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.

How The IV CPC Arrears Calculation Measures Up Against Expectations

At the very outset, there is a need to identify the most basic factor in the reasonings put forth on blogs and chat-rolls, over the past couple of years, while anticipating the quantum of arrears due to be paid to armed forces officers, that has caused a 'shortfall' between the 'actual' and 'expected' arrears. The assumption centered on the argument that rank pay was part of basic pay and hence the revised emoluments for Jan 86 were required to be calculated using the formula :

 

Revised Emoluments = Unrevised BP+DA+IR+20% of Unrevised BP
+Rank Pay For Jan 86

 

The train of thought that followed from this assumption, flawed or otherwise, was that after adding the rank pay in this fashion, it had been deducted and the emoluments fixed at the appropriate stage, corresponding to the years of service, in the running pay-scale, in which the rank/years-of-service stages diluted the revised emoluments causing fixations at lower levels.

 

The above assumption certainly appeared logical from the point of view that considered Rank Pay to be part of Basic Pay and which required fixations based on parities vis-a-vis equivalent civilian posts, which in turn required a revision of the running pay-scale itself.
 
A large amount of speculation on these lines was further compounded by the lack of hard facts and information. This was, perhaps, partly due to the fact that the matter continued to be sub-judice till the very end and critical information relating to the litigation was hardly the sort of material that ought to have been put in the public domain.
 
So, it was always necessary to consider the most optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. As an example this lower estimate , made in this Blog on 07 February 2013, coincides almost exactly with Example 3 of Maj C as given in the Calculation Methodology of PCDA(O) Pune.

Similarly, the PCDA(O) Pune methodology meshes with the option illustrated with the green arrow in this blog-post dated 14 September 2013 2012.

The "shortfall" in the same example of Maj C arises only when one looks at the estimate of Rs. 4050/- in place of the now fixed amount of Rs. 3600/- and is caused solely on account of the widely shared assumption as stated in the opening para of this blog post.

The expectation that following the judgement, the IV CPC scale would be amended to establish correct inter-se parities vis-a-vis civilian posts hasve not yet materialised, but the cited error of the lower fixation of Rs. 3400/- in the example of Maj C has been totally corroborated now in the manner PCDA(O) have chosen to make the calculation.

The speculation that enhancements would not be applicable on subsequent promotions have also been upheld in the Example 2 of Capt B in the PCDA(O) methodology for the promotion case marked with an asterisk.

If further litigation or representation are planned, the re-defining of the payscale and method of calculating revised emoluments, at IV CPC and V CPC would perhaps be critical considerations.



 





Guesstimates Of Rank Pay Arrears

Now that the pay disbursement authorities have started implementing their interpretation of the Govt. letter that, in-turn, interpreted the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the Rank Pay case, there would be deviations from others' interpretations of the judgement or of the Government interpretations thereof, not to forget, from countless pipe-dreams and wishes of die-hard optimists who must have expected a bonanza of some description.

 

So, till the actual methodology of working out arrears becomes available in the public domain, one can but grope in the dark to snatch some reasonable estimate of what sort of inflows would result.

 

The one thing that appears fairly clear at present from the Govt. letter is that there's a strong possibility the re-working of emoluments would be guided by the following restrictions:

 

• The re-fixation of BP, in the payscale, as on 01 Jan 86 would take place after reversal of the deduction, made at the time of IV CPC, of an amount equal to the rank pay applicable to the rank held by an Officer as on 01 Jan 86 eg the basic pay of a Maj fixed at 3400/- as on 01 Jan 86 could be refixed at Rs. 4050/- wef 01 Jan 86. Or, it might be as low as Rs. 3600/-.

• Subsequent promotions would, probably, not entail a jump in BP equivalent to the rank pay of the next rank, though of course the higher rank pay would be applicable on promotion.
 
• There would be no revision of the deductions of rank pay made at the time of V CPC. However, as the BP for Dec 95 would be higher due to revision of basic as on 01 Jan 86, the BP wef 01 Jan 96 might have to be refixed upwards by an amount equivalent to one increment in the V CPC scales.

