Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Dissecting The V CPC Pay Fixation Formula

{Edit: 16Apr2017: It is gratifying to know this blog-post continues to draw views and interest almost five years after it was published. There may well be as yet unresolved issues regarding the Rank Pay matter. However for the Officer cadre, as well as veteran Officers, there is that other totally unresolved issue of the selection of date of implementation of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee. Just like the rank pay matter, that issue affects all Officers who were serving and also those who had retired by the time the recommendations were implemented. For some time now, I have permanently linked that issue to the right of the blog page as a "Featured Post". All pre 2004 commissioned Officers still in service and veterans could consider going through the matter that affects them all. Here is another link that can be clicked on to view all connected posts}

With the recent distraction caused by news on the COS Report regarding pension anomalies, the spotlight has shifted somewhat from the crunch issue of arriving at a reasonable understanding of implications of the "Rank Pay" case judgement.
It's heartening to note that even the agencies responsible for implementing the judgement have begun to issue some notices on the matter on their web-sites. Some of the lingering doubts regarding the applicability of the judgement post V and VI CPCs are being gradually dispelled as the afore-mentioned notices mention calculations post V and VI CPCs.

Making a reasonable assumption on the manner of the initial fixation of basic at IV CPC, it should be possible to arrive at a, again, reasonable estimate of what the basic pension pay would have been as on 31 Dec 95. Here the result of the efforts of the countless spread-sheet warriors, who had descended on the scene, could prove useful.

The real issues here too would be:

*The viability of the formula used by V CPC for working out the emoluments.

*The manner of addition of Rank Pay to the emoluments.

*The fixation of the worked out revised basic in the appropriate pay-scale corresponding to each rank.
To recall, V CPC had used the following formula for adding up the unrevised emoluments relating to Jan 96: 

1.4[{Un-Revised Basic+Stagnation Pay}+Un_Revised Rank Pay]+DA+IR-New Rank Pay 
The following points cloud the issue somewhat:
    *It's not clear why the IV CPC Rank Pay was added to the sum and not the revised, and higher V CPC Rank Pay.
    *Why, after adding the lower amount of the unrevised rank pay, the higher amount of the revised rank pay was subtracted from the aforementioned calculated amount for fixing the new revised basic in the appropriate pay-scale.
If the logic of adding rank pay for calculating to the emoluments, as understood from the judgement, is to be followed, the formula ought to have been as follows:


1.4[{Un_Revised Basic+Stagnation Pay}+Revised Rank Pay]+DA+IR
A third alternative could have been to add the unrevised rank pay but not subtract the new revised rank pay, as follows:

     1.4[{Un_Revised Basic+Stagnation Pay}+Un_Revised Rank Pay]+DA+IR 

{Edit}: A fourth alternative would be to retain the old rank-pay in the 40% component but to add the new rank pay for fixation. Let's not forget, at IV CPC the rank-pay which was then "new" was to be added (but wasn't) to the emoluments. At that time the "old" rank-pay was nil and did not figure in the calculation in the 20% component of the IV CPC formula. So we get the fourth alternative as follows:

1.4{Un_Revised Basic+Stagnation Pay}+0.4{Un_Revised Rank Pay}+DA+IR+Revised Rank Pay


Now giving specific examples, or making actual calculations, would be foolhardy in the extreme. We need to get some sort of an indication which one of these alternatives would be most rational in light of the actual arguments that took place during the litigation.

Only through a process of exchange of views and ideas can one hope to arrive at a rational solution to the V CPC stage of the puzzle.
A trial calculation yields the following alternatives for the minimum basic pay of each rank:

Rank
Unrevised
 Starting
Basic
Pay For
Rank In
IV CPC
 Scale
IV CPC
Rank Pay
DA
IR I
IR II
V CPC
Rank
Pay
V CPC
Formula
Alt 1
Alt
Formula
2
Alt
Formula
3
Alt
Formula
4
Starting
Pay In
Rev
Pay Scale
Next
Applicable
Increment
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
1.4(II+ III)
+
IV+
V+
VI-VII
1.4(II+ VII)
+
IV+
V+VI
1.4(II+ III)
+
IV+V+
VI
1.4(II)+
0.4( III)
+
IV+V+
VI +VII
Capt
2900
200
4588
100
310
400
8938
9618
9338
9538
9600
300
Maj
3400
600
5180
100
400
1200
10080
12120
11280
11880
11600
325
Lt Col
3900
800
5217
100
470
1600
10767
13487
12367
13167
13500
400
Col
4500
1000
6105
100
550
2000
12455
15855
14455
15455
15100
450
Brig
4950
1200
6660
100
615
2400
13585
17665
15985
17185
16700
450






