Friday, September 14, 2012

The IV CPC Running Scale Conundrum

At the very outset, there appears to be something the matter with the running pay-scale (shown shaded in yellow in the 2nd table, at the bottom of this blog post) that was defined for armed forces Officers by IV CPC.

The emoluments, as on January 1986, in respect of unrevised basic, dearness allowance, interim relief and 20% of unrevised basic pay were added and the sum obtained was fixed in the new running pay scale introduced at the time. The newly fixed basic was, in most of the cases, less than the next “higher stage” on the running pay-scale. It is surmised, the revised basic was fixed keeping in view the minimum pay defined for each rank fixed in the running pay-scale and the number of years of service in that rank for every individual Officer.

Firstly, the new basic pension pay should never have been fixed lower than the sum arrived at by adding the emoluments.

Secondly, the stage for each rank as defined in the new running scale should have been fitted at the next higher pay in the running scale after calculating the sum in the afore-mentioned manner for each rank then drawing a fixed basic pay, DA, IR.

If a Major, just promoted, had the unrevised basic of 1550/-, DA 1470/-, IR 225/- and 20% unrevised basic 310/- i.e. a sum of 3555/-, his stage in the running pay scale should have been Rs. 3600/-. But it was fixed at Rs. 3400/-. This seems strange because if IV CPC defined the new basic pay-scale, each rank-stage in that basic payscale should have minimally conformed to the CPC’s own method of calculating the new basic pay with the IV CPC’s own afore-mentioned formula.

But as it turned out, the new running pay scale introduced by IV CPC did not account for rank pay being part of the basic pay. This has now been found to be incorrect following the 04 Sep 2012 judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If rank pay is added to the basic, the new fixation of the rank-stages in the running pay scale gets shifted to the right against the running pay-scale for all ranks affected by rank pay.

Taking the example of the starting pay of a Major in the running scale, a graphical representation makes it clear there are issues regarding the fixation. The following screenshot displays the aspect
If one could get access to the pay-scales of III CPC, a row could also be made to establish the rank-stage on the revised running pay-scale for each rank prior to the pay fixation as was done for the example of the rank of Major. It would be found that even without adding the rank pay, the minimum pay for each rank would be higher than the one fixed at the time of IV CPC in the pay-scale.

So the following questions arise for the not so well informed, like myself, amongst the affected parties:

• Does the judgement essentially require the revision of the running pay-scale itself?

• Would the revision of the running pay scale as well as revision of the formula for adding up the unrevised emoluments be required to implement the judgement?

• Which of the alternatives for calculating arrears that seem obvious would best fit in with the judgement? {The pay stages shown in italics and shaded blue are by logical extension of the actual pay-scale on account of the displacement of rank stages due to addition of rank pay}

EFFECT OF ADDING RANK PAY TO BASIC PAY ON RANK-STAGES IN THE IV CPC RUNNING PAY-SCALE







9 comments:

  1. If someone could get the break of arrears as received by Maj Dhanapalan then the case would be clear from that point view .However we should now continue to persue he matter in court to leverage our position for the vii pay commission .

    ReplyDelete
  2. @digvijay: I think RDOA would have a fairly clear idea of how the calculations and fixation would take place. I'm pretty sure they will share that information bit by bit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ub 76@Sunlit,

    Sir,

    Gist of BeeCee Sir's mail, as desired, is given below (for evey one to comprehend the extent of damage done to AFs ofrs):-

    1. In 4th CPC, the min pay on the scale for Maj, Lt Col, Col & Brig was 3400, 3900, 4500 and 4950 respectively. For an example, just take the pay of Maj. Prior to the IV CPC and as per norms fixed by the IV CPC themselves, his pay should have been between JAG/Dy Secy(3700-4500) and Director/NFSG(4500-5700). In fact it corresponded to Comdt in the CG/CPMFs who got 4100-5300, and Maj(SG)/ Comdt(SG) would also have been at 4500-5700.

    2. The Maj's min should therefore have been 4000 or 4100. But that was also reduced by an amt near equal to RP giving 3400. So this mischief was not only in indl fixation but even in fixing the min for all offrs.
    The end of the scale with RP was 5700(5100+600) for the Maj, exactly the same as for Dir/NFSG/Comdt(SG) in civ i.e. the scales of 2/Lt, Lt, Capt, Major and Major(SG) were merged to give the much hyped integrated scale plus RP. Not a penny more.

