BUBBLE BURSTS: ARMED FORCES / VETERANS HARMED AGAIN
The relief given by the Hon.ble
Supreme Court vide its order of 04 Sept 2012 in the famous IV CPC Rank Pay Case
seems to have been undone by the MoD in its implementation order of 27 Dec
2012. A disappointing closing to the year 2012. The seven page order is yet to
sink in but exhibits the We v/s They
openly.
Salient and relevant paras / extracts follow:
Para 6. The
sanction of the Govt is hereby communicated to modify the provisions contained
in para 6 (a) (ii) of SAI of 26/5/87, and corresponding instrs in case of Navy
and Air Force bearing no 1/S/87 dt 11/6/87 and 26/5/87 resp, in so far as it
relates to deduction of Rank Pay, which has been reproduced in para 1 above,
and to refix the initial pay of the concerned officers of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force in the revised scale (integrated scale) as on 1/1/86 as per para 6 of
those instrs without deduction of Rank Pay appropriate to the rank held by the
officer on 1/1/86 from the amount as worked out under para 6 (a)(i) thereof.
Para 7. Except to the extent of modification of the
provision contained in para 6 (a)(ii) of the aforesaid Army Instrs and corres……………..,
relating to deduction of Rank Pay in terms of these orders,….in all other
aspects there shall be no change in the provisions of the aforesaid SAI/NAI……
Para 8. …..It is clarified there shall be no change in
respect of SAI’s for implementation of the recommendations of the V, VI CPC
resp, except to the extent of the need for refixation of pay as on 1/1/96 and
1/1/2006, necessitated due to refixation of pay as on 1/1/86 in terms of these
orders.
Para 9. DA, Interim Relief, Dearness Pay, and NPA in respect
of AMC/ADC/RVC officers will be revised.
Para 10. Pensionary benefits due to the refixation of pay as
above, if any, will be admissible as per rules on the subject. Fresh LPC cum
Data Sheet for this purpose will be issued. PPO revising the pension will be
issued to all the concerned.
Para 11. As directed………..interest @ 6% per annum on the
arrears will be paid with effect from 1/1/2006.
Para 12. Undertaking as per Appx A in case of excess payment
by offrs.
Para 15…….The payment will be made directly by
PCDAO/AFCAO/Naval Pay Office.
Sd/- Praveen Kumar Director
(AG.1)
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL
Secy RDOA
82 comments:
My humble and honest recommendations are as follows: -
1. Please read Paras 8, 9, 10 again without pride (Blenders or otherwise) before going to the Hon'ble Supreme Court hearing on UoI/MoD request for extension of IMPLEMENTATION of the order of 4.9.2012.
2. Shri PS Walia, US- CPIO (Pay/Services) has sworn an affidavit quoting the High Powered Committee constituted by MoD that RDOA must enlighten us now, Sputniks or no Sputniks.
3. Legal opinion is available and just as we celebrated (prematurely?) that we won, now is the time to find out and fight with stealth the anti- Armed Forces people who call themselves with different acronyms like PCDA, CGDA, Def Fin et al.
A battle is lost but the war continues.
Our Govt is deaf & dumb. We will have to fight to the last bullet.
After admitting that it affects 5th & 6th cpc, how they can back out.Go ahead we are with u, file a contempt case against the Govt. & person concerned.
Col Pardaman Singh
www.beetelbite.com
Sir,
1. Now that the govt orders have been issued without changing the starting Basic Pay for each rank, (and that too 4 weeks after the stipulated date), what is the bsais on which the starting basic Pay for each rank was fixed by the UoI in the 4th CPC, which has evidently been arrived at after deducting RP and then formulating the running pay scale.
2. The battle till now was on the deduction of RP DURING FIXATION, but should the question not be FOR THE FORMULA USED FOR FIXATION FOR EACH CIV PAY SCALE AND the STARTING BASIC FOR EACH RANK in the running pay scale?
Before we arrive at any fresh conclusions, let there be total clarity as to what the Govt letter actually implies.
I had once seen a discussion in which it was queried whether the current litigation clearly involved the fixation at V CPC also. But the reply received was on the lines that the UOI affidavit had stated as much.
It is anyone's guess whether the affidavit acknowledged the deduction at the time of V cpc would also have to be reversed or was the reference only to the changes that would have to be made on account of the changes in salary pre V cpc caused by the judgement.
For a long time the need for reticence, brevity and lack of details was justified and accepted by all as the matter was ongoing and there was a need not to disturb the apple cart in any way.
Now that the GOI letter is public knowledge, it's detailed implications and effects as well as the future course of action need to be brought out in the open so that fresh ideas can flow freely.
Sir, there never was a bubble. It was excitement that we won a war when we really won a skirmish. The battle has just started and the war comes next.
Let us not forget the Principles of War - whether from the Arthashastra,Sun Tzu, Machiavellior any one else.
From now on, let us stop all the praise, eulogy, laudatory pieces of each and every skirmish. Remember our SITREPS? They were factual and shorn of all decorative words and phrases.
Let us not express our disappointment because the skirmish did not go our way.
Either which way we expose our thought processes and that helps the adversary to counter each move that try to make.
We kept writing about whether 1986 and others or not. We expressed our faith in the additional affidavit but that was signed by the US (Pay Services).
Now, why not let RDOA and its legal team pore over the GoI letter and decide its course of action. RDOA could give us a succinct update without going into legal and technical details, if we are, and we should be, worried about the counter-strategy of the IAS, IDAS lobby.
Happy New Year
Jai Hind
Sir, the main issue which may need a relook is the BASIC PRINCIPLE OF FIXING THE MINIMUM FOR EACH RANK IN THE 4TH CPC, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AFTER repeat AFTER DEDUCTING RANK PAY. the above aspect was discussed in this blog. http://sol-dozdoz.blogspot.in/2012/09/dissecting-v-cpc-pay-fixation-formula.html
@manu69:"..MINIMUM FOR EACH RANK.."; That is a crucial point. Now, it is quite important that details be shared in respect of what the litigation had actually been for. If the thrust was that the deduction of rank pay while fixing the basic pay at the time of IV CPC be reversed, as was done in the case of Maj Dhanapalan, then the UOI letter may indeed have some form of legal validity, because it could be argued that the UOI letter does precisely that.
But, if the litigation records establish that correction is also required in respect of the manner in which the starting stage of each rank was established at the time of IV CPC and that the similar deduction of rank pay at the time of V CPC was also required to be reversed, then it's a separate matter altogether.
Only RDOA can shed light on these issues, as well as on what the next step will be.
We should not Jump The Gun -
To do something too soon, especially without thinking carefully about it
Usage notes: If someone running in a Race Jumps The Gun ~ they start running before the Gun has been Fired to Start the Race ~ there will be inordinate delay in starting the race. First let's consume FIRST LINE AMMUNITION - Let Govt implement their letter dated 27 Dec 2012 - SECOND LINE AMMUNITION can be demanded later....!
Sir, IT IS JUST A JEALOUSY.
In any case , we the veterans have full faith in RDOA and its legal team. In the mean time, the service chiefs also are expected to rise to the occasion and firmly/STRONGLY bring it to the notice of PM and show their willingness to relieve themselves from their posts IMMEDIATELY. EVEN THEIR NUMBER TWOs/AND THREEs SHOULD BE READY FOR SOME SACRIFICES.
THEY SHOULD BE EXPLAINED THAT EVEN THEIR OWN REPUTATION IS AT STAKE.