37 comments:

  1. Sir,

    You may pl verify your formula by checking it , for starters, for 2/Lt rank (no rank pay applicable). Starting basic (4th CPC) 2300, DA rate as on 31 Dec 95 136%. 5th CPC had no 2/Lt rank though so that has to be taken into acct as well. Not sure whether to convert 2300 (for 2/Lt) into 8250 or 2500 (for Lt) into 8250.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sir,

    Let us take an example of Maj’s Pay fixation post 5th CPC.

    a. Basic (4th CPC) = 3400

    b. RP = 600

    c. = a + b = 4000

    d. =1.4 times c = 5600

    e. DA @ 148% of 5600 = 8288

    f. IR I = 100

    g. IR II = 340 (10% of BP)

    h. = d+e+f+g=14328

    i. = h – 1200 (revised RP) = 13128

    j. Pay Fixed = 11600

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also DA is of unrevised basic+unrevised rank pay. For Maj, in Jan 96, It was 111% or min of 5180/-. Just see my trial table.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear chat mates, I was commisioned on 17 Jun73 and during the receipt of orders for 11 years maj during 1984 Iwas promoted as Maj and on 3 nov 1991 I was promoted as Lt Col(S) at CQA(FVA),AVADI AND PREMATURELY RETIRED ON 31 DEC 1997.(IC-27726M AND CDA(O) A/c No 144732 these are all the info available with me.Will some one help me in giving my pay fixation and date of pro to maj in 1984.

    Sep 27 2012, 5:16 AM
    rajsel: Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  5. the pay scales of civilians in 4th and 5th cpc is as under for comparison.

    S-17 2630-75-2780 9000-275-9550
    S-18 3150-100-3350 10325-325-10975
    S-19 3000-125-3625
    3000-100-3500-125-4500
    3000-100-3500-125-5000
    10000-325-15200
    S-20 3200-100-3700-125-4700
    10650-325-15850
    S-21 3700-150-4450-
    3700-125-4700-150-5000
    12000-375-16500
    S-22 3950-125-4700-150-5000
    12750-375-16500
    S-23 3700-125-4950-150-5700
    12000-375-18000
    S-24 4100-125-4850-150-5300
    4500-150-5700
    14300-400-18300
    S-25 4800-150-5700 15100-400-18300
    S-26 5100-150-5700
    5100-150-6150
    5100-150-5700-200-6300
    16400-450-20000

    S-27 5100-150-6300-200-6700
    16400-450-20900
    S-28 4500-150-5700-200-7300
    14300-450-22400
    S-29 5900-200-6700
    5900-200-7300
    18400-500-22400
    S-30 7300-100-7600 22400-600-26000
    S-31 7300-200-7500-250-8000
    22400-600-26000
    S-32 7600 FIXED
    7600-100-8000
    24050-650-26000
    S-33 8000 FIXED 26000 FIXED
    S-34 9000 FIXED 30000 FIXED

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Sunlit

    Sir,

    Let us again take a look at the ACTUAL 5th CPC Formula:-

    New Basic = [{1.4(Old BP + Old RP)}+ DA + IR I + IR II] - Revised RP

    here Old RP is multiplied by 1.4 times but Revised RP which is twice of Old is getting deducted. Isn't it incorrect? And then New RP is given separately from Capt to Brig Rank and NOT taken as part of Basic. To me this DOES NOT seem in Order. And again for 6th CPC Rank Pay was NOT considered for determination of Grade Pay.

    Things are GROSSLY wrong!

    PS: As regards other alternate formulas they may not mean much because these were NOT considered for fixation so there become just hypothetical. Debating the merits and demerits of the ACTUAL formula is most important, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Harry:"..DOES NOT seem in Order.."
    I agree.

