Parallels Between Efforts Of Sqn Ldr C Singh And Accomplishments Of Maj Dhanapalan

Some years ago, I think it was on a chatroll previously featured on a popular blog, I distinctly recall making a suggestion to the effect that serving and veteran officers had, in all probability, also been denied proper fixation of rank pay at the time of implementation of recommendations of V CPC.

To put this into context, at that time all discussions were centred on the rank pay issue related to IV CPC and how Maj Dhanapalan's valiant battle to right that wrong was about to benefit everyone else. RDOA had already taken up the legal process to extend a similar benefit to thousands of others affected. But in those days, details of the litigation were scarce and it was largely out of conjecture and online discussions that facts and details were beginning to emerge.

In response to my suggestion about a similar wrong-doing at the time of V CPC as well, I'd received a response of "I'm gobsmacked" from another knowledgeable and active member on the blogosphere and the erstwhile chatroll. He later on went to suggest that perhaps Maj Dhanapalan's great act relating to IV CPC was being repeated by me afresh in relation to V CPC. It wasn't, of course, as RDOA had already taken all those aspects into account in their litigation. The subject was clarified in brilliant detail by RDOA in their subsequent posts.

But I have often been troubled by the idea that we have probably missed the chance to acknowledge another "gobsmackingly" valiant effort by Sqn Ldr C Singh who waged a legal battle on a different front that too could have affected thousands of veteran and serving officers. His battle did not end in outright victory as his application was rejected at the level of an Armed Forces Tribunal. But he was the first one, at least to my knowledge, who took up a cause that affected thousands. Just as in the case of Maj Dhanapalan's case, as thousands had just "lumped it", after the IV CPC recommendations were "implemented" to the stake holders' collective disadvantage, and only one individual took up the matter, so did Sqn Ldr C Singh on quite a different issue.

To this day, I have not been able to find out if he filed an appeal in a higher court or if some other litigants had sought to represent on the same matter. But the issues that struck me as relevant in 2010, when I first learnt of this case, remain, to me, more relevant today due to more recent judgments that make the issue of "discrimination" a lot clearer for all stake holders.

The matter that Sqn Ldr C Singh had taken up was the way the phase I recommendations of AV Singh Committee were implemented. It had denied him the retirement-rank and retirement benefits relating to the next higher rank, in his case, of Wing Commander as he had retired prior to the implementation.

But the matter will not cease to hold the interest of all those with a sense of the legal implications the issue could have or ought to have had at the time. In brief, as the matter has been fully covered previously (there is a link in the last paragraph), the following salient matters bear repeating:

• The implementation dated March 2005 was retrospective but from an arbitrary cut-off date (16 Dec 2004).

• The choice of the implementation date divided a homogeneous class into two groups, with one group getting benefits and the other not.

• The choice of implementation date, if rectified (let us call it the "potential rectified-date")  would result in arrears of pay and allowances to all Officers who were serving at the time of the "potential rectified-date", as their subsequent promotions under AVS-I would be deemed to have taken place earlier, as governed by the earlier "potential rectified-date".

• For those who retired in Nov 2004 and earlier, prior to existing implementation date, their retirement ranks would have to be suitably amended to the higher time-bound rank admissible under AVS-I, with effect from the "potential rectified-date". Let us not forget, those who retired in Dec 2004, Jan and Feb 2005 also had to be regularized retrospectively from existing implementation date in the higher rank after the issue of the Govt order for implementation in March 2005.

• The rectification of the implementation date would have a cascading effect on pay, allowances, promotion dates and pensions of all those who served between the "potential rectified-date" and a day prior to actual implementation date.  

But, there is no place like the beginning to follow the matter. Those interested could consider reading the contents (now suitably highlighted and amplified), and following the links in my blog post of 2010.

The "As On" vs "With Effect From" Matter, Again

With the issue of the Government Corrigendum dated 24 July 2014, there had been some palpable signs of slow movement, granted it was but a fraction of what is actually required but a movement nevertheless, towards an incremental improvement in the Rank Pay arrears scenario.

The reversal of deduction of rank-pay at the time of calculating revised emoluments for V CPC is a step forward and would address an anomaly that had come to light at a time when it was not even a blip on most radars, which were mostly fixated on tracking the IV CPC pay fixation.

But it is the language used in two recent official communications, one from Integrated Headquarters Ministry Of Defence (N) Directorate Of Pay And Allowances (Pay Section)  and another from Dte Of AV at Air HQ, that has served to highlight the efficacy, or the lack of it, of substitition of the "As On" in the original GOI implementation letter dated 27 December 2012 with "With Effect From" vide the corrigendum date 24 July 2014.