AFTER ALL TODAY'S SERVING SOLDIERS ARE TOMORROWS VETERANS.WHAT THEY WILL LOSE IF THEY SHOW THEIR SOLIDARITY WITH SOLDIERS?
BY THE BY, HAS THE MOD GOT THE OVER RULING POWER OF THE HON'BLE SC? AND FEW LUNATICS IN MOD WANT TO SHOW OFF THEIR MIGHT AND LEGAL SUPERIORITY OVER EVEN GENERALS/AIR MASHs AND ADMIRALS?
A VERY CHEAP PUBLICITY TACTICS AND I only wish either mamata banerjee or even lalu yadav should have been the RM.
v.sundaresan.
Give this a deep thought
1. Order of 8.3.2010 states, “We have carefully perused the judgment dated 5.10.1998 of the learned Single Judge as well as judgment dated 4.7.2003 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala and we respectfully agree with the reasoning given therein for grant of rank pay retrospectively from 1.1.1986.” Correct?
2. The instant order also quotes Writ Petitions filed in 2006 in different High Courts. Am I reading too much that those were filed during the currency of 5th CPC and therefore a cut-off/eligibility date of Capt to Brig as on 1.1.1986 is incorrect?
3. Couldn’t it be that the litigants said to themselves and their lawyers, “if rank pay was wrongly deducted in 4th CPC, then it is also being wrongly done now (5th CPC), so let us file using the Maj Dhanapalan case as precedent?”
4. Para 2 of the Supreme Court’s order of 4.9.2012 states, “On thoughtful consideration of the entire matter, we are satisfied that the order dated March 8, 2010 does not require any modification or variation…..” It could mean that the reasoning given in 8.3.2010 is also correct.
5. As one reads the Supreme Court’s order of 8.3.2010, one would notice that Sunil Kumar Chand & Ors (petitioners filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 96 of 2009 i.e. after 5th CPC but maybe before 6th CPC. Other Writ Petitions were combined/linked with TP (Civil) 57 of 2007 are WP 34 of 2009 (K.K.Rohatgi & Ors) etc.
6. And, the Supreme Court’s orders of 4.9.2012 mention WP 268 of 2010 (Arun Kumar & others), TP (C) 11 of 2010 (Lt Col PRK Murthy), TP (C) from 14 to 19 of 2010 (Brig PKK Menon & Others Etc, Etc) and many others. When did these litigants become Captains and retire?
6. Interestingly, the Supreme Court only refers to Maj Dhanapalan’s case in the context of payment of interest on the arrears not as a cut off.
7. Nowhere does the Supreme Court order state that only those between the ranks of Capt and Brig on 1.1.1986 and who continued to serve till 1.1.2006 will get the arrears etc.
8. Para 8 of the GoI/MoD letter would make interesting reading if read in conjunction with Para 2, 3 etc. So will pay will be re-fixed as is stated in Para 8 and 9 of the instant letter.
I am ready to be educated on my illogical and irrational thinking.
@Satyam Never Jayate: Are you aware if any of the litigants had actually, specifically, sought a reversal of deduction of rank pay from revised emoluments at the time of V CPC?
I think that's the very least that can be addressed by way of rectification in the Govt. letter. This is what appears to be the case with the Govt.'s interpretation of the judgement as stated by me here.
The following points are very relavant for the case:-
1) the offr commissioned on 1-12-1980 was captian on 1-12-1985 with 5yrs service. his pay as per formula for 4cpc works out more than Rs 2800 with deduction of Rs 200/- it was comming to less than Rs 2800/- and was brought at min. of scale @ rs 2800/- with Rs 200 rp thats why in Dhanpalan's case, amount equalant to rank pay was given (returned) after courts order. when that happened to one offr other offr with 5yrs service as captian after 1-1-86 has to be paid equalant to 5ys captian prior to 4th cpc. Else it would be a anomoly. this implies a requirement of re-definning min. basic for captain to brig. including amount = to RP.
2) There is no increment for the promotion for post 86 commission, as per SAI/sni/safi. ie. 2nd Lt on 1-1-86 fixed at 2300 will naturally reach rs 2800 on completing 5yrs. the rank pay as per court endoresement is in addition to the pay. What kind of pay scale it is without increment for promation. if it is only one running scale then what is the relavance of fixing minimum pay and length of service for each rank, while rank pay was granted to acting promotion much before min. length of service.
The above clearly states that amount equalant to RP is deducted while fixing min. length of service and min. pay for 4th cpc.
Can the court be convinced that their order to pay before 12 wks is desobeyed by babus in mod?
If the Govt. violates the law of land how do u expect commener to follow. can we say there is no law?
Are the defence personnel not the 'sons of soil' don't they desurve justice?
which democracy in the world treats its soilders like we are treated, first by wrong fixation, subsequently by not correcting on proving wrong in a bid to convince for last 15 yrs.
rdoa must take this to the president who is our supreme commander.
@Satpal Sharma
My Dear Sir,
Which world do you live in? You have too HIGH EXPECTATIONS from 'poor' Supreme Cdr. Pls read this to know what our Supreme Cdr is capable of.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-19/news/35912757_1_artefacts-pratibha-patil-trust
Unfortunately, I do not have access to SAI 1/S/87. I had requested participants in the chatroll on Major Navdeep's blog for a link to that document or for a reproduction of it's provisions.
The whole issue relates to specific paras of the SAI and we need to refer to it whilee assessing the effects of the current Govt. letter.
1. Eye opening article by Major General (Retd) Maharaj Singh Bhinder)The Gen has lucidly and concisely brought out the anomaly which started with the 4th cpc. The cases filed by Maj Dhanapalan and others were for individual cases. The SC judgement is also correct. The Govt orders are also correct as they are implementing the judgement of the SC. The crux of the problem has been clearly explained by the Gen.
2. So is the Battle over? NO!!. the RDOA should press contempt notice and bring out the issue of incorrect fitment as brought out by the Gen. the same should be pressed forth when the govt affidavit for 12 weeks extn is heard.
3. A must read for all offrs and veterans http://www.scribd.com/doc/113300324/Denial-of-Rank-Pay-Myth-or-a-Reality
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113300324/Denial-of-Rank-Pay-Myth-or-a-Reality
Sir, Now the RDOA should file contempt notice for:
1) Non implementation in the given time frame.
2) Show the Govt orders and incorrect implementation wrt the aspects brought in the Gen's article.
3) As the intentions of the govt are not right, Ask for penal rate of interest from 86.
4} The amount admissible should be treated as DSOP fund of the offrs as the amounts was rightfully due to them since 1/1/86, which is the least that can be done.
...i think point 4) is most valid claim and should be fought for.however the contempt of court needs to be filed no sooner the court opens after the winter break.happy new year to all veterns present on this blog.
justice delayed is justice denied. There are so many issues now involved- rank pay scale revision with domino effect till incorrect fixation in 6th cpc, OROP, NFFU, Grade Pay, lower pension for pre and post 2006 retirees etc etc.... Each issue is linked to the incorrect pay scale of 4th CPC. The BULL has to be caught by its horns, which is the 4th cpc scale. Fix that and most issues should get sorted. Am i right.
@Satpal Sharma, Which supreme cdr we r talking about , Pratibha Patil, Pranab Mukherjee? Pranab Mukherjee was the chairman of CoM when Lt Col PB IV case was discussed. He was clearly told that rank pay is part of basic pay. Pay scale 14300(V CPC) civil side upgraded to PB IV with GP 8700 where as lt col 15100(13500+1600) given GP 8000. Therefore, supreme cdr is just there to enjoy special privileges like riding fighter, gun salute,etc. We can only expect our dues from Hon'bale SC.