    Actually, that 1.4 is there because after adding BP, old RP, DA and IR they'd added 40% of the sum of old basic and rp.

    I too was shocked to read my old PFS that the new rank pay was subtracted to fix the new basic. It should have been added in line with the reasoning advanced by the litigants in the case.

    The very fact that the old formula of not adding rank pay was challenged means we need to learn how the calculation will be done now. We already know what the old and discredited formula was. It's the new one we need to be clear about.

    The most logical way of calculating seems to be the last alternative. But only RDOA can shed some light on the matter.

    Maybe, in this case too, the issue of equivalence with civilian counterparts will figure to a greater degree than a formula, as was the case for IV CPC. Or, maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gentlemen-a new twist to the whole case. A FOOD FOR DEEP THOUGHTS WHICH STRUCK ME AFTER A COUPLE OF TOTS.
    1. No way is the govt going to revisit and change the pay scales fixed in 5th cpc.
    2. THE ANOMALY AROSE FOR CAPT & ABOVE DURING FIXATION FROM 3RD TO 4TH CPC WHO WERE IN SERVICE AS ON 01/1/86.
    3. There is no anomaly for offrs commisioned after 01/1/86 as they are governed by the new pay scales. a note in the SAI reads as under
    -Note :- The aforesaid option shall not be admissible to any officer who was/is commissioned or promoted in the Army on or after 01 Jan 1996, and such an officer
    shall be allowed pay only in the revised scale of the rank/post to which he is commissioned/promoted.
    4. The same clause as above would be in the 4th CPC SAI also.( i do not have a copy of the SAI)
    5. YES, we can work out the modalities adopted by the pay commision in fixing the minimum of start of the scale-especially for LT as rank of 2/Lt was abolished in 5th cpc. if there is an error a court case would be reqd to rectify this.
    6. A court case may also be reqd to rectify the logic of deducting the new rank pay and then being given separately (no logic for deduction)
    7. The methodology as per SAI for fixatio in 5th cpc is as under:-
    Illustration No. 1
    I . Rank Major
    2. Pay + Rank Pay(Rs.3400+600) Rs .4,000
    3 Stage in thc scale 1 st stage
    4 D.A. at index avg.1510 + Interim Relief Rs. 5,680
    5. Existing Emoluments Rs. 9,680
    6, Add 20% of (Pay +Rank Pay) Rs. 800
    7. Total Rs. 10,480
    8. Pay aftcr deducting revised rank Pay of Rs 1200 -Rs 9280
    9. Pay in thc rcviscd scale-Rs 11600+1200 Rank pay.
    NOTE- i think this was APPROVED by the cabinet. what we are working on is as per the RECOMMENDATIONS of the 5th CPC. BCV sir will have to give the detailed fixation carried out by CDA(o) for study as i do not have my fixation by CDA. We may get the difference of old & revised rank pay which will have to be seen on implementation by cdao

    8. The outgo of 1600 cr as per my analysis would be for the following:-
    (a) Arrears of rank pay who were from capt to Brig as on 01/1/86.
    (b) No arrears would be admissible for offrs commisioned after this period as rank pay has been considered in the pay fixation.( except the diff as above)
    (c) NOW COMES THE INTERESTING PART. with rank pay now part of basic the 6th cpc fixation anomaly comes into play. the starting pay is wrongly fixed as we are entitled higher basic in 6th cpc fitment table for capt & above.
    (d) civilians withe basic of 14300 placed in PB4 with GP 8700 and starting fitment at 39690.
    (e) HOW CAN LT COL HAVING HIGHER BASIC PAY IN 5TH CPC BE GIVEN LOWER GRADE. THIS WILL NEED TO BE FOUGHT FOR NOW AS IT IS JUSTIFIABLE.
    (F) civilians with 14300 were given arrears of 6th cpc of approx 6.5 lac whereas we got 3.8 lac approx - please check the arrears slip recd from cda(o). The balance of 3.5 to 4 lac would be payable to all offrs
    (g) NOW THE GOVT WILL BE IN A FIX TO FIX THE GRADE PAY OF LT COL UPWARDS. HOW WILL THEY DO IT ?????
    (h) if the GP of 8700 is not revised for Lt Col and above WE NEED TO PREPARE THE DOCUMENTS FOR FILING A SUIT IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF ANY INPUTS ON METHOD ADOPTED FOR PAYMENT OF ARREARS.

    i hope as hell that i am right in my logic

    HAPPY HUNTING

    ReplyDelete
  9. @manu69:The first thing I spotted in your calculation was the addition of 20% of unrevised basic and rank pay. It was 40% as per the PFS I'd received.

