pay slips right from Jan 1986 to Dec 2005: -

Anonymous said...

Jan to Jun 1986 - Nil (We were getting 150% DA on the pay of IIrd CPC)
Jul to Dec 1986 - 4%
Jan to Jun 1987 - 8%
Jul to Dec 1987 - 13%
Jan to Jun 1988 - 18%
Jul to Dec 1988 - 23%
Jan to Jun 1989 - 29%
Jul to Dec 1989 - 34%
Jan to Jun 1990 - 38%
Jul to Dec 1990 - 43%
Jan to Jun 1991 - 51%
Jul to Dec 1991 - 60%
Jan to Jun 1992 - 71%
Jul to Dec 1992 - 83%
Jan to Jun 1993 - 92%
Jul to Dec 1993 - 97%
Jan to Jun 1994 - 104%
Jul to Dec 1994 - 114%
Jan to Jun 1995 - 125%
Jul to Dec 1995 - 136%

(Vth CPC arrears were paid in Jan 1998, Till Dec 1997 the DA % given above continued with increases six monthly and paid on ivth CPC rank pay)

Jan to Jun 1996 - 148%
Jul to Dec 1996 - 159% (4% in Vth CPC)
Jan to Jun 1997 - 170% (8% in Vth CPC)
Jul to Dec 1997 - 170% (13% in Vth CPC)
Jan to Jun 1998 - 16%
Jul to Dec 1998 - 22%
Jan to Jun 1999 - 32%
Jun to Dec 1999 - 37%
Jan to Jun 2000 - 38%
Jul to Dec 2000 - 41%
Jan to Jun 2001 - 43%
Jul to Dec 2001 - 45%
Jan to Jun 2002 - 49%
Jul to Dec 2002 - 52%
Jan to Jun 2003 - 55%
Jul to Dec 2003 - 59%
Jan to Mar 2004 - 61% (50% DA added to basic rank pay wef 01 Apr 04)
(Rank pay from 01 Apr 2004 will be Rank Pay till 31 Mar 2004 x 1.5)
Apr to Jun 2004 - 11%
Jul to Dec 2004 - 14%
Jan to Jun 2005 - 17%
Jul to Dec 2005 - 21%

The rank pay with effect from 01 Jan 1996 (Vth CPC) should be more than the rank pay in IVth CPC plus DA @ 170% thereto (ie it should be more than the rank pay of IV th CPC x 2.7). Let us see how the rank pay in IV and Vth CPCs is fixed by the Govt. Once the rank pay is fixed, work out yourself your monthly arrears as per your rank held along with the DA at the above given percentages then sum of the total rank pay along with DA of every month till 31 Dec 2005. Then add 42% interest (for 7 years @ 6% p.a from Jan 2006 to Dec 2012). Then the grand total will be your arrears. Those who retired prior to 31 Dec 2005 make the rank pay half of the serving officer and add DA at par with the serving officer.

Anonymous said...

'interest shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondents' Is this an oversight? that Officers who filed cases will pay interest to the Union of India

corona8 said...

Hats off to Anonymous who, in his hurry to fill up half a blog post with his comment neglected to keep sight of the fact DA used to be calculated on the slab system. Hats off also to the other Anonymous, who may well be the same Anonymous, for not realizing who was the petitioner or the respondent in the I.A. filed by Govt of India, though it's clearly mentioned at the top of the judgement.

Penmil said...

@Anon,September 15, 2012 6:05 PM.
No it was intended and not an oversight.
In the latest round on Rank Pay inclusion, it was UoI(MoD), who were the petitioners.

Col (Retd) G K SHARMA said...

Can a review petition be filed by MOD at this stage. Any time frame given by the SC for this.

SSS10 said...

SSS10: Can someone give approx.nos of serving and retired officers prior 01 Jan 86 ??? Just trying to work out distribution of Rs 1600 Crs as indicated in Govt. affidavit..and thereby checking applicability of Hon. SC Order on post 86 commissioned offrs. Done an excel sheet calc and it gives an arrears of 1.9 Lakhs (as on 01 Jan 2006)for a 92 commissioned offrs. Rank +DA +@42% interest on arrears upto 2006, have been used for arriving at this figure.