With Best Wishes for the New Year and Due respect to opinions
As the GoI/MoD letter of 27/12/2012 states in para 1 that the Special Instructions of the Army, Navy and Air Force (SAI/SNI/SAFI) of 1987 in Para 6 (a) (ii) ..... “After the existing emoluments have been so increases, an amount equivalent to the Rank Pay, if any ………will be deducted.”
and
In para 3, the letter of 27/12/2012 states “….refixing the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.186 without applying the aforesaid provision contained in para 6 (a) (ii)…………i.e. without deducting the Rank Pay ……
and
In para 6, the same letter states “……………..the sanction of the Government is hereby communicated to modify the provisions contained in para 6 (a) (ii) of the SAI …. Insofar as it relates to deduction of Rank Pay…….and to re-fix the initial pay of the concerned officers of …….in the revised scale (integrated scale)………..as on 1.1.1986 as per para 6 of those instructions without deduction of Rank Pay ………..from the amount worked out under para 6 (a) (i) thereof
and
In para 7 the ibid letter states “……..in all other respects there shall be no change in the provisions of the aforesaid SAI, SNI, SAFI of 1987….”
and
The concluding words of para 8 “………..no change in SAI, SNI and SAFI issued on 19.12.1997 and 11.10.2008 & 18.10.2008………”except to the extent of the need for re-fixation of pay as on 1.1.1986 and 1.1.2006 necessitated due to re-fixation of pay as on 1.1.1986 in terms of these orders.”
and
Paras 9 and 10 speak about the revision of DA, Interim Relief, Dearness Pay and Non-Practising Allowance as well as pensionary benefits, etc.
Does the SAI dated 1998 etc have a similar clause as Para 6 (a) (ii) as those of 1987?
If indeed there is such a clause, then haven’t the concluding words in Para 8 already provided the solution of overruling that i.e. not deducting Rank Pay from the pay scales arrived at and then adding the Rank Pay to the lesser amount?
@Satyam Never Jayate: Para 8 of the GOI letter, in directing that there be no change in instructions issued at time of V CPC, does appear to be contrary to the judgement dated March 2010, which had stated words to the effect that Rank Pay is required to be given retrospectively from 1-1-86. Whether there was any stipulation that it applied to fixation only at the time of IV CPC, can be clarified only by RDOA.
At the time of V CPC the new rank pay was deducted from revised emoluments and only the old rank pay was added. In effect, apparently, the difference between the old and new rank pays was deducted from the revised emoluments at the time of V CPC. Details
here .
@Satyam Never Jayate:
1. Sir, Para 8 is the crux and the catch words are "....necessitated due to re-fixation of pay as on 1.1.1986 in terms of these orders.”
2. Hence, refixation will be carried out only for those whose pay is refixed as on 1/1/86, i.e capt to brig on 1/1/86.
3. unless specific orders for 1/1/96 are issued by govt, we get nothing.
4. THE BIGGEST FLAW WHICH IS UNDER QUESTION IS THE BASIS AND FORMULA ADOPTED FOR FIXING THE MINIMUM START FOR EACH RANK FROM LT TO BRIG and not rpt not the deduction of rank pay, which was questioned by maj Dhanapalan in his indl case.
5. This can only be resolved if the govt is asked to produce a comparative table for civ scales and AF scales for each rank. THE RUNNING PAY SCALES SHOULD BE KEPT ASIDE FOR LATER. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS AS TO HOW THE MINIMUM FOR EACH HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT. Then give the running pay scale and incentive in form of rank pay.
@Sunlit and Manu69,
The starting point of Rank Pay was 1.1.1986. Therefore, shouldn't it be re-fixed from that date, whether "as on" of "w.e.f from" being semantics?
Second point is, and this is for discussion of the issue at hand and not whether I am from Armed Forces (which I am) or not is: - presume that GoI/MoD had made the date of filing the case by Maj Dhanapalan in 1996 as the starting point. Then everyone in 4th CPC would have lost 10 years of arrears.
Third, I am not sure but am I understanding that only those Capts, Majors, Lt Cols, Cols and Brig as on 1.1.1986 will get rank pay arrears? It cannot be because what happens to Lts promoted to Capts, Majors etc promoted to next higher rank thru Brig - will they get the rank pay of the (lower) rank they held on 1.1.1986?
Fourth, if we take para 8 in totality, it says that no changes in SAI of 1987 except where re-fixation has been made in compliance with Orders of the Honourable Supreme Court i.e.from 1.1.1986.Isn't that what we want - re-fix a salary of Capt worked out in 1987 say Rs 3100 by (1) adding the amount of rank pay deducted bringing it to Rs 3300 as being given to civil counterpart and (2) further add/pay separately the rank pay making it Rs 3500, which is what was intended by the Govt in 1987? Now apply 5th CPC scales by correcting them the same way as is being directed to be done for the 4th CPC?
Fifth, since I have not seen the SAI of 1996, I guess that Para 6 (the reinstatement of original amount without deducting rank pay)also applies for 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006.
I am unable to figure out the complicated mathematics and graphics of sunlit so I have stated myself simply.
@Satyam Never Jayate: The graphics are simple enough.
If the payscale is retained as it was, and as supposedly the GOI letter dictates, then the revised basic pays of all serving Officers as on 01 Jan 86, with minimum serve in that rank, would have to be as shown in that chart.
Provided, of course, the rank stages in the payscale are not invoked by MOD for the purpose of fixation as well.
Fifth Pay Commission - Part VIII Section II – Pay Scales Armed Forces
Para 145.6 – The Fourth CPC took note of the conditions of service determining the compensation package and due consideration was given to the truncated career, rigid discipline, code, frequent moves etc…… As regards officers, the Fourth CPC felt that the pay structure should be such that it made the armed forces attractive as a career and provided a reasonable pay progression to the officers of the services.
Para 147 – Pay Structure for Officers
147.28 – Comparison with Civilians – In order to properly appreciate the demands relating to pay structure, we thought it worthwhile to go into the principles adopted by earlier Pay Commissions with regard to formulation of pay scales of service officers. At the of the Post-War Pay Committee, Service pays generally equalled civilian class-I pays and a specific equation was established with officers of the Indian Police Service. The Raghuramaiah Committee which was appointed after the Second Pay Commission continued the accepted parallel between Defence Service officers and class I service of the Central Government, particularly the IPS. While stating that the IPS was perhaps the closest civilian analogue to officers of the infantry, the Third CPC, considering the demand of the Armed Forces to be equated to the IAS, noted the multifunctional character of the officer cadre and diversity of functions of various occupational groups and felt that to equate them with a single service would be a defective approach. In their opinion, a comparison with the conglomerate of class-I Civil Services was more reasonable. The Fourth CPC, accepting the organisational structure and requirements of services are different, provided compensation in the nature of pay scales itself.
147.35 – Recommended Pay Scales
Rs
Lieutenant 8250- 300 – 10050
Captain 9600 – 300- 11400
Major 11600- 325-14850
Lt Colonel 13500 – 400 – 17100
Colonel 15100 – 450 – 17350
Brigadier 15350 – 450 – 17600
In addition, the following rank pay may be granted
Rank Pay Rs
Captain 400
Major 1200
Lt Col 1600
Col 2000
Brig 2400
148.2 Our recommendations – We have deliberated over the manner in which service pays should be fixed and in order to ensure equality of treatment suggest that the method of fixation of pay on revision recommended for civilian employees may also be adopted for service personnel. For Service Officers up to the rank of Brigadier who are to be brought on to regular scales of pay from the existing integrated scale, we suggest that for fixation of pay the existing rank pay maybe be taken into account but pay in revised scales be fixed after deducting the revised amount of rank pay.