    And, in the case of V CPC, or even IV CPC, it's doubtful if there will be any change, as you have put it, in the pay-scale. You are right, a change in pay-scales seems highly improbable, though one never knows. This matter was considered here.

    What is involved is how the calculation of emoluments and then re-fixing every Officer's basic in the pay-scales would take place. Only after that does one need to bother with spread-sheets.

    ReplyDelete
  10. well manu and sunlit above,
    If new rank pay has been deducted wrongly, then will it not be automatic on the part of the governement to correct it when Hon'ble court has decided the manner in which rank pay is to be added. why one should have to go to court to rectify that? why are we so pessimistic and after all the calculations and hype, coming to conclusion that a wrong on the same issue i.e. rank pay in V and VI CPC will require a separate case. Why can we not say that this automatically means that rank pay is to be dealt with correctly in the following pay commissions.

    Why are we discussing applicability of court judgment in V and VI CPC. Do we not have affidavit of the government before the hon'ble court wherein what all will be effected has been spelt out which includes revision for V and VI cpc.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. i would like to put on record the pay fixed in r/o BCV sir which will clarify the methodology of pay fixed in 5th cpc.

    2.quote": While I am typing this CDA(O) letter is front of me it says (IN MY CASE) Total emoluments-15108 (-) RANK PAY 1600/- ( 13508/- Reduced to 13500/-by Rs8/- In Covering letter it says Your PAY has been fixed as 13500/- + (400X2)=14300/- and after this RANK pay 1600/- was given (Notice Bunching was ignored & not given) I am pointig out BASIC WAS 13500/- RANK 1600/-=15100/- where as it shd have been BASIC 15100/- PLUS RANK 1600/-= 16700/-." unquote.

    3. this clearly shows the repeat of DHANAPALAN ERROR REPEATED.

    4. I have searched the net for 5th cpc for civilians, but no suitable link found. i hope this will suffice for comparison http://www.dpe.nic.in/important_links/dpe_guidelines/wage_policies/glch4aindex/glch04a8.

    5. wait & watch for cdao implementation for offrs commisioned after 1/1/86.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @manu69: "..put on record the pay fixed.."

    I suggest you make an excel using the formulae of the table in the post. For the actual unrevised emoluments as on 01 Jan 96, see what the revised emoluments are with each alternative. That will give some idea about how correct or in-correct the initial V CPC fixation was.

    Your comment starts with "Total emoluments-15108". To understand the logic of that total, we need to calculate how that total was arrived at and how it should have been calculated.

    This entire blog post is about that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. please see comments by chiefly on chatroll in major navdeep's blog. I hope we should have no more discussion on the applicability for all officers as it is very clearly brought out by chiefly that it is applicable to all and pay and pension as on 1 jan 86, 01 jan 96 and 01 jan 2006 will need to be revised. PCDA(O) pre-empting for wrong interpretation notwithstanding. And next time, PCDA(O) by name should be made respondent in the contempt case, if any, for deliberately misleading without any government order/implementation instructions by posting a link on their website. Same PCDA(O) can not give any information about crediting of arrears due to additional increment due to personnel whose increment was due from Feb to Jun ; that is no link or information on their website when the order has been issued as back as on 01 Aug 2012. Moreover, they have waited all this while for orders from higher ups and have not implemented the same even in Sep 2012. On the other hand, look at the hurry for deciding for themselves that hon'ble court orderis applicable for officers who were capts to brigs on 01 jan 86. It shows their deliberate attempt to divide the defence community and they should be made a party in the contempt proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @aaa: "...Why are we discussing applicability of court judgment..."

    "...we should have no more discussion on the applicability for all officers..."


