Friday, March 29, 2013

The Truth and Deceit: IV CPC Rank Pay Case: Part II


Part II
From the above it is crystal clear that the rank pay was deducted twice. Once at the time of fixing the minimum initial pay for each rank from Capt to Brig in terms of para 6 (a) (ii) of SAI of 1987, and again at the time for calculation of emoluments which has been partially corrected now after the SC order. In most cases even the 20% fitment weightage was denied. 
The increased minimum initial pay at IV CPC will have a cascading effect on the pay scales at the V CPC as the integrated scale was replaced by individual rank based pay scales. Rank pay was also deducted at the time of pay fixation of V CPC both at the time of deciding on the rank based pay scales as well as at the time of fixation. The existing pay scales of V CPC are depressed scales based on the lowered minimum for each rank at IV CPC which needs to be corrected. Accordingly the new scales would be as given

 
Rank/Pay Scale
Existing as per SAI 1997 at V CPC
Revised scales w/o deduction of rank pay at V CPC
Captain
9600-300-11400 +RP 400
10000-300-11800+ RP 400
Major
11925-325-14850+RP1200
12800-325-16050 + RP 1200*
Lt Col
13500-400-17100+RP 1600
15100-400-18700+RP1600
Colonel
15100-450-17350+RP 2000
17100-400-19350+RP 2000
Brigadier
16700-450-18050+RP 2400
19100-450-20450+RP 2400

 
* Note:  The corresponding Civil scale of Major of 4100/4500, were rationalized and merged and given 14300-400-18300. Here again the Majors were given a raw deal.

Once this is implemented, then for VI CPC, the minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay will correspondingly increase.

Rank
 
Existing /
Revised Scales
 
Pay in the pay band
Grade
Pay
MSP
Total
Pay
Diff
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Captain
Existing
Revised
9600+400 RP
10000+400RP
18600
19350
6100
6600
6000
6000
30700
31950
1250
Major
Existing
Revised
11600+1200RP
13125+1200RP
23810
26650
6600
7600
6000
6000
36410
40250
3840
Lt Colonel
Existing
Revised
13500+1600RP
15100+1600RP
38530
42120
8000
8700
6000
6000
52530
56820
4290
Colonel
Existing
Revised
15100+2000RP
17100+2000RP
40890
46050
8700
8900
6000
6000
55590
60950
5360
Brigadier
Existing
Revised
16700+2400RP
19100+2400RP
43390
48870
8900
10000
6000
6000
58290
64870
6580

                       
Q         Was rank pay as admissible to Lt Col paid to Lt Col (TS)?

 A         No, neither at IV CPC nor at V CPC.

 Q         What is the definition of rank pay?

 A         Rank pay as defined by the IV CPC states’ Rank pay is admissible to an officer appropriate to the rank actually held, either in acting or substantive capacity, in addition to the pay in the revised scale. It is also stated therein that rank pay forms part of basic pay. It has been further clarified by MoD vide their letter of 29 Feb 2000 that, It is that element of their pay which is identified with their rank, which in turn has a relationship with their scale of pay. It will consequently be taken into account for determining their entitlement to such of those financial benefits/concessions etc including retirement benefits, as are directly related to the basic pay or their pay scales.

 The Army/Navy/Airforce instructions would be amended accordingly. These never got amended and the denial continued.

 Q         What does DSR say on substantive pay?

               A   Changes in DSR 1962 Edition vs 1987 Edition

             Para 65 of 1962 edition

            “Substantive promotion to the rank of Lt Colonel of officers not promoted by selection

            under para 66 below, against the authorized establishment of Lt Cols, may be made,

            subject to their being considered fit in all  respects by time –scale, on completion of 24

           years reckonable commissioned service provided they  have not attained the age of

           compulsory retirement. Officer so promoted will not  be reckoned, against the authorised

           establishment of Lt Cols, but will be held in the separate ‘non-selection’ list, except that

           an officer selected to act as a Lt Col before completing 24 years service and made

           substantive under this rule on completing 24 years’ reckonable service will be held

           against an authorized Lt Col appointment”.         

 
           Para  66(i) of 1987 edition

 
           “Substantive promotion to the rank of Lt Col of officers not promoted by selection
        against the authorized establishment of Lt Cols, may be made, subject to their being
         considered fit in all  respects, by time scale, on completion of 21 years reckonable
         commissioned service but not more than 26 years reckonable commissioned service
          provided they  have not become due for retirement on the basis of the age of
         superannuation prescribed for the rank time scale of Lt Col. Officers so promoted will not
 not be reckoned, against the authorized establishment of Lt Cols, but will be held in the
            separate ‘non-selection’ list.  The number of officers held on the ‘non selection’ list
         and   will count against the authorized establishment of officers in the
rank of Major”.  Concluded 



198








198








 
 
rs a

12 comments:

bala said...