Illustration No.1
1. Rank: - Major
2. Pay + Rank pay (Rs 3400+600)= Rs 4000
3. Stage in the scale 1st stage
4. DA at index avg 1510 + interim relief Rs 5680
5. Existing emoluments Rs 9680
6. Add 20% of Pay +Rank Pay Rs 800
7.Total Rs 10480
8. Pay after deducting revised Rs 9280 + Rank pay of Rs 1200
9. Pay in Revised scale Rs 11600 + Rs 1200 Rank Pay
Illustration No 2
1.Rank Lt Colonel
2. Pay + Rank pay (Rs 4500+ 800)= Rs 5300
3. Stage in the scale 7th stage
4. DA at index avg 1510 + interim relief Rs 6513
5. Existing emoluments Rs 11813
6. Add 20% of Pay+Rank Pay Rs 1060
7. Total Rs 12873
8. Pay after deducting revised Rs 11173
Rank pay of Rs 1600
9. Pay in Revised scale Rs 13900 + Rs 1600 Rank Pay
Illustration No.3
1. Rank Colonel
2. Pay + Rank pay (Rs 5100 + 1000)Rs 6100
3. Stage in the scale 5th stage
4. DA at index avg 1510 + interim relief Rs 7370
5. Existing emoluments Rs 13470
6. Add 20% of Pay+Rank pay Rs 1220
7. Total Rs 14690
8. Pay after deducting revised Rs 12690
Rank pay of Rs 2000
9. Pay in Revised scale Rs 15550 + Rs 2000 Rank Pay
For information
(b) Fg Offr 8250-300-10050 Nil
(c) Flt Lt 9600-300-11400 400
(d) Sqn Ldr 11600-325-14850 1200
(e) Wg Cdr(TS)13500-400-17100 1200
(f) Wg Cdr(Sel Gde)13500-400-17100 1600
(g) Gp Capt 15100-450-17350 2000
(h) Air Cmde 16700-450-18050 2400
(j) AVM 18400-500-22400
6. Merger of Rank Pay with the Pay Scales: - Govt has redefined the Rank Pay keeping in view the difficulties being faced by the officers with regard to interpretation of Rank Pay. The Rank Pay is defined as follows:-
“Rank Pay is admissible to the Commissioned Officers of the three Services, holding their rank either in a substantive or acting capacity. It is that element of their pay identified with their Rank, which, in turn, has a relationship with their scale of pay. It is granted separately in recognition of the specific needs of their conditions of service and command structure. 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.”
Auth :- Govt of India MoD letter No 1(26)/97/I/D(Pay/Services) dated 29 Feb 2000.
@ Satyam Never Jayate. Sir ref your post December 30, 2012 10:47 PM. @ old man time: sir your December 31, 2012 12:52 AM
1. in lieu of the 6 page confusing letter as issued by the MoD, a simple 2 line amendment would have been suitable-" Ref Para 5(a)(ii)for '--rank pay wiil be deducted read ---rank pay will not be deducted".
2. but this was not the issue. The issue has been fixing of 2/lt pay at 2300, lt at 2500, capt at 2800, maj at --- etc. the formula applied for determining civ scales should have been applied for fixing the minimum for each rank.
3. The pay commission RECOMMENDATIONS was being QUOTED AS AUTH in Maj Dhanapalans case which was not accepted by kerala HC. Statutory orders issued by GoI was ordered to be implemented.
Now this is where the formula applied for determining starting pay for each rank has deducted the rank pay. the same is in the graphics by sunlit.
1. If we forget the confusion of Rank Pay and the running pay scale of 4th cpc, what would have been the starting pay for each rank from 3rd to 4th cpc by applying the formula as was applied for civil employees.
2. if the govt feels that by incl the clause of 'Rank Pay forms part of basic pay" the scales are getting distorted, let an amdt be issued and give rank pay in addition to the Basic Pay to cater for the hardships and different working environment and MAINLY AS IN 5TH CPC PARA 14.6 "--such that it made the armed forces attractive as a career and provided a reasonable pay progression to the officers of the services"
1(26)/97/I/D(Pay/Services)
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi-110 011, dated the 29th February, 2000.
To
The Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi.
The Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi.
The Chief of the Naval Staff, New Delhi.
Subject : Removal of anomalies arising from the implementation of the revised pay scales and allowances consequent to the V CPC recommendations – definition of Rank Pay – reg.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to Instructions No. SAI, SNI and SAFI No. 2/S/98 dated
19.12.1997 and to state that the issue of merger of Rank Pay with the pay scales of the
Defence Service officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent has since been reconsidered by the Government in the light of the recommendations of a Committee specially constituted on the above subject and in view of the fact that the Rank Pay cannot be merged with the pay scales for the Defence Service officers and also keeping in view the difficulties being faced by the Defence Service officers with regard to interpretation of Rank Pay, it is clarified that :
"Rank Pay is admissible to the Commissioned Officers of the three Services,
holding their rank either in a substantive or acting capacity. It is that element of their pay
identified with their Rank, which, in turn, has a relationship with their scale of pay. It is
granted separately in recognition of the specific needs of their conditions of service and
command structure. 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."
3. The Army/Navy/Air Force Instructions would be amended accordingly.
4. This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Defence (Fin) vide their U.O.No.
1/77/99-PA dated 23.2.2000.
Yours faithfully.
Sd/- x x x x x x
(RK Grover)
Under Secretary to the Government of India.
Please check
http://indianairforce.nic.in/RTI/law.pdf
It has the SAI 2/S/98 and should answer many questions.
RDOA will have its hands full.
Honourable Supreme Court reconvenes tomorrow 2nd January 2013 as per the calendar of the website.
Let us take a hypothetical example:-
Capt X promoted to the rank of Capt on 31 Dec 1985 or 01 Jan 1986.
- Basic pay will fixed at Rs 3000/-, as per present govt orders.
Capt Y promoted to the rank of Capt on 02 Jan 1986.
- Basic pay will remain at Rs 2800/-, as per present govt orders.
Now, the difference of Rs 200/- plus allied allowances for the difference in seniority of ONE DAY in the rank of Capt ! ! !
For the higher ranks of Maj, Lt Col, Col & Brig, the differences are Rs 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 respectively, just for the difference in seniority of one day.
Babus say TAKE IT OR LUMP IT !!!
@kanmani_in: That is precisely the sort of anomaly I have attempted to include in this list .
Dear Brotherens,
Capt. with 5yrs service as on 31-12-85 was as below as per 3rd cpc.
Basic Pay = Rs 1300
DA = Rs 243
ADA = Rs 1207
IR- I&II = Rs 200
Total = Rs 2950
Add 20% BP= Rs 260
Total = Rs 3210
Post Dhanpalan case the minimum basic pay for 5 yrs Capt. as per Army instruction?spl/87 is SUPPOSE TO BE RS 3300 and RANK PAY RS 200.
Where as as per SAI which is not ammended by recent govt. order to the extent of 5yrs Capt. min. basic to rs 3300 and so on for other ranks is a major anomoly defiying the court order in "D" case.
I still think we should take it to:
1)our President who is our supreme commander and concerened with our welfare.
2) our PM who has spl regards for we ex-servicemen.
3) Hon. R Gandhi, our would be PM n great symphatiser for we defence people.
4) our RM who had always been thinking good of we defence personnel.