    It's news to me we are discussing any such thing.

    This blog post is about the possible manner in which emoluments ought to have been calculated for fixing the basic pay at the time of V CPC in light of the judgement which requires rank pay to be added to the emoluments.

    The question this blog post poses is "which rank pay : the old or the new"?

    Go over the blog post again and do offer some views.

    ReplyDelete
  15. sunlit above,
    my apologies if u have got the impression that i was pointing out at this blog. See, this is the general impression that one gets through the articles, chatrolls etc superimposed by PCDA(O) slightness that the court verdict may not be applicale for officers who were not holding rank of capt to brig as on 01 jan 86. My comment was in that context. ur blog is doing great service in educating defence personnel about their pay and allowances. please continue doing the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Are the figures of IR2 in Col VI correct?
    I know that the IR was 1360 for a BP of 5100.
    In the example quoted for a Lt.Col BP,in Navdeep's Chatroll,the figure was 13508+1600, where as in the col.VIII,in the Table, the figure is 10667+1600.
    Is there an error in my understanding?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @penmil:IR II was 10% of (unrevised basic + IV CPC rank pay). (min being Rs. 100/-). IR-I of Rs. 100/- was to be added to IR-II.

    The calculations in this table take the minimum unrevised basic and add up the other emoluments with several alter4native formulae. In which context was that BP mentioned on the chatroll is hard to say.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sir,
    1. the alt formula 3 appears the most apt method for fixation. reasons are:
    a. since rank pay is doubled and being given separately, the UNREVISED rank pay can be deducted from emoluments. in effect 40% of unrevised rank pay is added as emoluments.
    b. there was an anomaly in majors fitment at 11600 as can be seen. hence it was revised to 11925. so it appears correct.
    c. lt col fitment also appears ok.
    d. col and brig have been screwed probably on the logic that by adding the rank pay they were getting substantially higher amounts than civilians.

    3. On the other hand we have been cheated by the claims that we are being given an edge over civ and a higher fitment.
    4. in any case offrs commisioned after 1/1/86 upto 31/12 95 will get arrears albeit lesser amounts.
    5. if the judgement is applied in toto, then alt1 is applicablend higher arrears are expected.
    5. But the moot question is the applicability of the note which i repeat "The aforesaid option shall not be admissible to any officer who was/is commissioned or promoted in the Army on or after 01 Jan 1996, and such an officer
    shall be allowed pay only in the revised scale of the rank/post to which he is commissioned/promoted" unquote.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @manu69: Only RDOA can clarify whether there is to be a revision of the VCPC formula at all.

    You certainly have advanced your rationale for selecting alternative III.

    Some basics need to be kept in mind, and these are just a layman's perceptions, mind you, not an expert's observations:

    *Deduction of the revised rank pay in the V CPC formula appears to be flawed.
    *It would probably be right if the 40% element contained the unrevised basic pay and the unrevised rank pay
    *If the whole litigation is on the basis of the need to add rank pay on 01 Jan 96 (It was the then new rank pay as on 01 Jan 86 for IV CPC) then shouldn't the new rank pay of V CPC be added instead of the old one? I'll repeat here, the old rank pay of zero was added to the bp at the time of IV cpc instead of the new one introduced at the time of IV CPC which led to the whole problem.
    *Wouldn't the addition of Rank Pay as on 01 Jan 96 to the sum of the other emoluments as on 01 Jan96 be the right basis of fixation of the new basic?

    It may not appear so cut and dried, but there are ways and ways of justifying alternatives III and IV.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Sunlit,
    I find that IR2 was 20% of {BP+RP+Stag +P(if any)}.
    Unless, prima facie, what is in Col. VIII (V CPC Formula) is more than what is in Col.XII (V CPC Starting Pay), where is the need to refit?
    The calculations must yield in Col.s VIII to XI , quantities higher than what was given by V CPC, as shown at Col.XII.
    The starting points, in V CPC, might have to be, again, the corresponding figures of equivalent Civil scales of the third CPC, as migrated to IV CPC.
    All references must be to the III CPC as datum. That is, unless the IV CPC figures are corrected , no point in forecasting the V CPC pay scales, such as, S-25= Lt. Col etc.
    This was how @Chiefy explained the ’Demanded’ fitment figures of IV CPC. For example the sart at 4200 in Pay Scale for a Lt. Col (plus a R.P of 800 outside the Pay Scale, as an exclusive pay to the service officer)
    From Navdeep’s Chatroll,I quote” Sep 29 2012, 7:09 AMchiefy: Broadly IV CPC Capt 3000+RP 200, Maj 4050+ RP 600, Lt Col 4800+RP800, Col 5500+RP 1000, Brig 6150+RP 1200”

