Contempt Petition On Rank Pay Case _ Epilogue

On 18 August 2015, the final hearing took place at the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition 328 /2013.

On the RDOA blog, there was a terse announcement in a blog post dated August 18 2015, stating in relation to the disposal, "Court did not accept our plea for change of Pay scales of 4th CPC & 5th CPC, The case has been finally disposed off". That blog post subsequently disappeared from public view, the quote having been made verbatim from a cached copy of the blog post when it had been posted freshly on 18 Aug 2015. {Edit} Another RDOA blog post finally appeared on 25 August 2015

There is still a blog post dated 18 August 2015 on the Aerial View blog with comments, mostly "on topic".

While searching for material related to the case on Twitter, I came across tweets from learned counsel of RDOA and I have linked those here:

Recently SC disposed of our Contempt Petition with liberty to approach appropriate authority for remaining issues

— Gp Capt. K.S. Bhati (@Gp_Capt_Bhati) August 28, 2015

We are planing further course for getting relief for Min & Max fixation & also6th CPC benefit .Ref Rank pay case

— Gp Capt. K.S. Bhati (@Gp_Capt_Bhati) August 28, 2015

Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court too is brief and can be viewed here



The foregoing constitutes mere collation. What is of the essence is where do affected parties go from here? Perhaps the answer to that would lie in examining these queries linked to the case and trying to find answers:

*What exactly are the "remaining issues" referred to in one of the tweets linked to above? Are these the issues listed in the rejoinder affidavit filed by RDOA in 2014?

*Are we to surmise from the RDOA blog-post of 25 August 2015 and the second of the tweets, linked to above, that only the issue of revision of scales and fixation in the same now remains the area of concern for RDOA?

*Would the "further course" involve litigation or would that be preceded by some sort of representation by affected individuals or collectively by RDOA through proper official channels?

*Whether, in the context of the judgement, it is to be understood that though the basis for linking the "other issues" to the rank-pay litigation may not have been agreed to, the justification and rationale for resolving these still exist?

RDOA have done a herculean job, as I never tire of mentioning on various platforms, but communicating further directions for all stake-holders would only serve to strengthen the process on related matters. In this regard, if RDOA choose to share information in a blog post or even the minutes of the AGM, that was planned to be conducted on 12 September 2015, perhaps affected veteran Officers would have greater clarity on the next steps they could take under the auspices of RDOA.

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.

Minimum Guaranteed Pension As Related To The Rank Pay Matter

For some time the matter of the minimum guaranteed pension has been in the news, the latest a recent update being on the Aerial View blog. {Edit: The most recent update is accessible with the link at the bottom of this blog post}.

Briefly, the issue is related to the date of implementation of revised "Minimum Guaranteed Pension" for pre 2006 retirees, which was fixed as 26 24 September 2012 vide Govt. Of India, Ministry of Defence letter number 1(11)/2012-D(Pen/Policy) dated 17 January 2013, a copy of which was circulated with PCDA Circular 500 of the same date.

As stated in the Aerial View blog post, referred to at the first para of this blog post, the litigation for re-fixation of date of implementation as 01 Jan 2006, in place of 26 24 September 2012, is nearing it's final phase, the hearing now being stated to be scheduled on 13 Jan 2015 {Edit 1: Update ; Now awaiting a fresh listing, perhaps in February 2015 Judgement now having been delivered on 17 March 2015}.

The case had to be taken up in the highest court of the land, at great expense and with herculean effort. Therefore it is all the more pertinent, for direct stake-holders and all the others affected, to review some of the attached issues which affect or are impinged upon by the likely positive outcome of the case. To start with, queries begin to form in one's mind as follows:

• The case apparently, and the word "apparently" is important in this context, is concerned with just the date of implementation of the "Minimum Guaranteed Pension". Since it is a litigation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was it also intended to include the effect on the quantum of "Minimum Guaranteed Pension" as a result of the implementation of the rank pay revisions? Would the tables issued with the GOI letter of 17 Jan 2013 ibid now stand revised?