Anonymous said...

Dear Corona8,

I wish you could have seen and understood the contents of para 4 of the Honourable Supreme Court Judgment of 04 Sep 2012. This para clearly says who pays rank pay with interest to whom. However, for your information, the Honourable Supreme Court Judgement of 4 Sep 2012 was made on the petition filed by UOI to recall Supreme Court orders of 08 Mar 2010. The words used that the Petitioners to pay to Respondents ....... are correct. Please once again go through the Judgement.

corona8 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
corona8 said...

And, this Anonymous doesn't know who has understood or not understood what. Everyone except Anon knew who the respondent or petitioner was for the I.A.

Before raising queries about respondents and petitioners, we should know where the stage of a litigation is. That's a slight variation on a saying best stated in Malayalam.

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

Am well aware of the DA announced on slab system during previous CPCs.

In my previous posts I just gave the DA percentages announced during IV and V CPCs just for information.

Though the Vth CPC was implemented wef 01 Jan 96, the arrears were paid in Jan 1998. Till Dec 1997 the pay as per IVth CPC was paid. The DA paid in Dec 1997 was @ 170% up to the Basic pay of Rs 3500/- pm and beyond basic pay of 3500/- pm the DA was paid @ 135.23%. This can be clearly seen from the working out sheet attached to pay slip for the month of Jan 1998 by CDA (O) Pune. Accordingly, a Captain whose basic pay was less than or up to Rs 3500/- was entitled for rank pay of Rs 200/- plus DA Rs 340/- (@ 170%). Thus the total rank pay including DA entitled for a Captain in Dec 1997 was Rs 540/- pm but surprisingly wef Jan 1996 the rank pay fixed for a Captain was just Rs 400/- (Please refer your pay slip for the month of Jan 1998 and the arrears sheet attached thereto). The rank pay wef 01 Jan 1996 in Vth CPC was not a new element but was an element continued from previous CPC (IVth CPC). The aim and purpose of successive pay commissions was to step up the pay drawn. Thus the rank pay of Rs 200/- pm for Captain which was introduced on 01 Jan 1986 works out to Rs 540/- pm with DA @ 170@ immediately prior to payment of arrears of Vth CPC. In the next successive pay commission (Vth CPC) the rank pay for Captain Steps up to Rs 600/- per month and not Rs 400/- per month. Logically when the Captain’s rank pay of 200/- pm steps up to Rs 600/- pm in Vth CPC, the rank pay for other ranks also steps up in Vth CPC wef 01 Jan 1996 to Rs 1800/- pm for Majors, Rs 2400/- for Lt Cols, Rs 3000/- for Cols and Rs 3600/- for Brig. The logic is when a Captains rank pay of IV th CPC becomes triple with DA immediately before payment of Vth CPC arrears the rank pay of Majs to Brig should also step up to three-times. This is only food for thought and not for pointing out any one before the fresh calculations are worked out and the arrears are paid to the concerned officers.

As per the Honourable Supreme Court judgment the UOI (MOD) is to fix the rank pay from 01 Jan 1986 and pay the arrears to all the effected officers. The latest news says “Meanwhile, a fresh calculation has been ordered following a Supreme Court judgment”.

Let us wait and see as to what rank pay for each rank the Govt is going to fix wef 01 Jan 1986 (IVth CPC), wef 01 Jan 1996 (Vth CPC) and as to how the further calculations are worked out.

If the rank pay is fixed as per the logic brought out above, for certain ranks it makes the MSP much below of rank pay plus DA drawn till 01 Jan 2006.

Dear Veterans please take this just as food for thought only. Please do not react to this based on your pay slips immediately.