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ sunlit.
    1. Sir, you are absolutely right. you have made the V cpc formula as Alt1, hence the confusion from my side. i had made the excel sheet as per your advice and the present alt4 is what i meant.
    2. just for info - An anonymous has made a query with tech sec of cda and here is his reply is that no arrears are admissible for post 1/1/86. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1503293844377013031&postID=6118945791600007897 at September 28, 2012 6:58 PM.
    3. I have also given a query to tech sec on saturday. i will confirm the reply.
    4. meanwhile let us re evaluate the options. Tthe civilians were fixed with the formula of 1.4 times basic etc. since we had Rank pay, the formula- New Basic = [{1.4(Old BP + Old RP)}+ DA + IR I + IR II] - Revised RP was applied. however here it should have been the un-revised rank pay which should have been deducted.
    5. I think the SG will have to face contempt proceedings if it is not rectified for post 1/1/86 and post 1/1/96 as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @penmil:IR2 was 10% of unrevised(BP+RP). Total IR was IR1(ie 100/-)+IR2.

    The table shows the calc with the pay at the starting stage of each rank on the IV CPC scale. Please try with the actual last unrevised basic (Jan 96) used in your PFS for V CPC without even correcting for the IV CPC error.

    Compare the results with the basic that was fixed in the PFS instead of the starting pay for the rank shown in col XII. That might illustrate the point of the whole exercise of making the alternate calcs.

    As for the scales, as in the case of IV CPC, these are probably not going to be changed.

    Here, it's the principle of correct calculation, with the rank pay properly added, and then fixing the emoluments in the respective pay-scales that is being extended to the V CPC fixation.

    What @chiefy had said was absolutely in line with the same logic. The previously discussed example of a newly promoted Maj with basic emoluments adding upto 3555 as on 01 Jan 86 had his basic being fixed to 3400/- at the starting pay for Maj in that running pay scale. Now, if the new rank-pay of Jan, ie Rs.600/- had been added to his emoluments, they'd have added up to 4155/- and should have been fixed at 4200 in the scale. If the emoluments had added upto between 3900 and 4050, then the basic should have been fixed at 4050 in the scale. Rank Pay would, of course, have been paid in addition.

    That's my understanding of the views received from @chiefy on the chatroll, so far.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Sunlit.
    Thanks.
    May be there are two views.
    1.One, which takes 'Pay Scales of IV CPC cannot be changed.
    2.Two, which thinks Pay Scales of IV CPC were illegitimately lowered by an amount equal to the rank pay at each rank stage.
    In the first method, the amount of arrears of pay per month, in each rank are less than the rank pay and only are valid till the next promotion.
    In the second the Pay Scales of IV CPC are to be rationalised by adding Rank Pay at each Rank Stage.
    It goes without saying that the Pay Scales of V and VI also need rectification on these lines.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @penmil: "May be there are two views."
    Exactly.
    Or, maybe, more than just two.
    That was the theme of this blog post, and the other posts linked to in it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @sunlit:
    1. Sir could we also decipher the fixation from 3rd to 4th CPC. The so called advantage being given to us doesn't match the claaims in 5th cpc.
    2. since we have been going down the scale in each cpc would it not be prudent to see where our counterparts in civil have reached.
    3. maj navdeep had brought out that the comparative equivalence in 3rd cpc was as under

    Junior TS (JTS) Lieutenant
    700 – 1300 750 – 870

    Senior TS(STS) Captain
    1100 – 1600 1100 – 1550

    Jr Adm Grade (JAG) Major
    1500 – 2000 1550 – 1800

    Selection Grade Lt Col
    1650 – 1800 and 1750-1950
    1800 – 2000

    DIG Scale Colonel
    2000 – 2250 1950 – 2175

    Addl IG Scale Brigadier
    (later merged with 2200 – 2400
    IG/SAG)
    2250 – 2500

    4. would it be of any use?