• Since the rank pay matter concerns retired Officers of the armed forces, would the litigation also deal with the important and, so far, un-addressed, issues of parity of "Minimum Guaranteed Pensions" of Majors having 21 years of service with the pensions of Lt Col and "Minimum Guaranteed Pension" of Maj and Lt Col with more than 26 years of service with the pension applicable to Col(TS) of equal service?

• While implementing the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement on rank pay, GOI, MOD vide letter number 34(6)2012-D(Pay/Services) dated 27 December 2012, had also ordered payment with effect from 01 Jan 2006, of interest on arrears, including those of pension, resulting from the partial implementation of the rank-pay judgement. Would the litigation also aim to obtain a more just and equitable compensation by way of interest for arrears not ascribable to the rank pay case but applicable only to those arising out of the "Minimum Guaranteed Pension" matter? 

Whatever be the scope of this litigation, it's outcome would be of interest to all veterans and yet another reason to feel proud of the direct litigants and the inspiring role of RDOA in coordinating the whole issue. {Edit 2} : The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, delivered on 17 March 2015, is accessible by following this link.

{Edit 3} For the most recent update, please use the link to the blog Indian Military: Service Benefits And Issues .

{Edit 4} For the connected issue of pension parities between ESMs that retired in years gone by and those who retire in the present, the blog post on 'Variable Retirement Rank' may also be relevant.

Considerations At The Time Of Assessing VII CPC Issues

This was anticipated.

Discussions have begun to address issues related to VII CPC even as pending matters arising out of VI CPC continue to receive attention on a parallel plane.

It is indeed praiseworthy that future courses of action are now being planned and foresight coupled with experience are now in play for ensuring future outcomes meet the expectations of those in uniform as well as armed forces veterans.

However, the manner in which progress has come to a stand-still, be it in the Rank Pay litigation, OROP or the sundry representations on issues related to ESMs, is reminiscent of the state of oppressive lack of movement in "The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner" 

                             "Day after day, day after day,
                              We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
                              As idle as a painted ship
                              Upon a painted ocean".

There is a very urgent need to quickly grasp and act upon the fact that crucial requirements are to prioritise ("First Things First"), learn to distinguish between individual issues ("OROP is different from Rank Pay") and to not be distracted from present issues by engagements entered upon by way of discussions that might or might not have a bearing on future outcomes.

To summarise:

• The Rank Pay litigation now awaits a hearing. A near-total lack of information on the current status of the subject contributes to a general perception of the issue being in a state of limbo.

• Even as OROP awaits finalisation by the Government, ESM bodies have not fully clarified as to where the matter of parities of even the current pensions, without OROP, stands. To clarify by an example, there is the issue of pensions of the 70s pre cadre-review retirees and pre AVS-I pensioners. The issue was discussed in greater detail in this blog post.

• In the case of OROP, the cut-off date and the mechanism, if any, for periodically upgrading pensions of previous retirees, remain unclear.

In order to ensure these substantive pending issues are not simply swept under the carpet as soon as the sound and fury of VII CPC are upon us,  it may be in the interest of all stake holders to obtain factual information of how things are at ground level.

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.

EXTENDING THE WG CDR VS TOMAR (RETD) LITIGATION TO OTHER ISSUES

{Edit: A brief chronology of the matter has been added at the end of the blog post}

Issues do not exist in water-tight compartments, nor can principles that apply in one case be automatically extended by rule of thumb to another.

But recent blog-posts connected with the issue of OROP opened up a train of thought based on related judgements and judicial pronouncements. But then, trains of thought can be runaway trains, going downhill at break-neck speed , inviting a derailment at every curve. There is nothing like the blogosphere for obtaining requisite braking in the shape of comments and counter-views to keep the train on track.