However, it is not certain how the disbursement and audit agencies might choose, unless they have already chosen, to further restrict the dues of those affected. Just taking the bare minimal case of the Maj stated above, ideally, the arrears, for just the duration of IV CPC, ought to be on the lines estimated as follows:

 

Original BP Fixed For Maj On 01 Jan 86 By IV CPC	3400.00
Original BP Fixed For Maj For Dec 95 Due Initial Fixation By IV CPC	4650.00
Assumed BP Refixed Vide GOI  Ltr For Maj As On 01 Jan 86	3600.00	4050.00
Assumed Revised BP For Dec 95 Due Implementation Of GOI Ltr	4800.00 4950.00	5100.00
Arrears For BP And DA For IV CPC	43926.00	127137.00
Intt @ 6% For 7 yrs	18448.92	53397.54
If the major in the above example is lucky and/or wishes to be optimistic and assumes upward revision of BP for Dec 95 will result in re-fixation of BP for V CPC, then the following arrears could be “hoped for” as well
Original BP Fixed For Same Maj On 01 Jan 96 By V CPC	13500.00
Assumed BP Refixed Vide GOI  Ltr As On 01 Jan 96	13900.00
Assumed BP Revised As On DOR Due Implementation Of GOI Ltr	17100.00 (without any stagnation increment at end of scale)
V CPC Arrears For BP And DA As On DOR	97926.00 54000/-
Intt @ 6% For 7 yrs	41128.92 22680/-

{Edit: Arrears for V CPC have been amended as the original figures of  97296/- &

  41128.92/- represent the total arrears and intt. for both IV and V CPCs}

One does come across opinions that tend to dwell on the means that might be deployed to "short-change" the affected parties. In that line of reasoning, there may well be an attempt to restrict the enhanced revised BP of IV CPC to a level below the starting stage of the next rank in the IV CPC scale. An example could be that at, or after, the initial refixation on 01 Jan 86, the BP of a Maj would ultimately stagnate at 3800/- till the date he was promoted to Lt Col. In other words, in the example in the table above, the refixed BP of the Major would start at 3800/- and not Rs.4050/- even if the revised calculation yielded the latter figure. The BP would become 3900/- only on the date of promotion to Lt Col. This is a fairly dark and pessimistic view but it does bring us back to those increments vs scale-revision considerations of the past.

A Judgement And It's Implementation

Now that the official act of implementing the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, or an interpretation of the judgement, at any rate, relating to the rank pay issue, has been set in motion through the issue of a Government letter, there are, understandably, expressions of views, in the press and on the blogosphere, as to how the implementation meets or does not meet the letter and spirit of the judgement.

It would be extremely unwise to jump to conclusions and apply a layman's reasoning to an issue that has seen the engagement of some of the soundest and ablest legal minds during the course of a protracted litigation relating to the matter in the highest court of the land. In any case, in the absence of the complete details of arguments and counter-arguments, it's virtually impossible to arrive at a conjecture as to what was prayed for, what was finally granted and how faithful is the implementation to the intent of the judgement.

Of course there are doubts and queries. These grey areas need to be identified and logical analysis applied to ascertain whether there is actually a shortfall and what are the available remedies, if any.

With that aim in mind, the following list could serve as a starting point for clearly documenting the doubts:

*How does the implementation propose to resolve the matter of deduction of rank pay at the time of V CPC?

 **This is relevant in context of that part of the judgement which clearly directs that rank pay be given retrospectively from 01-01-1986? The judgement does not say "give rank pay retrospectively from 01 Jan 86 to 31 Dec 95" or "give rank pay retrospectively from 01 Jan 86 for the IV CPC fixation".

 **It needs to be recalled in this context that at the time of V CPC, for determining emoluments as on    01 Jan 96, the    un-revised basic pay and the old rank pay formed part of the calculation.

 **Shouldn't the emoluments as on 01 Jan 96 have included the new rank pay and not the old rank pay? Let's not forget, at the time of IV CPC the new rank pay as on 01 Jan 86 was to be part of the calculation for revision of emoluments.

 **Then, the calculation for V CPC involved subtracting the new rank pay from the calculated amount. 

 **Thus can we say that rank pay amounting to [(revised rank pay)+{(revised rank pay)-(old rank pay)}] was "not given" at  the time of V CPC and ought now to "be given" in the implementation in context of the judgement?

 **This matter was previously touched upon here.

*How is the issue relating to the payscales proposed to be resolved?

 **How have the rank stages been established for the 'running' payscale of IV CPC without including the element of rank pay?

 **Does the judgement say "give rank pay retrospectively from 01 Jan 86 but do not incorporate it in the payscale"?

  **Wouldn't giving the revised basic, with rank pay added' to a new promotee in ranks of Capt to Brig as on 01 Jan 86, discriminate against subsequent promotees who would get basic pay only applicable to the starting stage of the rank    in the payscale?

 **This issue was previously referred to here.  

There would be issues related to pre 86 retirees, to those who joined after 01 Jan 86. As to how the implementation precisely affect these parties also needs to be carefully evaluated. 

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