    ReplyDelete
  26. @manu69: "..counterparts in civil.."

    As I understand it, that is what was demonstrated to the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the litigation.

    Some of the posts on the RDOA Blog give a brief history of arguments on those lines.

    That is why, I think, the judgement directs that rank pay be added to the basic in the process of fixation in the revised scale.

    I think the principle applies to both IV and V cpc's.

    Only RDOA can throw some light on the matter.

    Of course, how the GOI letter, based on the judgement, is worded will clear up the issue. I don't know if any such letter has been issued.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @sunlit.
    1. Sir have you seen the judgement given by the kerala court which has been upheld. it is here https://sites.google.com/site/rdoaindia/Home/court-case-maj-ak-dhanapalan.
    2. this clarifies and confirms the logic of alt4.(i had implied the same in my comment on 30 sept-but you had changed and made the vth cpc formula as alt 1, hence the confusion in my suggesting alt 3.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @manu69: I too am inclined to appreciate the logic of Alternative 4. Alternative 1 certainly appears to have been wrongly used at the time of fixation. Alternative 2 may be overstepping the bounds a bit as the 40% element appears to have been intended in respect of only the unrevised basic and rank pays. Alt 3 & 4 ought to have been used IMHO.

    But only RDOA will know if there is to be a new formula for V CPC fixation and if so what will it be.

    ReplyDelete
  29. sir, the calculations of col raju here http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1503293844377013031&postID=6118945791600007897 match the calculations in my excel sheet. how do i put it on this blog so that we can arrive at a conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @manu69: One of the ways to share your spreadsheet could be by uploading it to your google documents account and sharing it by providing a link in a comment on this blog post.

    ReplyDelete
  31. sir, since we have generally identified alt 3/4 as ideal, there are some aspects which need to be considered.
    1. BUNCHING- the SAI clarifies as Quote "(f) Wherein, in the fixation of pay the pay of officers drawing pay at more than four consecutive stages in the existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such of these officers who are drawing pay beyond the first four consecutive stages in the existing scale, shall be stepped up from the stage where such bunching occurs as under by the grant of increment(s) in the revised scale in the following manner :-
    (i) For officers drawing pay from the 5th upto the 8th stage in the existing scale - by one increment.
    (ii) For officers drawing pay from 9th upto the 12th stage in the existing scale, if there is a bunching beyond the 8th stage - by two increments.
    (iii) For officers drawing pay from the 13th upto the 16th stage in the existing scale, if there is bunching beyond the 12th stage - by three increments.

    ‘The stage in the existing scale’ referred to in the above provisions
    regarding bunching, the first stage in the existing scale shall be w.r.t. the maximum pay prescribed for each rank as given below :-
    (i) Officers of All Arms and Services except AMC,ADC,RVC and MNS.
    Lt - 2500
    Capt - 2800
    Maj - 3400
    Lt Col (Selection) - 3900
    Col - 4500
    Brig - 4950

    Provided also that the fixation thus made shall ensure that every officer will get atleast one increment in the revised scale of pay for every three increments (inclusive of stagnation increment (s) if any) in the existing scale of pay." unquote

    How do you decipher this?

    ReplyDelete
  32. sir,
    1. i have an obsn on our alt3 and 4. the starting basic in revised pay scale is above the emoluments for each rank. this means that the pay scales are not going to be revised in the 5th cpc, unless the starting scales in 4th are revised.
    2. do we need to dissect the 4th cpc fixation formula?

    ReplyDelete
  33. sir,
    1. if you go by the logic of my previous comment, there will be no change in the pay scales notified in 5th cpc.
    2. we may need to work out the fitment tables for 4th cpc.
    3. the basic pay for us in 3rd cpc was as under:
    2/Lt 750-790
    Lt 830-950
    Capt 1020-1450
    Maj 1350-1750
    Lt Col 1500-1900 Actg
    1700-1900 Subs
    Col 1950-75-2175
    Brig 2200-100-2400
    4. what was the rate of IR 1 and 2?
    5. were the DA rates flat at 125% for all?
    5. My rough calculation w/o deducting the rank pay is as under:
    Capt 2651
    Maj 3493
    Lt Col 4385
    Col 5023
    Brig 5660
    6. if this is correct then the pay scales of 5th cpc will have to be revised by the govt - else ther will be no change as per our alt3 and 4.
    7. could we have some comments?