The letter issued through channels of Indian Navy states how, to take an example, a Lt Cdr, lets call him Lt Cdr "A", would not stand to gain by non-deduction of rank pay at V CPC if his un-revised basic pay "as on" 01 Jan 96 was below Rs.4050/- pm. The first thing that comes to mind is, what is meant by "unrevised basic pay"? Common sense would appear to suggest this is the value of the pre V CPC basic pay duly revised after implementation of Govt of India letter dated 27 December 2012. So it should be, essentially, the value of the "revised un-revised BP" at the time of implementation of V CPC. In other words, this should be the IV CPC basic pay for December 1995 as given in the "Due And Drawn Statement" issued by pay disbursement authorities issued in compliance of GOI letter dated 27 December 2012.

A simple calculation would reveal, that at the one-step lower IV CPC basic pay stage for Lt Cdr "A" in the example, viz, Rs. 3900/- pm, the revised emoluments for V CPC would work out, now without deduction of rank pay as ordered vide the GOI Corrigendum dated July 2014, as follows

[3900(Unrevised IV CPC BP but its revised value after implementation of GOI letter dated 27 December 2012) +600(RP)+550(IR)+4950(DA)+0.4{3900+600}] = 11440/-pm.

This figure is lower than the starting pay for Lt Cdrs in the revised V CPC pay scale of 11600-325-14850. So the Lt Cdr, whose "revised un-revised" IV CPC BP "as on" 01 Jan 96 was 3900/-, would still have his revised V CPC BP fixed at 11600/- in terms of the letters issued through the Naval HQs and Air HQs channels, presently resulting in "nil" arrears for him.

Let us examine this from another angle. Let us assume, another Lt Cdr "B" with "x" years of service was drawing 4500/- (after revision vide GOI letter dated 27 Dec 2012) in Dec 1995. His V CPC revised emoluments would be as follows

[4500(Unrevised IV CPC BP but its revised value after implementation of GOI letter dated 27 December 2012) +600(RP)+610(IR)+5202(DA)+0.4{4500+600}] = 12952/-pm.

The revised V CPC basic pay of this Lt Cdr for January 1996 would now, after reversing the V CPC rank pay deduction as ordered vide the GOI Corrigendum dated July 2014, be fixed at Rs. 13225/- in the V CPC pay scale for Lt Cdrs.

Now the Lt Cdr "A" in the previous example, whose BP was fixed at the starting point of Rs. 11600/-, would attain "x" years of service after 2 years ('transit time' from IV CPC basic of 3900/- to 4500/- in terms of the old scale). The thing to consider is would his basic pay at "x" years of service also equal that of Lt Cdr "B" when the latter had completed "x" years of service in January 1996?

This manner of BP parity appears tied to the "as on" vis-a-vis "with effect from" issue as well as the dubious concept of amending the basic pay without touching the basic pay scales. The whole overview of the cited case would change if the rank pay stages in the IV CPC running pay-scale and the discrete pay-scales of V CPC get reviewed for rationalising the pay-scales themselves after correcting for non-transparent reductions on account of Rank Pay while formulating the pay scales.

The above example is a hypothetical one. In reality, the Lt Cdr "B" of the example would have minimally been given the time scale rank of Cdr around the time of V CPC and Lt Cdr "A" would have followed suit, unless promoted by selection. So finding actual equivalent BPs at "x" years of service may not be an easy task.

Given the complexities involved, it may be prudent, as well "politically correct", for every one connected with the issue to steer clear of contentious terminologies of the "as on" variety while making out cases or issuing implementation directives. Given past experiences, inadvertent use of words or phrases, even if made in a valid manner in some specific context, poses a risk of misuse and manipulation by certain structures within the administration which, in any case, do not need unwitting assistance in their area of expertise and specialisation, viz., "re-phraseology", from the adversely impacted sections.

Models For A Probable Contour Of The OROP Format

{Edit: The contents of this blog post have been cut and pasted on this Yahoo! Group Post of a group located at Bangalore without my permission or attribution to me and without any link back to this post. This manner of reproduction is in infringement of my rights. Could a reader in touch with the group induce them to post this material with due link back and attribution? Thanks and regards}

It is not that the issue of Pension Parity on the lines of OROP has not been attempted to be addressed by CPCs in the past. Everyone affected would already be aware that pensions of pre VI CPC retirees are fixed at 50% of pay in the revised pay-band. This is modified parity of the kind V CPC had introduced for post 01 Jan 86 retirees whilst giving full parity to pre 1986 retirees.

This can lead to the query whether the Govt is envisaging some form of "full" parity in the case of armed forces under the OROP scheme.

How did "full" parity work after V CPC? It brought the notional pay of pre 1986 retirees at the same level as those serving as on 01 Jan 86. Therefore pre and post 01 Jan 86 retirees were at the "same level" (not including the post 01 Jan 96 retirees). At the same time, the pre and post 01 Jan 96 retirees had modified parity, the pre 01 Jan 96 retirees getting, in words of the CPC, "consolidated pension (shall) be not less than 50% of the minimum pay of the post as revised by V CPC, held by the pensioner at the time of retirement".

In the context of OROP, one can ask whether the same sort of idea with "variations upon a theme" is now sought to be implemented as OROP.