5) Up course our defence secretary n MOF sec. who are proactive to our problems and ever ready to solve them.
friends i have full faith in them. see within 3 months all of us will be paid full of our dues.
@Satpal Sharma, God bless you, whichever organisation you were in or are in.
The entities that you named have done exactly what you write - thought of the Armed Forces. But you have not written have they done something?
When was it you last heard or read about them saying and then MOST IMPORTANT, doing something to alleviate problems?
6 CPC anomalies still persist; NFFU for Armed Forces has been buried under the musty carpets of North and South blocks; the OROP has been diluted; Rank Pay order of the Apex Court has not been complied with within the assured time-frame?
I have seen something positive done only twice in last 45 years - late PM Rajiv Gandhi decided on and implemented the gallantry awards (Yudh Seva series) and Rank Pay.
It has taken 9 years for Maj Dhanapalan and 6 years of RDOA's strenuous efforts for this Govt - which has late PM Rajiv Gandhi's wife as the Chairperson - to give us very reluctantly and stingily. It tried everything in its books to stop giving us what the late PM had approved, even submitting in Court that only the Solicitor General will represent it. Then it has reneged on the second top-most law officer's statement of assurance of completion of payment within 12 weeks.
Even when it did issue a GoI letter after 16 weeks, the Govt has forgotten that solemnly sworn additional affidavit's Para 30 of why it would take "strenuous" efforts to implement the Court's order of 8.3.2010 by confining the scope to "those in service on 1.1.1986" wording that is not there in the Court's orders either of 8.3.2010 or of 4.9.2012.
And 3 more months i.e. 12 weeks extension for compliance, which the UoI has applied for?
Jai Hind
@Satpal Sharma
Sharma Sa'ab,
Wah, tusin really great hon!
Yeah, pls take the matter up with Mukherjeeji, Soniaji, Rahulji, Manmohanji, Antonyji, Shashikant(Sharma)ji, RS Gujral(Secy,Expdr)ji....
The above list is by no means exhaustive. Pls add more jis as you like and get all the anomalies resolved at one go. All AFs members/veterans will be blessing you for all their lives and your stature would be even BIGGER than Maj Dhanpalan's.
PLEASE START YOUR CAMPAIGN POST-HASTE, Sir!
Dear Brotherens,
What makes the burocracy the supreme? pl read the following statement:
"Write the statement in Instructions (policies) in sucha a way, one statement contradict/complement/co-relate/consfuse with other sentence in the paragraph leading to one or more meanning-- so that when u say half glass full he says half glass empty and vice-versa-- the debate continues, then it is taken over by thier n our childrens in all together new tone n tennure"
'NOT CONVINCED'
pl go through the language in SAI 1/S/87.
another intresting point worth consideration:-
3rd CPC emoluments for 2nd Lt. as on 31-12-1985 (Date of commission 01-12-1995):-
Basic Pay (initial fix) Rs 850/-
DA (@272 points) Rs 243/-
ADA (@608 points) Rs 1207/-
IR (I&II) Rs 155/-
total as on 31/12/85 Rs 2455/-
FOR FITMENT ADD 20% OF BASIC PAY (850)para 6(a)of SAI 1/S/87Rs 170/-
Basic pay as on 01-01-86 is suppose to be Rs 2625/- and as per formula it would be Rs 2700/-
POINT TO NOTE:- THE DEFECTIVE SCALE IN 4TH CPC FOR AFs:- SEE BELOW;
Date of Commission Total Emolm.
01-12- to 31-12-85 Rs 2625/-
01-01-1986 Rs 2300/-
Gap 1 to 30 days Rs (-) 325/-
I am sure when my brotherens take up the matter with our supreme commanders or our head (RM) or King / Queen maker or king / queen or FM or Hon. PM or secretaries and officeals the matter would be resolved as they always have / shown great respect n sensitivity to we AF personnels and to law of the land at all time.
jai hind.
PCDA(O)will make payment of arrears to the serving Army officers, affected with the above judgement, with the salary for Jan 2013. In case of affected officers retired from service, payment of arrears will be made from first week of Feb 2013onwards, after the requisite details of bankers, PAN,PPO and address etc. after due verification. In cases where there is a change in pay on the date of retirement, due to the pay revision as per the judgement, the revised pay details will be intimated, within one month of payment of arrears, to PCDA(P) Allahabad for issue of revised PPO.
COL PARDAMAN SINGH
RDOA feed back on GOI letter is absolutely correct and fine ( with in 24 hrs ). Yeah , gather all the ideas ,info , responses from those implementing agencies and adopt a strategy and action. Having read all,
1 .We have in hand Highest court order . it is great and can be used effectively.
2.Some of the comments are very informative and intellegent feed back. Read through and take the useful pts. SUNLIT .... etc are good at analytical charts .
3. Remember,that there is no validity of Min of int pay in that scale for rks. It is invalid and redundent ,since it violates the fundamental rule and principle of integrated pay scale as enunciated by pay com and approved by CABINET of GOI.
4.SUNLIT only,pse acceses 1/s/ 87 and give a reading. With your level of analysis and intellect, your inputs would be of great help for the cause.
5.MOD is not GOD ALMIGHTY.They would be corrected and can be dealt with.They are only part of GOI . So is ARMED FORCES .WE HAVE TO ACT UPON .The highest court has given in hand that order and judgement.It is for ARMED FORCES to get. Therefore ,go about on diverse fronts and approaches by one and all.....DERIVE AND/or TAKE.
6. remember that sai 1/s /87 is consequence of 4th CPC and cabinet approvals there upon. therefore any violations or negations of CPC approvals in that SAI stand modified ,perticularly in the light of court judgement.
@SATPAL SHARMA, Now you have understood the SHAFT WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN SINCE 1/1/86.
2. Now carry out fitment with the Basic Pay arrived at as for 5th CPC and see the SHAFT AGAIN.
3. if the starting basic for each rank is not amended as on 1/1/86, the cascading effect will continue till date and see the difference for WE and for THEY.
4. Moreover the chatroll in Navdeeps Blog has just educated us that 1995 batch IPS is an Inspector Gen with GP 10000.
5. See where WE are and where THEY have reached.
6. Now that the iron is hot WE need to strike the hammer.
RDOA feed back on GOI letter is absolutely correct and fine ( with in 24 hrs ). Yeah , gather all the ideas ,info , responses from those implementing agencies and adopt a strategy and action. Having read all,
1 .We have in hand Highest court order . it is great and can be used effectively.
2.Some of the comments are very informative and intellegent feed back. Read through and take the useful pts. SUNLIT .... etc are good at analytical charts .
3. Remember,that there is no validity of Min of int pay in that scale for rks. It is invalid and redundent ,since it violates the fundamental rule and principle of integrated pay scale as enunciated by pay com and approved by CABINET of GOI.
4.SUNLIT only,pse acceses 1/s/ 87 and give a reading. With your level of analysis and intellect, your inputs would be of great help for the cause.
5.MOD is not GOD ALMIGHTY.They would be corrected and can be dealt with.They are only part of GOI . So is ARMED FORCES .WE HAVE TO ACT UPON .The highest court has given in hand that order and judgement.It is for ARMED FORCES to get. Therefore ,go about on diverse fronts and approaches by one and all.....DERIVE AND/or TAKE.
@Bala:Thank you for the vote of confidence. I am merely trying to arrive at reasonable guesses as to where matters stand. I'm trying to get hold of 1/S/87. Let's see if that yields any enlightenment. But the best bet is for RDOA to clarify doubts. But we need to be patient. If there are any follow up processes required to be gone through, I'm sure RDOA would be currently busy with those.
