Saturday 10 August 2013

Short Changing The Non-Select (Up-dated)

There have been a number of references online as to how, during the period when provisions of IV CPC and V CPC were in force, armed forces officers, who had been overlooked for promotion to the select rank of Lt Col/Cdr/Wg Cdr, were denied the basic entitlement of the full rank pay of the ranks of Lt Col (and equivalent) on being given the corresponding Time-Scale ranks.

This subject has recently got attention in the context of the Rank Pay litigation. So, it would appear, these former colleagues, who had fallen afoul of the infamous promotional pyramid, and the sometimes less than rational rules and processes that define which officers would continue to stick onto the pyramid walls and which ones would plunge to career-doom, were further deprived of their dues even after losing seniority and picking up the payscale a couple of years after their peer-group. 

Judging from the amount of exposure the issue is now receiving on various blogs, it is indeed surprising why the matter was not taken up right when it arose. In fact, the role of services HQs relating to these issues is far from transparent. No matter how much blame gets heaped on the bureaucracy and the audit set-up, it is hard to understand how the whole rank-pay matter arose in the first place. Till date we have the rather unconvincing assertions of those who were at the helm, so to speak, to the effect that a very favourable fixation was obtained by them for officers of the armed forces at the time of IV CPC. We now know how far removed that view is from reality considering the manner in which all armed forces officers were deprived of what was their due and how litigation had to be resorted to obtain a resolution of the major issue.

But specific to the issue of rank pay applicable to TS ranks, one is even more puzzled as to why a simple issue was not resolved at the level of services HQs and Ministry of Defence right from the time of implementation of IV CPC. This blog post can merely link up various references to the matter so that this issue can receive attention, suggestions as well as discussion as to whether the matter needs to be taken up independently of the major on-going rank Pay litigation.

Chronologically, as rank pay was introduced by the Government at the time of implementation of recommendations of IV CPC, but independent of it, the confusion arose because probably the CPC OR the implementation authority needlessly arrogated to itself the authority to define what rank pay would apply to some one given the rank of Lt Col (and equivalent) on completion of the requisite length of service. At the most, IV CPC could have defined that officers holding the Lt Col (TS) rank would be accounted against Maj vacancies in the establishment.

If one really thinks clearly about it, perhaps even such a clarification from a pay commission, or in documents implementing the recommendations, was redundant and ought to have been left for the Government to define in other instructions and orders. To obtain further clarification, I had sought to raise the subject in a blog-post by RDOA by way of a comment. It also affected the time scale rank of Col for the period 16 Dec 2004 to 31 Dec 2005. But, at the time, I was wrong in assuming in the comment that a similar error would apply to Col(TS) post VI CPC. I understand now that it does not. A Col(TS) was given the same Grade Pay as a Col (select) with effect from 01 Jan 2006.

The error, or let's call it 'mischief', was further compounded at the time of V CPC which clearly laid down the different rank pays for 'Select' and 'Non-Select' ranks. This was inspite of the fact that a one-time grant of payscale of Lt Col was given to Officers who were given the Time-Scale rank. The fact that, by definition, rank-pay is integral to the pay-scale and the nomenclature of the corresponding rank was ignored on the basis of totally needless confusion created by flawed logic that because the time-scale officers were to be accounted against Maj vacancies they should get the rank pay of Maj. In other words, the non-select officers would be given the rank and the corresponding pay-scale but not the rank-pay defined by these two.

Blogs of Harmed Forces and RDOA had mentioned that the Govt. of India had reviewed the matter and "clarified" the definition of Rank Pay vide a letter dated 29 February 2000. But it remains unclear to this day whether any corrective action, representation or litigation exists in connection with this matter. It is surmised that the DGL on the total rank pay matter, issued by the services HQs, does rectify this anomaly, but that whole issue is now part of a contempt proceedings. It may not really hurt to share information whether there is a possibility to address this matter, independently of the contempt action, based on the Govt letter a link to which I had provided here.

{Edit}: Further reading on the subject on this Blog Post.

6 comments:

  1. Sir, what is your personal view? Sjould a retired officer send a personal application to the appropriate service headquarters for the difference in rank-pays between Maj equivalent and Lt Col equivalent ranks?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. On critical analysis and close scrutiny of this issue of Lt Col ,TS it is glaringly visible from that date of 1-1-86,fixation - it was wanton and deliberate act of mischief/cheating .That aspect of pay fixing from basic to integrated pay as on 1.1.86 for this rk has been partially corrected after the judgement , but not corrected in true spirit of 4 th CPC and judicial order .Services HQ are NOT truthful in their actions.