    ReplyDelete
  34. @manu69: As I had mentioned previously, only RDOA, UOI and God know whether the scales are going to be revised or whether emoluments with proper addition of rank pay are going to be fitted in the scales that were defined.

    But, take an actual example of a un-revised basic as on 01 Jan 96 (as it was actually paid, without any of the corrections on 01 Jan 86 that are now expected to be put in place) and see how the alternatives for V CPC work out. Now, this unrevised basic could also be calculated by correcting the IV CPC fixation on 01 Jan 86 (by adding rank pay) and the resulting (higher) basic ten years later could also be used in the V cpc formulae.

    I have a feeling one would end up with one or two additional increments with alts 3&4, maybe even with 1. Alt 2 would give an even higher basic but I don't think that's the correct alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sir,
    1. on the 'bunching' issue, the first stage should have been 2300 and not 2500. Just B'coz the rk of 2/lt was abolished in 5th cpc doesn't mean that offrs whose pay was to be fixed were drawing pay from 2500.
    2. An offr commisioned in 1986 started at 2300. on 1/1/96 he would have reached 3200, which should have been at 10th stage.
    3. but he was fixed at 8th stage and given one increment.
    4. Am i correct? if so, the powers that be need to be apprised of this anomaly also. The RDOA should be made aware of this aspect.

    ReplyDelete
  36. sir,
    1. Please see this for some relaxation.
    2. I stand correcteD on my comment on 03 oct. I THINK I HAVE UNEARTHED A FRESH ANOMALY IN THE BUNCHING RULE.
    3. Please see the bunching rule comment on 02 oct 2012. Since we had a running pay band from 2300- 5100, the first stage should have been considered as 2300 and not 2500. Just because the rank of 2/Lt was abolished the first stage was arbitrarily fixed as 2500. VERY FEW OFFRS WOULD BE DRAWING PAY FROM THE 9TH STAGE ONWARDS AND NO ONE TILL THE 16TH STAGE IF WE CONSIDER THE STAGES AS PER THE RANK STAGES REFERRED ABOVE.
    4. Do we have grounds for another case. That is why you had rightly brought out that we may be given 1 or 2 increments.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Awaiting GOI orders,i visited various blogs.This is the BEST.Fine analysis,graphical presentations and good debate.
    U may also factor following into u analysis and debate.
    1.As per rule and principle of integrated pay scale of 4th CPC ,int pay is proportional to length of svc up to Brig - rank pays being separate.Thus the presumptions and contentions of minimum to any rank up to Brig is on a wrong premise that an officer of a rank with more svc than higher rank officer of lesser service,cannot be fixed at higher stage.Higher rk pays are designed for that .this is the practice in all other services of GOI-relevance of NFFU.Historically,pay scales-integrated pay scale-again scales s1-s10,pay bands-PB1,2,3,4-rk pay-grade pay...etc have emerged for betterment and not negativity of hypocritically denying legitimate pay to ......
    2.All this FAUX PASS ,denial and evasion of natural fixation of pays to Lt Col and below has created the problem which has exploded in the form of supreme court judgement.
    3.Dhanapalan- Kerala High court-Divisional Bench-Supreme Court-SLP -IA Finally ,after so much of evasion and delay -Adjudicated (nailed).The whole issue has surfaced in indirect way.Dont expect Dhanapalan and RDOA to do further derivations ??
    4. With that Supreme Court judgement in hand ,it is for active and intelligent persons to derive remaining of post 5 th and 6 th CPCs.
    5.Real activity would be after the architecture of awaited GOI orders.
    KEEP INTERACTING AND DEBATING.....
    MY COMPLIMENTS AND THANKS TO SUNLIT FOR THIS PLATFORM.
    BEST WISHES FOR SUCCESS..

    ReplyDelete