Col Raju (Retd)

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

Officers drawing basic pay between Rs 3501/- pm to Rs 4400/- pm till Dec 1997 immediately before payment of Vth CPC arrears from 01 Jan 1996 onwards were given same amount of DA of Rs 5950/- pm. Please see your pay slips for Dec 1997 and earlier. This was because slab system of DA percentage announced till before Dec 1997. 170% DA on basic pay of Rs 3500/- was Rs 5950/-. This was the minimum DA paid for officers those drawing basic pay of Rs 3501/- and above up to Rs 4408/- pm. The DA for those drawing basic pay above Rs 3501/- was 153% subject to min DA of Rs 5950/- on basic pay of Rs 3500/- @ 170%. This was because of slab system of granting DA during those days.

Anonymous said...

Col (retd) G K Sharma,
When review petition can be filed in High Court and Supreme Court
(II) Review – its nature
1. Taking into consideration the principle of stare decisis, courts generally do not unsettle a decision, without a strong case. This provision regarding review is an exemption to the legal principle of stare decisis.
2. The term ‘review’ has not been defined either in the Constitution or in any statute pertaining to review. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines the word ‘review’ as “re-examination or reconsideration.” The basic philosophy inherent in the concept of review is acceptance of human fallibility. (S. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka (1993) Supp. (4) SCC 595).
3. As the law stands in India ever since the adoption of the Indian Constitution, review is the creation of statute. In Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. vs. Pradyun Man Singh Ji (AIR 1970 SC 1273), the SC has held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.
4. Even during times when there was no statutory provision and when no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its orders, Courts had culled out such power in order to avoid abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice. In 1941 the Federal Court observed in Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Chaudhary vs. Sukhraj Rai (AIR 1941 FCI) that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest Court to review its order, yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords.

Anonymous said...

6. A.R. Antulay’s case – A landmark judgment:
The landmark judgment of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1531, has laid down two important principles as regards review of judgments by Supreme Court. These principles are :
(i) Actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court should not prejudice anybody).
(ii) Directions given per incuriam in violation of constitutional safeguards, and in derogation of the principles of natural justice can always be remedied by the Court.
(iii) It was observed that the Supreme Court could give proper directions and correct the error in earlier order if directions issued earlier are found to be violative of the limits of jurisdiction and that those directions has resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of citizen guaranteed by the Constitution. In this connection, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in Prem Chand Garg vs. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad, [AIR (1963) SC 996] Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra [(1966) (3) SCR 744], and Smt. Ujiam Bai vs. State of UP [1963(1) SCR 788] and concluded that citizens should not suffer on account of directions of the Court based upon error leading to conferment of jurisdiction. Review petition was allowed.
(IV) Where Review is possible
1. If the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court may review its judgment [G.L. Gupta vs. D.N. Mehta (1971) 3 SCR 748].
2. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. [O.N. Mahindroo vs. Dist. Judge, Delhi & Anr. (1971) 2 SCR 11].
3. The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ in Order XLVII Rule 1of the C.P.C. has been given an expanded meaning, and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. [Lily Thomas etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 224].
4. So, above is in a nutshell the law we could trace on Review Petition.
1. If the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court may review its judgment [G.L. Gupta vs. D.N. Mehta (1971) 3 SCR 748].
2. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. [O.N. Mahindroo vs. Dist. Judge, Delhi & Anr. (1971) 2 SCR 11].
3. The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ in Order XLVII Rule 1of the C.P.C. has been given an expanded meaning, and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. [Lily Thomas etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 224].

Satyam never Jayate said...

For information of interested/concerned officers
1. An interlocutory application means an application to the Court in any suit, appeal or proceeding already instituted in such Court other than an application for execution of a decree or order or for review of judgment or for leave to appeal.
2. Except where otherwise prescribed by rules or otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, an interlocutory application shall state only the order prayed for and shall not contain any statement of facts or argumentative matter. Every application in contravention of this rule shall be returned for amendment or rejected.
3. Every interlocutory application shall be supported by an affidavit. Where, however, the facts on which the application is based appear from the records in Court or relate to any act or conduct of the applicant's pleader himself, the Court may permit memorandum of facts signed by the applicant's pleader to be filed instead of an affidavit.
4. Any fact required to be proved upon an interlocutory proceeding shall, unless otherwise prescribed by rule or ordered by Court, be proved by affidavit, but the Judge may in any case direct evidence to be given orally, and thereupon the evidence shall be recorded and exhibits marked in the same manner as in a suit." (w.e.f. 30-3-1967)

Satyam never Jayate said...