This essentially means examining the nature of OROP. Is it intended to be an inter CPC exercise or whether it will operate intra-CPC as well?

As an example, Circular 500 fixes the pension of a pre VI CPC retiree in the rank of Colonel and with 20 years of service at Rs. 22742/- on the "minimum pay in revised pay band" principle. If OROP is purely inter CPC in nature, it could imply that full parity would be restored on a similar fixed-pension basis for pre VI CPC retirees.

Such a full parity working on only "inter-CPC-retirees" basis could mean one of several things:

* Pension of a pre 01 Jan 2006 Col retiree with 20 years of service would be a fixed amount equal to the pension of a Col retiring on 31 Jan 2006 with 20 years of service.

OR

* Pension of a pre 01 Jan 2006 Col retiree with 20 years of service would be a fixed amount equal to the pension of a Col with 20 years of service as given in the table based on post VI CPC  pay-band viz., 31755/-

OR

* Pension of a pre 01 Jan 2006 Col retiree with 20 years of service would not be a fixed amount but would be periodically adjusted with the "current" (at the time of periodic adjustment) pension of a Col retiree with 20 years of service.

In such a (pre-only) format, the pensions of post CPC retirees would be calculated as per the current norms and would not be changed as per the process outlined above.

But the intra CPC implementation {Edit : Ideally, this should be called an "Inter-cum-Intra CPC parity} would essentially mean that all pensions as on "the periodic adjustment date" must be equal for all current and past retirees in the same rank and with the same pension service.

In the periodic adjustment model, the pensions may or may not be as per the table I have provided a link to above. It is again repeated, for the benefit of those with a tendency to gravitate towards cognitive impressions of colored columns of a table rather than to the underlying idea in drawing up of a chart or table, the table only indicates the pension of a Col with 20 years of service would have been 31755/- if he'd picked up the Col rank with 15 years of service as on 01 Jan 2006 and retired 5 years later  as on 31 Jan 2011 with 20 years of service. For all other cases, the post VI CPC pensions of a post VI CPC Col retiree with 20 years of service would be fixed based on the level at which his basic pay was fixed as on 01 Jan 2006. There would be variations.

This is merely to underline the impression that while it ought to be of interest to everyone to attempt to draw some rough contours of the form OROP might take, it would be rash to see an "illustrative" table and jump to erroneous conclusions.

The Continuing Debate Over The IV CPC Pay-Scale

Calculations of arrears of pay on account of the IV CPC rank-pay issue have been, mostly, completed by the organisations responsible for disbursement of pay. The arrears have started trickling into the bank accounts of veterans. But questions and doubts remain about the correctness of the calculations done and the manner in which the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was interpreted by the government.

 

The queries heard most often are:

• How will the judgement affect those who were not in service as on 01 Jan 86 and joined later?
• Will the judgement have any bearing on pensions of those who retired before 01 Jan 86?
• How will the basic pay be affected in the case of those Officers who got promoted to the rank of Captain after 01 Jan 86?

There is a common basis for such queries to have arisen. Paras 6, 7 and 8 of the Govt. of India letter dated 27th December 2012 form the very foundation of  these issues. The letter mentions only SAI 1/s/87 and is about refixation, and only refixation, of basic pay on 01 Jan 86, based on an outline, as included in the letter, of  the interpretation by the Govt of the judgement.

 

Serving officers and veterans need to look beyond the SAI and pose questions about the running pay scale introduced at the time of IV CPC. It is a classic chicken and egg question. Was the payscale, with its rank stages, based on the manner of calculation of emoluments or were the calculated emoluments fixed into the running pay-scale, the latter having come into existence by the decree of some higher power that governs our universe?

 

The detailed report of IV CPC would record how the running pay-scale was established. A couple of direct queries could begin to offer some clarity:

• How is it that as per the calculation done for a Maj {as cited in the PCDA(O) example}, the revised emoluments came to 3555/- but the starting stage for the rank of Maj was fixed at 3400/- in the pay-scale?
• What was the basis for defining the pay-scale and determing the rank stages? Which part, chapter and para of the IV CPC report records the basis of formulation of this pay-scale?
• Does the IV CPC report specify exactly how the revised emoluments were to be calculated as on 01 Jan 86? If so, in which part of the report?
• Did the litigation on the matter involve specific arguements for a change in the running pay-scale or did the judgement imply the running pay-scale would have to be altered for "giving" rank pay, retrospectively?
 

In case pensions of pre 01 Jan 86 retirees, basic pay of those commissioned, or promoted to Capt, post 01 Jan 86 are to be revised upwards, there would appear to be a need for a revision of the running pay-scale itself.
 

 

If commonality of principles is a consideration, the same treatment needs to be applied to the pay-scales at the time of V CPC as well. But more important than the issue of pay-scales at the time of V CPC would be a re-look at how a deduction of RP can ever be justified at the time of V CPC when it's deduction at the time of IV CPC has just been reversed by the Govt? But that's a different topic and can be looked at separately.

 

This follows from a previous blog post.    

 

 

 

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