@Satpal Sharma,
Calculations are fine but there isn't a 2nd Lt rank in Fifth Pay Commission. Please see Part 7 of 5 CPC Recommendations and SAI 2/S/98.
IMPLEMENTAION OF RANK PAY ORDER ( by Gp Capt(Retd) U R Dabir, VM)
The rank pay implementation order issued by the Govt on 27-12-2012 only amends the instructions issued to the three services for implementation of fourth pay commission for serving officers, to give effect to the SC orders. These orders have only been addressed to the three service chiefs and not to the PCDA(Pensions). Separate orders will be issued to them for pension provisions as given in fourth and subsequent pay commissions.
Fourth pay commission has a modified pension parity provision where an officer will be given pension of 50% of the minimum pay of rank. As such, all pre-1986 retirees will be entitled to increased pension after re-fixation as per the SC order. A separate PPO is not necessary for such increase in pension and an appropriate circular is expected to be issued by PCDA(Pension) in due course giving the pension entitlement of each rank based on the number of years of service rendered. This inference is also borne out from the fact that the Govt implementation orders only provide for Data Sheet/ LPC to be provided to pension authority and does not make any mention about pension provisions in respect of those who were in service as on 01-01-1986.
Since all other provisions of the Instructions referred to in the Govt orders are applicable to serving officers of various categories and ranks these, will not be applicable to retired officers, as such DGL framed by the three services based on these instruction will cease to operate after retirement.
The Govt order does mention that all improvements based on SC order be used to re-fix pay as per per Fifth and Sixth pay commissions, as such, pay scales of only serving officers will be modified. As per the modified pension parity principle followed by fourth and fifth pay commissions all pensions would be increased.
Sixth pay commission pensions were based on minimum of pay band till Sep 2012 when the RM changed the same to minimum of the pay in pay band for a particular rank, restoring modified parity in true sense. Hopefully the same will be restored from 01-01-2006 in due course.
thanks for the most valuable information put by the learned members. i have just gone through a link which gives better preview of the case and is the latest one in the series. please follow this....http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/defence-accounts/rank-pay-from-01-01-1986-honble-supreme-court-order.html
I am unable to comprehand as to how the order dated 27-12-12 by UOI is going to be implemented just by amending para 6(a)(ii) to SAI 1/S/87 only and by not amending the scale of pay Rs 2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB-150-5100 and min. pay and completed year of service in para 6.
Please see below.
Offr as Brig. for 2 yrs as on 31-12-85 has BP-2400 = ada 1450 = ad-hoc da 786 = ir 340 total works out to Rs 4972 with 20% basic pay addition in revised scale (i.e. Rs 480) he is to be fixed above Rs 5100 (i.e. at Rs 5452 or above).
where as there is nothing in the scale above Rs 5100. How he will be fixed?. will he be stagnating the year he becomes Brig. in 4th cpc?
can any one clear my doubt?
Is the order applicable for officers commissioned after 1.1.86?
@Sehri Babu
Hey Bhagwaan.....Sari raat Ramayan parhi.... :(
@Satpal Sharma
Sir,
Pls don't worry unnecessarily as (Pranab)Mukherjeeji, Soniaji, Rahulji, Manmohanji, Antonyji, Shashikant(Sharma)ji, RS Gujralji....and other jis WILL surely find a way to 'fix' brigs!
@Ujwal dabir:"..as such, pay scales of only serving officers will be modified.."; That's another one of those misleading statements plaguing readers of blogs.
"Serving" when?
I guess what you meant was Officers who were serving when the pay fixation took place.
Those Officers need not be serving now for the Govt. letter to be applicable to them.
@SATPAL SHARMA: "...I am unable to comprehand..."
The matter of payscale has been touched upon several times in the past.
Let us consider the case of Maj Dhanapalan. How was the deduction reversed in his case?
I don't think there was any change in payscale involved.
Instead, his basic pay was refixed with the revised emoluments without a deduction of rank pay.
I also feel, his basic pay was refixed at a level higher than the one specified by the scale for the number of years of service he had at the time.
It would have been something like being given extra increments but keeping the scale the same.
The whole process could have been something like the one speculated about in this blog post.
RDOA may like to throw some light on the matter.
None can revise the 5 CPC and 6 CPC Pay scales - except the Cabinet, a proposition which is very difficult.NO COURT WOULD ORDER RESTRUCTURING OF CPC RECOMMENDED PAY SCALES! I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE SAME.Solitary exception / much out of the way- was the GLARING/ DARING creation of the S30 (Addl Secretary equals)/ Lt Gens Pay Scale of 6 CPC - that too happened because of the delegation of pre 2006 affected S30 Reirees led by a TOP VIP RANKING NATIONAL LEVEL OFFICIAL and the then MOS PP making a spl reco to Cab Sec- who in turn went out to incorporate the issue as a agenda item in the First HP OROP Com under the c/manship of then Cab Sec. Rest is known to all!
At best fixations can be expected in the respective pay scales keeping in view the pre-revised pay scale/ increments drawn, fitment that was applied earlier without rank pay.
(My views pl. Not to displease any one)
Sir,
I intended to drive home the point that
"Since the total emoluments of 3rd CPC form the basis for integrated pay scale in 4th cpc, and such total emoluments (as on 31-12-1985) for just commissioned 2n Lt. (as on 31-12-85 and 01-01-86) and Brig. with 2yrs in Brig. rank (as on 31-12-85) cannot be accomodated in the 4th CPC integrated scale, post implementation of court case WITHOUT AMMENDING THE INTEGRATED PAY SCALES AND THE MIN. PAY N NO. OF YRS SERVICE FOR EACH RANK VIDE PARA C OF SAI/1/S/87."
i.e. in my openion court order makes post 1-01-86 commissioned officer eligible for pay upgrade to extent of rank pay in 4-5-n-6 CPC due to requirement of changing the scale which was erred while making SAI.
Kindly correct me if i am wrong.
Regards....
Mr Natarajan,
"(My views pl. Not to displease any one)"
I really liked your disclaimer. But then I had thought that everyone was giving out his views only. ;-p
Anyway, what you have stated in your comment has a lot of merit BUT pls do have a look at the following link (it may well turn out to be an 'education'). And we all thought CABINET IS SUPREME!
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?238633
Even this link may be gone through to revisit old wounds (which STILL stay unhealed). And pls don't miss out on the comments at the end.
http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2008/10/05/shekhar-gupta-is-right/
Another Aphorism : The more things change, the more they stay the same!
RELIEF UNDER 89(1) of INCOME TAX ACT : for RANK PAY ARREARS
Dear RDOA,
Now that the Rank Pay Arrears are being paid as per pcda(o) wesite wef end January 2013, somebody has to take up with pcda(o) to provide relief under 89(1) while deducting TDS ~ other wise there will be HUGE TDS DEDUCTED by PCDA(O) while PAYING RANK PAY ARREARS.
Can you please take up this matter with pcda(o) ~ as you’re the Light bearer of all Veterans….
Thanks a lot for everything……
http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/questionbank.htm#K131
Q 83 Are arrears of salary taxable?
A83 Yes. However certain benefit of spread over of income to the years to which it relates can be availed for lower incidence of tax. This is called relief u/s 89(1) of Income-tax Ac
Q84. Can my employer consider relief u/s 89(1) for the purposes of calculating my tax liability?
A84. Yes.