Review Petition - what it is
(Extract from Supreme Court of India – Practice and Procedure: A Handbook of Information)

Article 137 of the Constitution of India, 1950, provides that subject to provisions of any law and rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Under Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a petition is to be filed within thirty days from the date of judgment or order and as far as practicable, it is to be circulated, without oral arguments, to the same Bench of Judges who delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.

Satyam never Jayate said...

When can a Review Petition be filed

4. So, above is in a nutshell the law we could trace on Review Petition.
1. If the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court may review its judgment [G.L. Gupta vs. D.N. Mehta (1971) 3 SCR 748].
2. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. [O.N. Mahindroo vs. Dist. Judge, Delhi & Anr. (1971) 2 SCR 11].
3. The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ in Order XLVII Rule 1of the C.P.C. has been given an expanded meaning, and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. [Lily Thomas etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 224].

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep,
Just wanted to clarify will the arrears be credited automatically,my father became a brig in jul 87 and retd in jul 95 and passed away in apr 2009 my mother who is a widower will she get the arrears approx how much and will it be credited in her pension ac or we need to contact someone

Dhoop said...

Gentlemen, here's a link to a news item on the subject.

V Natarajan said...

Reg Review Petition:

I believe the Hon SC judgment in qn itself is wrt a Review Petition by the Govt gainst the Miliatry Rank Pay affected pensioners /RDOA etc and dealing with the HSC judgment of March 2010. In fact the said Judgment itself underwent a Review by the same Hon Judges who delivered the March 2010 j,ment and the bench refused to entertain the plea of the Appellants and out of total disgust requested the Hon CGI to decide further on the RP (if it deserved any merit)- then followed the Commission proposal- wh never was formed- and finally once agin all the Rank Pay cases - the one decided on Mar 2010 / rest from all over the country were transferred to HSC- (in effect combining coming up along with the fate of the then RP of the Govt etc). HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE GOVT TO FILE ANOTHER REVIEW PETITION? IF IT HAPPENS , ENTIRE COUNTRY WILL LOOSE FAITH IN THE PREVAILING JUDICIAL SYSTEM! mAJ ns MAY BE ABLE TO THROW LIGHT!


Anonymous said...

sir can somebody clarify if offrs commissioned in june 2012 wil also be bnifited

SSS10 said...

A simplified excel sheet as Rank Pay calculator has been prepared by self and can be viewed @ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar44Cio6oKPVdDc2MEJOWHNLUnhkUndZak5UX1UyQmc#gid=1 . Omission, if any,may be indicated. In order to simplify and to present full data on one sheet, rank pay entered by you is used for 6 months block.

Anonymous said...

i had gone on the cdao website today. there in the highlight section it says news on the pay commission arrears. click the link and the letter that is put up clearly states that the arrears are only for those in the rank of capt to brig as on 01 jan 86. any one who reads this post and is in a position to clarify may add to this.they have asked for details of the due and drawn from only those in the rank of capt to brig as on 01 jan 86. if anyone has any more ideas pl tell

Anonymous said...

please clarify my basic doubt,i was commissioned in 1987,and became a capt in 1989 will i get the arrears.

Anonymous said...

only those commissioned as on 01 jan 1986 will get anything out of it... AS OF NOW... that's the format service headquarters are working on..... it is confirmed statement... can be confirmed by others... cheers

ramanan said...

See the fate. all small justified issues are also to be settled by the Supreme and ultimate Judicial authority in our country. If it is for the top most serving flock for this nation, nothing except to pity on the system. - WO S RAMANAN

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if there is a process for a widow/NOK to claim these arrears? Is it automatic?

Vishal said...

Sir, ours is a unique case. My wife's father was in active service in 1986 but passed away in 1988. Her mother passed away in 2011. She is the only legal heir. Is she entitled to the rank pay arrears?