    2.In fact Lt Col sel was abolished as per that SAI 1987, with re-designation/change of rk of unit cdr (Bn/Regt ) ,which processes has started in 1980 and completed by 1986. After 1986 ,so called promotion to Lt Col sel was like that of sel grade pay to Major rk .Some how the beauraucracy of Armed Forces consisting of sel gr officers at all levels have over looked and did the act of mischief ,reflecting their prejudice and hatred to officers ,say about 60% of the non sel lot ..these TS lot were even denied their legitimate basic pay progression in that act of pay fixing- like MATCH FIXING.

    3 .In fact I ,had initiated a SoE with a heading ,"GLARINGLY VISIBLE ANOMALIES IN PAY FIXATION " of 16 pages in 1988 ,with charts ,tables and illustrations .About 50 copies were printed and forwarded to one and all from 3 Corps Air Support Signal Unit . Nothing was done on that and anomalies have been compounded since than. Of course I have sought voluntary retirement in 1988,rather than banging my head against wall , after 26 yrs of combat mil service .I did not pursue judicial action ,. Yes ! DANAPALAN , one in 45000 officers did that . That is how all these officers including several Chefs and other Gens received arrears in lakhs ,as they were Capts in 1986

    4.Now everybody is waiting/awaiting for rectification/outcome of contempt petition in Supreme Court.

    ULTIMATELY ,I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LEGITIMATE DUES OF RANK PAY,GRADE PAY,DUE BASIC PAY ,( NFU ) OF NON-SELECT RANKS (EFFECTED LOT OVER 10,000 ), IF NOT RECTIFIED IN NEXT FEW MONTHS ONE MAY HAVE TO FILE A CASE/WRIT PETITION IN APPROPRIIATE FORUM.

    RDOA,AS AN ASSO IS AWARE OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED.

    On this issue ,I had been expressing very strongly on various blogs.

    Only today I ,visited u write-up of 10 Aug , and thus my views/comments.I am amazed that so far ,there have been no comments on this issue effecting over 10,000 officers.
    My e mail id - abgreddy1@gmail.com.
    WITH REGARDS TO YOU AND YOUR BLOG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @bala Would you consider creating a blog post on your blog, giving a chronological sequence of the manner in which the specific recommendation of IV CPC was accepted, published and then not implemented?

      RDOA have taken up a case for rationalization of the pensions related to Major, Lt Col(TS) and Lt Col. They have also repeated your concerns about non-implementation of a IV CPC recommendation even after its formal acceptance.

      Who knows, grounds might exist for representation and/or litigation for obtaining redress retrospectively?

      A proper explanation of the issue with proper documentation could at least start some form of cooperative online dialogue and discussion.

      Do consider my suggestion.

      Delete
  3. Dear All.
    I happened to read your blog for the first time today. I must just add one important information for everyone's knowledge. There were two letters from MoD dated 29 Feb 2000. First one making a mess of Rank Pay definition and basically denies merger of BP with RP. Secondly, to resolve certain anamolies of senior junior increment/pay fixation, two increments are to be granted to all Majors and equ when they attain their sub Rank i.e, after 10 yrs of service. But some US included a word that it is applicable from the date of issue of this letter. In protest few offrs who were Sqn Ldrs in the IAF filed a case in Delhi High Court which was transferred to Principal Bench of Delhi AFT and the judgement was given in favour of officers for refixation wef 01 Jan 86 and not 29 Feb 2000. This was challenged (appeal) by the U o I in Hon SC. The case is still pending after a few hearings. The connected case no. is Civil Appeal No.5860 of 2013 which can be tracked in SC website from Case Status drop down menu. Once it is cleared by SC a major relief for all retd and serving officers and this would immensely help the Rank Pay Contempt Petition No.328/2013 in SC. Jai HInd!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Young50 : Your comment came to mind today.

      Well, the contempt petition referred to by you is now history.

      The other Civil Appeal mentioned by you is still shown as "pending" on the web-site of Hon'ble Supreme Court. But what was the Civil Appeal about? Was it to do with the matter of increments or the issue of rank-pay for Lt Col rank given on time-scale basis, the subject of this blog post?

      That matter is still relevant.

      Delete
  4. @bala: I was reminded of your old and enlightening comment here when I tweeted in reference to some veterans still suffering from select vs time-scale obsessions. The fact may well be, as you had pointed out, there was not to be a separate TS rank at all from 1986. Defective ideas that try to promote those old distinctions need to be countered by other veterans with rational minds. Please read through this click https://twitter.com/coronaeight/status/767214504199401472

    ReplyDelete