The case of Wg Cdr VS Tomar vs UOI led to this train of thought getting onto a branch line. Para 25 of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs SR Dhingra and Ors (2008) 2 SCC 209, as quoted in AFT judgement on OA 106/2009, would seem to bar an employer from fixing a retrospective date of implementation of a benefit arbitrarily. Now, though the AFT judgement relates to parity of the pro-rata clause related to pensionary benefits for pre and post VI CPC retirees, it could have wider ramifications.

A lay person's appreciation could be the same principle, as enunciated in the judgement, applies to the implementation of phase I recommendations of AV Singh Committee. It needs to be emphasized here, the application would seem to extend to the entire implementation of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee and not in respect of just the pensionary aspects.

Let us consider this:

*The implementation of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee was retrospective.

*The Govt fixed the retrospective date as 16 Dec 2004.

*This retrospective date divided a homogeneous group into two not only for the benefit of pensions but also in respect of benefits of faster promotions AND consequently higher pay and allowances of those who were in service.

This needs to be considered independently of the issue of parity of pensions of pre AVS-I Lt Col/post AVS-I Col(TS) which I had sought to highlight earlier.( <—- Click link to view )

A simple example would be a Captain who had 6 years of service on 01 January 2002. He picked up the promotion to rank of Major wef 16 Dec 2004 when the AVS-I recommendations were implemented in 2005 retrospectively. Whereas another Officer who completed the same service of 6 years on 30 Dec 2004, immediately received the benefit of the promotion, including the higher pay and allowances, also retrospectively. The former would appear to have a case for arrears of a kind different from the Rank Pay arrears that we're all so focused on.

Now just consider the arrears that could arise for all who continued in service, forgetting for the time being the pensionary issue related to Lt Col/Col(TS). 

Depending on a legally correct retrospective date of implementation, Officers, both serving and retired, could be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances on account of promotions and increments extending back several years from Dec 2004.

This matter needs to be examined in relation to my previous blog post wherein it had been suggested ( <—— Click link to view ) there is a strong possibility

of a homogeneous group having been sub-divided in two, though the word "set" had been used at that time in place of "homogeneous group". The homogeneous group would have been the one that required to receive the benefits the Govt. itself had decided were required to be given when it formed the AV Singh Committee.

So what should have been the legally correct retrospective date for implementing phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee? It would have to be a date that defined a homogeneous group for the purpose of receiving benefits that the Govt intended to bestow.

*It could have been 01 Jan 96 for Officers in service as on that date as it was V CPC which first postulated the requirement of ACP which the AVS-I recommendations were an extension of, even though it had been represented at an AFT that there was no nexus.

*It could have been the date on which the terms of reference were given to the Committee.

*It could have been the date the Committee finalised it's recommendations.

*It could have been the date on which the Govt accepted "in-principle" the recommendations of the Committee.

But the concepts of arbitrariness and sub-division of a homogeneous group seem to apply in retrospective selection of 16 Dec 2004 as the date of implementation for passing on benefits of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee.

Whether or not there are sufficient grounds for individuals and/or groups to contemplate further investigative exploration, followed by attempts at a resolution of the matter, would depend on guided collective reasoning being applied to the subject.

{Edit 1} : This issue re-surfaces every now and then, as it did about four months ago.(<——- Click link to view )
{Edit 2} : In order to fully comprehend the manner in which the sub-division of a homogeneous group occurred by selection of the implementation date, here is a brief time line, each date being a point in time where a case exists for a sub-division having taken place, resulting in discrimination:

*Jul 2001 : AV Singh Committee ordered.
*Sometime in July 2002 : Committee recommendations submitted to Govt.
*Sometime in 2003: Govt announced acceptance "in principle" of recommendations.
*December 2004: Govt. Announced acceptance of recommendations.
*March 2015: Implementation notified retrospectively from 16 Dec 2004.

A news item from the era gives a brief outline of the chronology:    

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.    

 

 

 

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.