SECTION 89 RELIEF WHEN SALARY ETC., IS
PAID IN ARREARS OR IN ADVANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
628. Scope of relief under the section in five situations explained
1. Section 89(1) authorises grant of relief in a case where an employee receives salary in arrears or in advance or has received in any financial year salary for more than twelve months, a payment which under the provisions of section 17(3)(ii) is a profit in lieu of salary. The effect of such increase is that the income will be assessed at a higher rate than it otherwise would have been assessed and it is for this reason that section 89(1) authorises relief to be allowed. The relief is to be allowed in terms of rule 21A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
2. Rule 21A(1) enumerates the following five different situations wherein the assessees will be entitled to relief (four of these are specific situations while the fifth is a residuary one) :
a. salary being received in arrears or advance;
b. where the payment is in the nature of gratuity in respect of past services extending over a period of not less than five years is received;
c. where the payment is in the nature of compensation received by the employee from his employer or former employer at or in connection with termination of his employment after continuous service of not less than three years and where the unexpired portion of the term of employment is also not less than three years;
d. where the payment is in the nature of commutation of pension;
e. where the payment is not covered by the description given in (a) to (d) above.
The relief is to be worked out in the first four situations in accordance with the specific modes described in rule 21A (2)(a) to (d).
3. The authority to grant relief in the four specific cases is the Income-tax Officer assessing the employee. In the residuary case, it is Central Board of Direct Taxes.
4. The relief under section 89(1) is to be given in the assessment in which the extra payment by way of arrears, advance, etc., is taxed. The mode of granting relief spelt out in rule 21A(2) to 21A(5) would show that in all the four different cases the exercise of giving relief is initiated by bringing to tax the whole of the extra amount in the assessment for the assessment year relevant to the year of receipt. Basically, the relief under section 89(1) is arithmetical. It involves finding out of two rates of tax. The first is the rate of tax applicable to the total income including the extra amount in the year of receipt. The second is finding out the rate by adding the arrears to the total income of the years to which they relate. For this purpose the assessee should be asked for a true and authentic statement of the total income of the earlier years to which the arrears pertain There is no warrant for issuing a notice under section 148 or calling for returns of income of the earlier years.
Circular : No. 331 [F. No. 174/102/79-IT(A-I)], dated 22-3-1982.
@Red Indian Cowboy.
Sir,
Pls be mentally prepared to lose approximately 1/3rd (30% tax + Education Cess) of the arrears.
PCDA(O) or (P) would be only too happy to effect IT deduction to prove that we just can't have it enough, anyway!
At the end whatever would be left in hand would surely make people question, " Was this the BONANZA which one had hoped to get?"
Sir,
I intended to drive home the point that
"Since the total emoluments of 3rd CPC form the basis for integrated pay scale in 4th cpc, and such total emoluments (as on 31-12-1985) for just commissioned 2n Lt. (as on 31-12-85 and 01-01-86) and Brig. with 2yrs in Brig. rank (as on 31-12-85) cannot be accomodated in the 4th CPC integrated scale, post implementation of court case WITHOUT AMMENDING THE INTEGRATED PAY SCALES AND THE MIN. PAY N NO. OF YRS SERVICE FOR EACH RANK VIDE PARA C OF SAI/1/S/87."
i.e. in my openion court order makes post 1-01-86 commissioned officer eligible for pay upgrade to extent of rank pay in 4-5-n-6 CPC due to requirement of changing the scale which was erred while making SAI.
Kindly correct me if i am wrong.
Regards....
1. Once Rank Pay is added, DA which is a certain percent of Basic+Rank Pay will also be revised - there will be rank pay arrears & DA arrears every month.
2. As per the officer's growth in rank, both components will increase and accumulate.
3. The total of Rank Pay Arrears + DA Arrears become eligible for 6% interest wer 01 Jan 2006.
4. At retirement, leave encashment, DCRG and Pension fixation took place, which are all linked to last pay drawn; all these will have arrear components, which also become due for 6% interest wef 01 Jan 2006 AS A CONSEQUENCE OF RANK PAY CORRECTION AS PER SUPREME COURT RULING.
5. Arrears of Pension, Commutation Balance (difference of what should have been and what was actually given) also become eligible for pension AS A CONSEQUENCE OF RANK PAY CORRECTION AS PER SUPREME COURT RULING.
6 If any disability pension was granted, that too (with DA arrears thereof) becomes eligible for 6% interest wef 2006.
7. I can only hope that all this will come through without the need for another Supreme Court battle.
Brig (Retd) S Sreeramulu
09676629797
1. Once Rank Pay is added, DA which is a certain percent of Basic+Rank Pay will also be revised - there will be rank pay arrears & DA arrears every month.
2. As per the officer's growth in rank, both components will increase and accumulate.
3. The total of Rank Pay Arrears + DA Arrears become eligible for 6% interest wer 01 Jan 2006.
4. At retirement, leave encashment, DCRG and Pension fixation took place, which are all linked to last pay drawn; all these will have arrear components, which also become due for 6% interest wef 01 Jan 2006 AS A CONSEQUENCE OF RANK PAY CORRECTION AS PER SUPREME COURT RULING.
5. Arrears of Pension, Commutation Balance (difference of what should have been and what was actually given) also become eligible for pension AS A CONSEQUENCE OF RANK PAY CORRECTION AS PER SUPREME COURT RULING.
6 If any disability pension was granted, that too (with DA arrears thereof) becomes eligible for 6% interest wef 2006.
7. I can only hope that all this will come through without the need for another Supreme Court battle.
Brig (Retd) S Sreeramulu
09676629797
With due respects@Harry, the editor also mentioned that the best credential he could offer for his being impartial was construction of a war memorial! A retd defence officer had countered that with asking why that amount wasted on yet another war memorial (on which the pigeons roost, even today) could not have been spent on indigent widows of armed forces personnel. Of course the editor did not respond, either because the truth hurt or because he cannot walk his talk.
Dear commentators, after my anger, rage, frustration, even despair about the "with effect from" and "as on" controversy, I read both the Nov/2012 and Dec/2012 letters.
The Nov letter states w.e.f 1.1.1986 whereas the Dec letter, perhaps with the wisdom of those who approved it, states as on 1.1.1986.
The last part of Para 8 of the impugned letter of 27.12.2012 also states "for implementation of the recommendations of the 5th and 6th CPC respectively, except to the extent of the need for re-fixation of pay as on 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006, necessitated due to re-fixation of pay as on 1.1.1986 in terms of these orders."
Can some one give a dispassionate view of whether it is a bonanza or a hollow bone/rotten vegetable that we can expect?
This is an input. Others could analyze and offer corrections if required.
Even if the initial basic pay gets revised at the time of V CPC due to revision of IV CPC basic pay, for pre VI CPC Lt Col retirees it would not result in any enhancement of pension if they had already reached top of the V CPC Lt Col scale at 17100/-. Many of the Lt Col retirees would fall in this category.
Another effect of non amendment of pay-scales.
There is a rider to the previous comment. There may not be an effect on the pensions of V CPC Lt Col retirees at the BP of 17100/- who retired pre VI CPC for the period between retirement and 01 Jan 2006. I don't think there was any stagnation increment in that payscale.
Thereafter the pension may get raised if minimum pension gets raised for the rank post VI CPC as a result of the verdict.
I think we ought to give some time to RDOA for updating everyone as to where the issue stands currently, whether modifications of provisions of the Govt. letter are anticipated or whether corrigenda to the instructions already issued would be obtained through subsequent processes.
I don't think one ought to tax oneself too much by agonising over details which may still be in the oven and not fully ready yet.
