Monday, September 24, 2012

IV CPC Pay Fixation: The "Additional-Increments Vs Scale-Change" Debate

In the absence of any direct guidelines, hints from the direct litigants or a communication from the MOD, going through the process of guesswork attached to the implementation of the "Rank Pay" judgement is a bit like gingerly navigating through a pitch dark room with the knowledge of the ever-present risk of bumping into an article of furniture.
 
Some of the inputs on the subject do serve to mislead. Let's take the "Naval Brief" for instance. What practical purpose would be served by adding the rank pay to the sum of Un-revised Basic Pay, DA, IR and 20% of Basic Pay if one is to subsequently subtract the same rank pay from the sum? One might as well not bother about rank pay in that case and settle for the fixation that was done on the sum of 1.2(Basic_Pay), DA and IR and, once again, the fixation would still be as per the years of service and it'd be governed by the Basic Pay defined for each stage in the IV CPC running pay-scale. In effect, arrears would amount to a big fat zero. I don't think that's what the decades long litigation was about.
 
The most important insight that was offered in the matter has been commented upon here. The most useful views that have been received on the subject are of a subtle variety. One has to piece together some concept of what the real situation is from one's inferences.
 
I had attempted to highlight what the running pay-scale would look like if each rank stage was fixed with the sum of rank pay and the emoluments calculated by adding 20% of unrevised BP to DA, IR and unrevised BP. The increments would have to change and the increments would not be logical, as was keenly spotted here. We cannot change the number of stages in between ranks and the revised basic after adding rank pay is fixed for the starting rank of each rank. The net result is a sort of distorted running pay-scale with increments that go up and down without any logic other than of needing to fit in with the other constraints the assumptions place on the manner of fixation.
 
Therefore, we come to the other alternative for fixation, frequently mentioned in forums and blogs, of granting extra increments to each Officer while using the same old running pay-scale.  But it is to be remembered the rank-stages do not change in the running pay-scale. If they did we'd again be presented with the distortions in increments. The increments here are only for fixing the pay of Officers by taking the rank-pay into account.
 
But, in this "model" of fixation an Officer promoted subsequently to the rank of Capt would still get Rs. 2900/- as basic on completing 6 yrs, a Major Rs.3400/- on completing 12 years, and so on. As the pay-scale ends at Rs. 5100/-, this model permits only one increment in the rank of Brig.
 
This kind of pay fixation was covered in a previous blogpost. But to view it in isolation, for the sake of clarity and an emphasis on pay fixation with increments, here is another version.
 
Rank Stage Fixed By IV CPC Running Pay Scale
Basic Pay as Defined In Pay Scale
A Model For Fixation Of Pay Arrived At By Adding Rank Pay To Basic Pay Of Pay Scale {For An Officer With The Min Service For Each Rank Stage As On Date Of Fixation}
 
 
 
2nd Lt
2300
2nd Lt
 
2400
 
Lt
2500
Lt
 
2600
 
 
2700
 
 
2800
 
Capt
2900
 
 
3000
 
 
3100
Capt with 2 increments
 
3200
 
 
3300
 
Maj
3400
 
 
3500
 
 
3600
 
 
3700
 
 
3800
 
Lt Col
3900
 
 
4050
Maj with  6 increments
 
4200
 
 
4350
 
Col
4500
 
 
4650
 
 
4800
Lt Col with 6 increments
Brig
4950
 
 
5100
Brig with 1 increment & Col with 4 increments
 
 
 


 
 

9 comments:

  1. There is no min for any rank in that scale of int pay 2300-5100;rank pays are separately stated and given.Thus your presumption and contentions are ,therefore erroneous.
    SAI 1/s/87 has negated that rule of int pay. therefore those provisions/contentions in that AI are invalid . they stand modified in the light of supreme court order and judgement.
    Your charts have to be read accordingly.
    If u read that SAI u would clearly understand those last minute/late night/ pencil amendments made in 1987 -that has caused all these 27 yrs of problems to one and all -and also to the NATION .
    SAI cannot override GOI approvals of 4th CPC as approved by Cabinet.THAT WAS THE BASIS OF SPREME COURT JUDGEMENT. SAI is NOT above GOI. This aspect should be clearly understood .
    COL and BRIG have already received the rank pay in 1987 by that created provision of min /step up to 4500 and 4950 , otherwise the difference between Lt Col and Col would NOT have been that much of (3800-4500)of 700 when the diff was only 50 in dec 1985.THAT WAS THE GAME OF PAY FIXING LIKE THE MATCH FIXING-FAUXPASS-DENIAL-SELF INFLICTED INJURY OF DOWN GRADATION/DEGRADATION .
    Therefore scales do not require changes with in built provisions of stagnation increments.probably some modificatoins or amendments would come through in the form of corregendums

    ReplyDelete
  2. @bala: There is no presumption of any sort. Check your fixation statement for IV CPC. No. of years of service, rank stage and basic are clearly tabulated. Starting pay stage of Captain with 6 years of service is defined as Rs. 2800/-

    Similarly, Starting BP stage of Maj with 12 yrs of service is defined at Rs. 3400/-.

