Sunday, September 23, 2012

The Effect Of Rank Pay On Rank Stages And Increments : IV CPC

It needs to be repeatedly stated that the how, when, and even if, involved in the implementation by MOD of the Judgement on what we call the "Rank Pay Case" remain real constraints in getting a true picture of what will finally emerge regarding the issue.
But more and more, the inputs and hints one receives on the net indicate that the focus needs to be on the way the running pay scale was defined in addition to how one's emoluments were calculated for revising the pay wef 01 Jan 86. In the previous blog-post, understandably, there have been some queries on how the career profiles at the time would have fitted in with the guesstimates of what the starting pay at each rank-stage should have been.
Defining three basic assumptions needs to be taken care of in this regard:
1.The starting point of the running payscale, and the portion till the rank-pay starts, remain unchanged.
2.The starting pay of Captain is fixed in relation to the nearest equivalent civilian post.
3.The fixation of starting stages for subsequent ranks would be at the next higher stage as per the earlier fixation with the rank pay added.
Now with this, the increments and pay-stages defined in the IV CPC running pay scale do not hold. This leads to my repeatedly stated doubt whether the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be implemented only by re-defining the running pay-scale of IV CPC.
In the case of Maj AK Dhanapalan, since there was just one individual set of accounts that was required to be considered, perhaps it was not necessary to see how the rest of the pay-scale got affected. Now, the situation is different.
With the afore-mentioned assumptions, here is one of the ways the IV CPC running pay-scale could be looked at if one chooses to include rank pay along with the previously defined basic-pay stages: 2300-100-2500-150-3100-190-4050-150-4800-187.50-5550-200-6350.
One would like to stress, once again, this is merely hypothetical and could be diametrically opposed to the correct or official interpretation. Nevertheless, it's a point of view and the real solution could be a slight or large variation on this theme. With the above pay-scale, the rank stages could have looked something like this (please click on the table for a clearer view):

From Rank Stages And Increments If Rank Pay Had Been Considered Along With Basic Pay


  1. @ Sunlit


    1. Now the correction has been made in the rank pay (for Majs, Lt Cols and Cols) as pointed out by me as comment on your last post.

    2. But your proposed annual increment figs are a bit odd. Pls see again, you have proposed the following running pay scale:-


    Here, after 4050 annual increment decreases from 190 to 150. And again rises after 4800 but only to 187.50 (an oddity by itself). Pls reconcile.

  2. @Harry:The stages for each rank are still the same as in the earlier post. I had mentioned the rationale and basis for suggesting those fixations of pay in response to your query.

    The very reason for writing that scale down with the odd increments was to show, graphically, how the distortion took place in the first place.

    When you take the starting and end points as a given, and then mismatch the equivalence at subsequent stages, these distortions will arise.

    We cannot change the number of stages in the scale, as @BCV had correctly pointed out in the chatroll, the career profile cannot be changed. One couldn't have had a Major starting stage with 18 years of service to be fitted in at 4050/-. So, the increments needed to change. This is true of all the ranks.

    The whole exercise is merely by way of demonstrating that things are not at all perfect where that old pay-scale is concerned. The three assumptions in the blog-post are central to the matter.