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 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
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
rank of Major”. Concluded
198
198
12 comments:
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 .
"..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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
@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.
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.
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)
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.
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
Post a Comment