    You could refer to recommendations of IV CPC to convince yourself, if need be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank u for your efforts of getting at these issues.My point is- those supplementary tables/charts of SAI negate the fundamental RULE of int pay scale.There fore, they stand modified.You see, we have AOs &AIs,these cannot override constitutional provisions or provisions of DSR.Thus, these AIs have to be in consonance with those Gazette publications of 4th CPC as approved by Cabinet.Since I am thoroughly into these with a case already in pipe line at Supreme court stage -awaiting activation after the contours are cleared by implementing stages. Some of those charts on u blogs would be very useful for further actions by various persons/asso.
    About the scales-stagnation increments and step ups should take care and amendments would naturally come there after for Maj Gen rk.I am open for corrections. Simply waiting for PCDA(o) fixation approach /letter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Issues will be crystal clear and the cat is out of the bag when the minimum integrated pay of substantive rank of Lt Col by time scale in 22 nd year of service is read at 4650/.That is the RULE- int pay is proportional to length of svc; rk pay is higher for for higher rks as per 4 th CPC.crux of issues.To prevent this naturally occuring int pay to substantive Lt Cols by ts,those persons in those ...designed the so called fixation forumale in such a way...(BP+DA/ADA + 20% )- RP, and the so called provision of min of pay for all rks except Lt Col (ts) ,plus rank pay was discovered . THAT IS THE COURT JUDGEMENT .HERE WE ARE.
    The fact and TRUTH is Lt Col ts is a promotion,a motion from rk of Maj
    ,NOT a demotion,Not a Honorary rk , Not a local rk, not an acting rk....etc.As per para 3 a note-2 of SAI 1/s/87 sel gr rk of Lt Col stands abolished. ABOLISHED.WHY and HOW does this ts and sel keep surfacing after 1986.In fact old time Lt Col ts is present Col ts, with all those changes of reviews /revisions/abolition of 2nd Lt rk...etc.Testimony, for this is that both Col ts &sel are in same grade of pay now.
    THEREFORE WHEN THE CLAUSE OF MIN OF RK IS INVOKED, IT ALSO EQUALLY APPLIES TO LT COL TS. THAT IS WHERE THE CLAUSE OF MIN OF RK STANDS.ARMY/ AI CANNOT ARBITRARILY AND UNILATERALLY KEEP INTERPRETING THE SUBSTANTIVE RKS BY TIME SCALE FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE FROM TIME TO TIME ,VIOLATING THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES AT THE NATIONAL SCENARIO;HERE , FURTHER RELEVANCE OF NFFU....ETC.
    ARMY CANNOT FUNCTION AND REMAIN A MOTIVATED FORCE WITH SUCH GLARINGLY VISIBLE DENIALS AND INCONSISTENCIES.THEREFORE ALL THOSE INCONSISTENCIES WOULD HAVE TO BE RECTIFIED OR DERIVED BY FORCE OF DIVERSE APPROACHES.THE DELAY IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS....ETC. ONE DANAPALAN/ONE RDOA CANNOT DO EVERY THING FOR EVERYBODY. PLEASE LOOK INTO THESE AND INDULGENCE OF EFFECTED PEOPLE IS REQUIRED.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @bala: If you have unearthed some sound legal basis for rectifying anomalies applicable to those in the rank of Time Scale Lt Col at the time of IV CPC, you could certainly share those on your blog.

    I have had a number of discussions with Officers who were in that rank at the time of 5th CPC. I feel a large number, a very large number, of Officers, both still serving and those who have retired, would be affected by the manner in which the implementation date of AVS-I was chosen.

    The effect would apply to even those ranks which had no distinction for the "select" or "time-scale" categories, such as Capt and Maj, due to the faster promotions that were possible with AVS-I after it's implementation.

    Just imagine if the AVS-I date had been retrospective wef 01 Jan 96. What would be the differentials between the salaries, allowances and pensions that were paid over the entire period and those to which the affected officers/veterans would have been entitled.

