Former vice-chief of Army staff Lt. Gen. Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM, aptly began a paper titled “Military Veterans Fighting For Justice”, A Brief Containing Major Issues’ with an excerpt from a letter from Kautilya to Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, mentioned in the formers Arthashastra.
While Gen. Oberoi’s paper is on the woes of retired armed forces personnel, there are issues of pay disparity of serving personnel with serious implications for command and control and morale, both of which are vital to national security.
An anomaly in the grant of non-functional upgradation (NFU) to defence forces raised after implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) has been turned down by the defence ministry. Three reasons given as grounds for this were: (a) The service conditions of Armed Forces are quite different when compared to civilian employees. (b) Ample benefits in the form of military service pay and various allowances are available to armed forces officers and (c) Government orders are for Organised Group A Services and armed forces do not have such set up.
The core issues raised for parity have been overlooked. The benefit of the NFU has been extended to the Group A services whose officers work with the armed forces in a supporting role. Armed forces officers are also posted to these organisations, such as the Indian Naval Armament Service, Indian Ordnance Factories Service, Indian Defence Service of Engineers (MES), Defence Aeronautical Quality Assurance Service, Defence Quality Assurance Service, Defence Research and Development Service, Survey of India Group A Service, and the Border Roads Organisation.
Further, while Indian Police Service (IPS) Officers posted to Central Police/Paramilitary Organisations like Border Security Force, Assam Rifles and Indo-Tibetan Border Police functioning under Army formations in counter insurgency operations and also deployed on Line of Control/Line of actual control with the Army were granted NFU, the Armed Forces were left out. This has resulted in serious command and control and functional problems which is resulting in a demoralising effect on the officer cadre of the Armed forces.
The qualifying attributes of Organised Group A Services were that at least 50 per cent of the posts in JTS (junior time scale) should be filled by direct Recruitment, highest post in the cadre should not be below SAG (special administrative grade) Scale, all Standard Pay Scale should exist and all the posts up to scale of `18,400-22,400 should be filled only by promotion.
A major implication of not extending NFU to Defence Forces is that while all civil service officers making it to the post of Joint Secretary by selection would transit into the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) Scale and definitely retire with the pension of that Scale, a Major General who is senior in protocol and retiring at the rank would continue to draw pension in Pay Band – 4, would drop to the minimum Pay Band-4 while transiting to next Pay Commission. Examples of disparity as a result of not granting NFU to Defence Service Officers are: While a director from the Organised Central Group “A” Services draws Senior Administrative Grade Pay Scale at 22 years of service, the defence services officers with same service holding similar appointment draw a pay scale of `37,400-67,000 with grade pay of `8,700. A director from the Organised Central Group “A” services will be drawing HAG Scale at 32 years of service while defence services officers with same service and holding similar appointment will be drawing a Pay Band-4 scale of `37,400-67,000 with grade pay of `8,700. This leads to differential treatment in pay and allowances granted to organised central group “A” services/All-India Services and Defence Services officers performing similar appointment in the same HQ/formation/ unit under identical circumstances.
With the benefits that accrue from NFUs, a director from organised central group “A” services with 33 years of service would be drawing a pension of `36,500 per month whereas officers of defence service, holding similar appointments with 33 years service, will be drawing a pension of `32,920 per month on retirement.
A major-general having 33 years of service working as additional director general in integrated HQs in ministry of defence will draw a SAG pay scale service working under him will be drawing HAG scale. The major-general will be eligible for a pension of approx `33,170 per month and the director will be eligible for a pension while the director from organised central group “A” service with 32 of `36,500/-.
The BSF sectors are deployed on LoC with Army. The Sector Cdr of BSF will be drawing equal pay as his superior, i.e. Maj. Gen. commanding a force/division, resulting in severe command and control problem. Similar problems arise where BSF is operating with Army in counter insurgency operation. It needs to be examined whether the application of doctrine of equal pay for equal rank enshrined in the directive principles of state; policy in chapter IV of the Constitution and accepted by the Supreme Court on Fundamental Right to Equality has any significance where pay of a senior officer is less than the junior officer in rank and service.
Service conditions of armed forces are harsher and tougher that organised group A services. These service conditions include restriction of fundamental rights and strict disciplinary codes, separation from families, truncated careers, stringent promotion criteria, bleak career prospects, undefined and unlimited working hours, effect of continuous exposure to hazardous situations, and threat to life. None of the personnel from the Organised Group A services face these issues.
Regarding parity with IPS — it may be recalled that the 3rd CPC on basis of the Raghuramaiah Committee Report — 1960 vide 8 of Chapter 50 (Appendix A) elucidated the basis on which a linkage/relativity in terms of pay structure of the Armed Forces was established with Class I services of Central Government particularly IPS. This was the first pay commission to handle the pay of civilians as well as the armed forces personnel. The 4th and 5th CPC had also continued to broadly maintain the established parity of the Armed Forces with the IPS. Sth CPC recommended the NFU to organised group A services only, while it was extended to IPS and IFS. The parity of Armed Forces with IPS also-got disturbed due to non grant of NFU to armed forces.
Failure to adhere the concerns can result in military personnel being invalidated out of service since 2002. They are generally devoid of the contemporary necessities of dignified existence and have an adverse impact on the soldier’s social and family life. It causes acute stress and long-term psychological imbalances. In the light of the above, it is recommended that a case be taken up with the govt for making NFU applicable to officers of the defence services as well. The command and control and functional problems, are severely impacting progress of infrastructure development in border areas and social infrastructure in the hinterland.