Perfect ! absolutely legitimate and correct.That is how we lost parity and become victims of disparity and down gradation for decades of deception,passivity and denials.
The hurt is steep for war veterans who have struggled through wars of 1948,1962,1965 and 1971 ; and defended the Nation from external aggression & threats to the Nation - ensured peace ,prosperity and economic growth .Also, THE PRESENT GLORY OF DEFENSE FORCES IS FROM THE SACRIFICES OF THOSE VETERANS FOR DECADES WITH THOSE POOR ALLOWANCES AND PAY OF THOSE PERIODS.
MANY VETERANS HAVE FADED/PERISHED WITH THAT SUFFERING PERPETUATED ON THEM.i.e,denial of legitimate pay and pension by about 20 - 30%

TIME FOR RETROSPECTION,REVIEW AND CORRECTION AT EARLIEST ,BEFORE REMAINING ALSO FADE AWAY.Requires strong approach and action by one and all ,,particularly the Heads and Top brass .

sl said...

"..deducted twice.."

I've always felt that to be the case.

It's very clear, the denial of rank pay arises out of not only a flawed calculation methodology and non-revision of the pay-scale, but also because of the manner in which inter-se parities have been fudged.

The fact that a double damage was done, once by not adding the rank pay to ensure inter-se parity and then by deduction of rank pay from revised emoluments, has always nagged at many minds even in the absence of concrete information that only now has begin to emerge.

These apprehensions had been voiced previously.

Harry said...

Dear Sir,

You may consider making one minor correction given as under:-

Existing Scale for Major has been correctly shown as 11925-325-14850 + Rank Pay 1200 but revised scale w/o deduction of Rank Pay should be 13125-325-16050 + Rank Pay 1200 and Not 12800-325-16050 + Rank Pay 1200.
Isn't it?

corona8 said...

The issue relating to the rank pay for time-scale rank of Lt Col could be made clearer.

Where was it laid down in the DSR of 87 that the rank pay of a Lt Col (TS) would be the same as that of a Major? Who decided this should be so? Was a correction of this also part of the submissions made during the case in HSC?

It would be very interesting to learn what was the stand, if any, of the services HQs on this.

This would have implications for the Col(TS) rank post Dec 2004 also.

Daljit Dhindsa said...

Bang on the target.
Since the increment for Cols in 5 CPC was 450, maybe scale of 16700-450 - 19000 - 450 - 20450 will be their appropriate scale?

WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) said...

At last noweverybody is making themselves clear as to how the mischief was played(and continuing).I DO HOPE THAT THE THREE SERVICE CHIEFS NOW UNDERSTAND THE FULL GAME PLAYED. THEY MUST TAKE A TOUGH STAND.
As bala said, it never toolate. BY CORRECTIVE ACTION ONLY, THE DEPARTED SOULS WILL RIP.
V.Sundaresan

MAJOR NAZAR SINGH GILL said...

Draft Govt letter which was ready on 30 Sep 2012 and was under circulation by some one should now be posted on computer blog so that ever one serving and retired officers come to know their entitlements and mischief being played by MOD officials vide letter of 27 Dec 2012. So that serving officers can raise their voice in official conferences/Seminars and retired officer raise these issues in every forum of their get together.

Dhoop said...

@MAJOR NAZAR SINGH GILL: "..should now be posted on computer blog.."; That is a sound idea. There is a better way of doing it. A RTI application needs to be considered so that a fully official version of the DGL can be accessed by one and all.

Kanny said...

I can only say " well done RDOA, and keep it up!" Our morale remains high inspite or despite what the babus want to do. With RDOA there, we have abs nothing to worry about.

Unknown said...

A faboulous job being done by RDOA. We are ourselves to be blamed for this confusion. Our serving Chiefs and AG,s should have gone into this anomaly right from day one. However, it is never too late. The present Chiefs and their staff should now take a strong stand and let the people know that we mean business to get our rightful dues and place. --- Brig M K Agarwal(Retd)

Unknown said...

Brig M K Agarwal says---It appears that the Rankpay issue has died down,as, CDA has stopped paying arrears to the remaining retired officers and only some hue and cry is being made in the various forums. Can anyone update on the latest in the case. With date extended to 31 May 13. the system seems to have become complacent in the matter.

WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) said...

Dear all, even for retired veterans, only that part of the "serving element has been paid.ie upto the date of retirement. in my case, i was a wg cdr (sel)on 1/1/86, and i got arrears from 1/1/86 to 31/8/91ie date of retirement.
I think PDA shave interpreted the SC verdict as only for 4 cpc period or dor. which ever is earlier. that may be the reason some officers have got even as low as Rs.5000/=. God only kbnows who will pay for the rest of the period IF AT ALL THEY PAY. The extended date ie 31 may has given the babus enough courage and (ill)will power.
V.SUNDARESAN