    3. As per IV CPC's norms, it also corresponded to civil scales from entry to Sel Gde.
    The end of the Brig's pay was 6300. That is RP of 600 over the Major but still on the Major's scale. In other words, the payscales of Lt Col, Col and Brig were done away with. If such a fiddle had not taken place, Lt Cols, Cols and Brigs would have started stagnating soon after promotion because they were still on the Maj's scale!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. @sunlit2:""TALKING ABOUT INCREMENTS"" In all ur calculations I have noticed 'one serious & flawed observation'. No where the the amount of service rendered as on 1/1/86 have been taken into consideration for the purpose of 'INCREMENTS' as on 1/1/86. Either total number years rendered as on 1/1/86 or total number of years served in the RANK. 4th CPC is silent, there fore A MAJOR with 16 years shd have been fixed at 3900/- + 600/- Rather at 3500/- +600 AND with 20 yrs shd have been fixed at 4500/- + 600/- . REALITY IS ,ALL WERE FITTED IN 3500/- + 600/- TAKING ‘BUNCHING’ into consideration. 5th CPC is clear on the issue after fixation ONE increment was granted for every three years rendered in the RANK. But 4th CPC is quiet on increments. May the issue be clarified ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Vasundhra:.."one serious & flawed observation.."; Absolutely on the dot. But, now I have amended the graphic showing the effect on the IV CPC rank stages after including rank pay with the basic pay.

    This follows upon the discussion previously held during the chat. The advice received on the chatroll for keeping a permanent record of important discussions is also now proving to be useful .

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Sunlit,

    Sir in your illustration following corrections need to be applied:-

    1. Maj's BP re-fixed as 4050 but with RP of 600 it should come up to 4650 and NOT 4850.

    2. Similarly for Lt Col and Col with BP re-fixed as 4800 (RP = 800) and 5550 (BP = 1000) the final fig (BP + RP) should come to 5600 and 6550 respectively. Isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Harry: The figure of 4800/- for Lt Col includes the rank pay for fixing the startin pay in the scale. But rank pay would be paid in addition to it. Otherwise, wouldn't we be adding rank pay twice, much the same way people say the rank pay was subtracted twice :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fine debate and analysis.Add following.
    1.the basic & fundamental rule and principle of integrated pay scale,upto Brig is-int pay is proportional to length of svc.rk pay can be different.
    2.There is no provision (question) for inserting that clause of min of int pay for rks upto Brig.those creations in SAI 1/s/1987 of min and limiting int pay of Lt COl and below to those fig blow 3900 with a premise that a lower rk officer with svc ,say upto 30yrs cannot get more int pay than Col of 16 yrs or Brig of 23 yrs ,is the genesis and begining of disparity and down gradation.It was a self goal.
    3.Having abolished sel gr rk of Lt Col before 1986(vide para 3 a Note 2 of sai 1987),all Lt Cols are by time scale only. Despite the existence of that fact and order,GoI continues to issue all subsequent orders with Lt Col ts to lower their pay and pension.
    4.That designed fixation formula of deduction rk pay and stepping up int pays of Col &brig to 4500&4950 with 16 &23 yrs,and denying the same principle of stepping up to 4650 min of Lt Col of 22yrs,on the false premise that Lt Col ts of 22 yrs is not rk of Lt Col but of Maj that was FAUX PAUS ,mischiff played by...
    5. Truth has strange ways of surfacing.that is the case of rank pay judgement-danapalan-Kerala High Court -Supreme court- now implementation.
    6. Please debate ,interact and find solutions.But dont forget that an officer promoted substantively to Lt Col by time scale (not the acting route ) after service upto 26 yrs (when his batch mates were promoted to Col With 16 yrs ) is treated as of no rank .
    If these are factored properly the pays of Brig and above will naturally go up and at par with IPS,IAS.....etc

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please realize that RDOA has got that supreme court judgement for everybody .Now dont expect every thing further from RDOA.They also have limits and limitations.If the remaining officer cadre ,keep expecting things from RDOA and do nothing -obvious we will be where we are.The FACT IS OUT OF ABOUT 45000 OFFICERS ONLY OE PERSON BY NAME DHANAPALAN DID THAT WONDER. All those 45999-did not to any thing???????-Please do remember that, all those stalwart sitting in AGs Br,cdrs of all sizes &fmns,General Staff at all levels....etc

    ReplyDelete