    I had tried to cover the matter in this blog post. Those affected could certainly try and explore if there's any merit in that line of reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The basis of ibid contentions are 1. 4th cpc as published in gazette and NEGATION OF PROVISIONS OF cpc in sai 1/s/87. 2. Also, as per terms & conditions of svc/UPSC prospectus when we applied and joined IMA- officer who are not promoted to sel gr rk of Lt Col/ COL are to be promoted substantively by time to that lowest rk of sel gr/unit cdr rk. It was 24 yrs up to 1980. With abolition of 2nd Lieut rk , rev of unit cdr rk to COL ,rev of coy cdr rk to LT COL,abolition of sel gr in rks of MAJ & LT COL ,lowering svc limits for pro to CAPT,MAJ,LT COL...etc over a period of time since 1980;those intended and legitimate changes on fin aspects of LT COL ts were NOT issued by SVC HQin their DGLs and finally by MOD.Obviously,those sel gr lot sitting in AHQ were not effected/bothered. This sort of thing does not happen in IAS,IPS,other gp A services because there is no such differentiation.those implementing agencies are clueless about the TS rk .They probably think it is some kind of non combatant rk..
    3. When we compare the pays of substantive LT COL ts (unit cdr rk) with that of Acting LT COL sel prior to 1986;the pays were higher at 1400 &1900 than 1350 &1750 respectively -before and after 3CPC.
    THESE ARE SOME OF RELEVANT PTS FOR THOSE ISSUES.AVS committee is only a transitory processes and cut of dates cannot violate those fundamental basis and principles.
    Keep working on these issues and let us derive from MOD. projections,representations and if these do not give results -go for legal processes with damages and penal interest for evasion and denial for 27 yrs despite so many efforts. After all , it is responsibility of MOD, Goi... to ensure due pays without disparity and discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @bala:What you are suggesting is a big-bang, revolutionary legal blitzkrieg. It could have a foundation in legal reality, or not. Time, lots of time and legal expenses, alone can tell. The other approach is a creeping roll back of inequitable decisions, such as, in the opinion of many, the fixation of the implementation date of AVS-I.

    There are others, scores of other instances. The manner in which thousands of officers were denied what was described in the army and other acts as 'entitled class' of married accommodation by making them live in tentage, hutments and by cancelling duly authorised rent reimbursement.

    One could examine the feasibility of chipping away, one by one, wrong decisions and procedures, whether these be at the level of GOI or services HQsa, the latter are, in any case, GOI as well. This distinction between service and GOI is a misleading myth. A wrong process is a wrong process and services HQs are not NGO's by any logic.

    The net effect of piecemeal redressal of undue harm done to sections of the Officer cadre would only aid the bigger cause you appear to espouse.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes! I totally agree with u about legal course. exp and time factor. IF EVERY ASPECT AND ISSUE HAS TO BE ADJUDICATED BY JUDICIARY WHY SHOULD THE NATION HAVE WHITE ELEPHANT LIKE ADMINISTRATION .FUTILE AND INFRACTUOUS. That is probably A course of action ,to supplement /complement other courses of actions and efforts.
    ... Application of AVS comm prov , without a cut of date or making it applicable from earlier date is also a way out. ....
    The efforts and approaches have to be on wide front by several persons and asso- UNITED APPROACH IS BEST IF, ......Let us contribute ideas and efforts to awake and arise for action by effected people . There was no internet in 1986. that is how it has taken 27 yrs to have that supreme court judgement and order.In 1987 i could not make much head way, despite my presentation of STATEMENT OF CASE (present adjudication by supreme court ) of 16 pages to one and all...AHQ, COAS,CDA(o),...etc on these lines. only Danapalan legal course came handy.
    ******NOW IN THE LIGHT OF NFFU,GRADE PAY, ....ETC DISPARITIES, OFFICERS HAVE TO ACT WELL BEFORE 7TH CPC. otherwise the story will be same again and again ...therefore keep blogging,send e mails,interact,....express at every stage and levels both by serving and retired.LOUD ,FIRM AND CLEAR ,both in voice and writing . IF,AG or others vested with the responsibility have done their job ,this problem would not have become so big.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes! I totally agree with u about legal course. exp and time factor. IF EVERY ASPECT AND ISSUE HAS TO BE ADJUDICATED BY JUDICIARY WHY SHOULD THE NATION HAVE WHITE ELEPHANT LIKE ADMINISTRATION .FUTILE AND INFRACTUOUS. That is probably A course of action ,to supplement /complement other courses of actions and efforts.
    ... Application of AVS comm prov , without a cut of date or making it applicable from earlier date is also a way out. ....
    The efforts and approaches have to be on wide front by several persons and asso- UNITED APPROACH IS BEST IF, ......Let us contribute ideas and efforts to awake and arise for action by effected people . There was no internet in 1986. that is how it has taken 27 yrs to have that supreme court judgement and order.In 1987 i could not make much head way, despite my presentation of STATEMENT OF CASE (present adjudication by supreme court ) of 16 pages to one and all...AHQ, COAS,CDA(o),...etc on these lines. only Danapalan legal course came handy.
    ******NOW IN THE LIGHT OF NFFU,GRADE PAY, ....ETC DISPARITIES, OFFICERS HAVE TO ACT WELL BEFORE 7TH CPC. otherwise the story will be same again and again ...therefore keep blogging,send e mails,interact,....express at every stage and levels both by serving and retired.LOUD ,FIRM AND CLEAR ,both in voice and writing . IF,AG or others vested with the responsibility have done their job ,this problem would not have become so big.

    ReplyDelete