Was reading article "Give Us That Rope" by Sidharth Bhatia in Outlook.
Then I compared how many newspapers had blown (up?) the trumpet after the Supreme Court's judgment on 8.3.2010 and after the Court upheld the same on 4.9.2012.
Guess our media loves the poor Armed Forces and gives more column space and eyeballs for Mohan Bhagwat's (stand up comedy) remarks and Kailash Vijayvargia tragic "Sita crossed the laksman rekha and so Ravana abducted her" sanctimoniousness. The kind of treatment that Armed Forces get from the MoD invites instituting a fast track court to try the people in MoD (Def Fin) and MoF (Exp).
Surprising that defence commentators like Shiv Aroor, Ajai Shukla etc are quiet on this aspect.
Sehri Babu....pl follow the following links for complete answer to your question.(1).http://airforcechat.wordpress.com/tag/rdoa/
(2).http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/defence-accounts/rank-pay-from-01-01-1986-honble-supreme-court-order.html
Sir,
All these while, we had beenhopping n celebrating restoration of our honor at least by the Hon. SC and HC Trivendram. but ever since RDOA published about the way 'bubble was bust' on 28-12-12, in lay mans language i would like to know:-
1) Whether offr commissionned after 01-01-1986, would get their honor in the form of increase in pay equalant to RP got after 01-1-86?
2) If the answer is NO as can be seen in main letter, has the RDOA filed the CONTEMPT SUIT for:
(a) not paying arrears to those eligiable as per mod, before 26 Dec 12 (12wks from order) (as our due is denayed just using the prhases in judgement, it should be both ways not what suits one)
(b) denaying the legtimate due occured due SC judgement of paying amount equal to RP in addition after all hearing.
(c) mental harrasment by delebrate miss-intrapation of intent of order and inflicting financial injury apart from hearting the dignity of those who gave thier youth for the protection of the wrolds largest democracy.
AT LEAST RDOA MUST CLARIFY THEIR COURSE OF ACTION AS IT IS NOW OR NEVER.
In addition to the UOI Affidavits to the Hon'ble SC,even the GoI MoD letter dt 26 Nov 12 addressed to Chief of Army, Air & Naval Staff and copy to Director,TRIPAS for preparing DGL also states 'WEF 1-1-86'. Whereas the final Order dt 27 Dec 12 says 'as on 1-1-86'. Surely RDOA will not miss this point now.
@chowpc and others, would be quite interesting how w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in Def/Fin Dy no. 5555/FA/DS dated 23.11.2012 changed to "as on 1.1.1986" in Def/Fin Dy No. 8 (13)/2012 -AG/PA (583-PA)on 27.12.2012 after MoF (Dep of Expenditure)Dy No. 187654/E.III (A)/2012 dated 24.12.2012.
Did FA (DS) become more enlightened (or more tightfisted) after the Christmas-eve "present" from MoF (Dep of Exp)?
wrt Last comment (sl no 68)- reg change of expresion "WEF...." to "AS ON...." in the drafts/file notes that might have goone to DOE.
It IS OUR EXPERIENCE THAT SOME IN THE DOE EVEN MAKE "PENCIL" CORRECTIONS IN THE FILE NOTES/ DRAFT OMs SENT BY DEPTS LIKE DOPPW AND THEN THE LOWER END OFFICIALS IN THE LATTER SUCCUMB TO SUCH CORRECTIONS AND IMPLEMENT THE "PENCIL CORRECTED MODFIFIED VERSION" without raising any objections/ rejoinders.
That is how the MODIFIED PARITY complications came up.....File sent with ORIGINAL SCPC CORE RECO PARA 5.1.47CONTAINING WORDS/EXPRESSIONS LIEE "SUM OF" "AND" "THEReON" was careful ROUNED OFF WITH PENCIL adn replaced with 'plus" - TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPUND SENTENCE! I have both file versions - one version which went to the DOe and another one which returned with corrections from DOE.
Then an unnecessary expression like "IRRESPECTIVE OF PRE_REVISED PAY SCALES" put in brackets was brought in as clatification in the DOPPW's OM of 3rd Oct 2008 to "authenticate" such "pencil forced" corrections. We have produced them in CA and we shall produce more such "editions" in the HIGHER COURTS.
@Vnatarajan,
Di FA (DS) clear the 23.11.2012 letter without consultations with Dept of Exp? It is not possible that since filing the additional affidavit in Nov 2011 and till 4.9.2012, the FA (DS) was not consulting the Dept of Exp.
So what happened that changed the wordings of Dir (AG), the signatory of both letters?
It would not be pencil corrections but something significant that changed two, otherwise sane and rational, minds!
Sir,
While we have full faith that what ever is done by RDOA is in the interest of we veterans of mighty Armed Forces and the serving buddies. to clear the anxiety and to put an end to the wasteful speculations the following clarification is solicited from RDOA:-
1) post GOI orders, are the officers commissioned after 01-01-1986 eligible for the re-leaf provided by SC?
2) If not, what is the action initiated by RDOA in this direction.
Regards.
dear sir
can we get the copy of SAI 1/s/87 uploaded or the URL
@ All
It is pretty clear RDOA is working silently behind-the-scenes for the greater good of all the brethren. It would be in the interest of all of us if we desist from putting demands on RDOA to make their 'future course of action/strategy public.
Just keep the faith for some more time without getting desperate/ frustrated and eventually things would become clearer.
REQUEST HOLD FIRE!
@All about bureaucracy dt Jan 4-
(Wrt the observation:"
So what happened that changed the wordings of Dir (AG), the signatory of both letters?
It would not be pencil corrections but something significant that changed two, otherwise sane and rational, minds!)
WHY NOT THINK OF GETTING THE FILE NOTE COPIES OF CONCERNED DEPTS.THRU RTI---- THERE CD BE STILL TIME TO ATTEMPT BECAUSE OF THE 12 WEEKS' PRAYER FOR EXTENSION....
Sir,
Can we come to know the methodolgy being applied for calculation of arrears by PCDA (O) ?
Regards
Col (Retd) Ravi Rao
@natarajan V, application under RTI in the mail.
Even if matter sub-judice, information cannot be denied; please see Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00838/SG/1777; Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00838/SG
Sir,
Can any one clarify, if RDOA is doing something on:
1) Contempt petition.
2) Hearing on Ext. plea for implementation.
3) Applicability of GOI letter dt 27-12-12, for post 1-1-86 commissioned officers.
4) approaching President of India who is our supreme commander, PM, on indifferent view of burocracy in the helm of affairs, over Defence personnel, as this is not good for anyone.
@SATPAL SHARMA:You are posting on the RDOA blog. The someone to clarify are RDOA themselves. No one is better situated for clarifying :-)
@Satpal Sharma
Sir,
You really need to be commended for your RESOLUTE AND UNFLINCHING faith in Mukharjeeji and Manmohanji
Gen Maharaj Singh Bhinder has worked out the pay anomalies for Maj Gens methodically. But alas! while deriding the government for denying the Maj Gens more pay for additional responsibilities, he calls denial of rank pay to his juniors a myth! Whether the denial was with the purpose of limiting the pay of Maj Gens or for any other reasons, it was a denial that was rightfully to be given to all the officers from captain to brigadier. Just to say that maj gens have been wronged which should be set right in light of giving rank pay to captains upwards, he calls denial of rank pay a myth! A sad commentary indeed!
After reading all the comments I am still not clear that will the officers commissioned after 1.1.86....I mean like I was commissioned in 2004....will I be affected ...if no then why....and if yes then how.....
Regards
Post a Comment