take a look at thisthe reason for sending it is that the cost of funding all the military veterans is ₹1.5 lac crores and that for the civilians paid from Defence Services Estimates is ₹5.38 lac crores, put differently, the tail costs the GOI 3.6 times more than what they give the uniformed force. Yet they make it seem as if what they give to the soldier, sailor and airman, is what is bleeding the exchequer dry.
Defence pensions are pensions paid from the Defence Services Estimates. Approximately 36 percent of amount budged for defence pensions is on account of defence civilians.[1] The Defence pension bill for 2015–2016 was ₹ 54,500 crores, including pension outlay for about 400,000 defence civilians, and about Rs1000 Crores on account of allowances and establishment of Ministry of Finance personnel attached to MOD.[2] On an average a defence civilian pensioners cost five times more than military pensioner.[1] The per capita expenditure on 25 Lakh military veterans is approximately Rs. 1.5 Lakhs annually, in comparison with ₹ 5.38 Lakhs a year for civilian pensioners paid from the defence services estimates.The per capita bill on account of defence civilian pensioners is higher mainly because defence civilian officers serve longer, reach the highest grades in the pay scales, are eligible for One Rank, One Pension (OROP) pensions, and are entitled to Non Functional Upgradations (NFU). current ratio of military pensioners to serving military personnel is 1.7 to 1.[2] In comparison, the ratio of civil pensioners to civil work force is 0.56 to 1.[2] Reducing the ratio of pensioner to serving in the military will, it is argued, greatly reduce the defence pension bill.[2] To reduce the military pension bill, the 6 CPC and Koshyari Committee, had urged the Government to absorb Armed Forces personnel after their military engagement in Civil Government organization including Police Organization as is the custom in many countries, including in China, and in advanced economies like S Korea, Singapore, Israel, Switzerland, and the United States.[6]Ratio military pensioners to serving personne
The transfer and absorption of Armed Forces personnel after the end of their military service into government organizations and departments where their unique skills, training, discipline and strengths can be optimally used, despite recommendations of the Parliament and Pay Commission, has been mostly ignored by successive Governments, mainly on account of want bureaucratic commitment in MOD, and sustained obstruction by IPS bureaucrats in MHA.[2][6] :para 5
Measures to reduce Armed Forces pension bill
Lateral move to civil organisations
Fifth Central Pay Commission (5 CPC) The 5 CPC, in its report submitted in January 1997, recommended increase in posts for Armed Forces personnel in Group C and D in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) from 10 percent to 25 percent. For Short Service Commissioned Officers, on completion of their military service, 5 CPC recommended earmarking 25 percent officer’s post in the CAPFs. The intent of these recommendations was to reduce the defence pension bill, save on training and recruitment costs, provide trained manpower to government departments, and provide soldiers a second career after their term of military engagement.[7]:p 139, para 2.4.4 The Pay Commission recommendations were, however, mostly ignored by the Janata Dal (United Front), and BJP Government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee that followed. Mulayam Singh Yadav, Defence Minister (1 June 1996 – 19 March 1998), Indrajit Gupta (Communist Party of India-United Front), Home Minister (29 June 1996 – 19 March 1998), and L K Advani (BJP), Home Minister (19 March 1998 – 22 May 2004) did little to implement these recommendations. The problem festered, and the pension bill ballooned.[7]:p 139, para 2.4.4
Sixth Central Pay Commission (6 CPC)
The 6 CPC found that Indian Para Military Forces, called Central Armed Police Forces—CAPFs, which has a total strength of about 9,00,000 (2014), and defence civilians in Ministry of Defence, which had a strength of 4,00,000 [2014], have a combined annual intake of around 35,000 personnel; in comparison Armed Forces personnel (Army, Air Force, and Navy) pensioned off every year (in 1996) was approximately 40,000.[7]:para 2.4.5, p 139 The 6 CPC on the basis of its analysis concluded that “potential to allow lateral shift of nearly all Defence Forces personnel to CPOs and various cadres of defence civilians exists”.[7]:para 2.4.6
The 6 CPC recommended that in future posts in the “CPOs/defence civilian organisations” should be filled by lateral transfer of Armed Forces personnel, including Short Service Commissioned Officers, after they complete their term of military service.[7]:para 2.4.6p 140 Improving the post military service prospects of Short Service Commissioned Officers finds a prominent place in the BJP manifesto 2014, a pledge on which the BJP has till to act.[8]
The recommendation of 6 CPC on lateral movement, however, were mostly ignored by the Indian National Congress-(UPA) Government. A K Antony, the Defence Minister (24 October 2006 – 26 May 2014), at the time did little to follow up on these recommendations. P Chidambaram, Home Minister (30 November 2008 – 31 July 2012), the minister responsible for implementing the recommendations on lateral movement, according to the 6 CPC, resisted implementing these reforms which would result in savings of tens of thousands of crores.[7]:p 141, para 2.4.8 In the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) the resistance to these imminently sensible measures was from the civil and police bureaucracy, especially from the heads of Indian Para Military Forces, also called Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).[7]:p 141, para 2.4.8 The seven CAPFs are headed by officers from Indian Police Service. They have direct access to the Minister of Home Affairs, and were elevated by the UPA Government to apex pay grades, a grade higher than that of most Lt Generals, including those in command of Corps of the Indian Army.[7]:page 645–46, para 11.18[9]
Savings from lateral movement of Armed Forces personnel
The 6 CPC estimated that the “at the end of 13 years the annual savings” from transfer- absorption of Armed Forces personnel to civil departments, including police, “will be to the tune of ₹ 7,800 crore at constant price index“. Lateral transfer- absorption, in the longer term result in savings in the overall pension bill, and would more than off set projected expenditure on OROP.
One Rank, One Pension
One Rank One Pension (OROP), or “same pension, for same rank, for same length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement”, is a longstanding demand of the Indian armed forces and veterans.[1]:p 1 The demand for pay-pension equity, which underlies the OROP concept, was provoked by the exparte decision by the Indira Gandhi-led Indian National Congress (INC) government, in 1973, two years after the historic victory in the 1971 Bangladesh war, and shortly after Field Marshal SHFJ Manekshaw retired, to decrease armed forces pensions by 20–40 percent, and increase civilian pensions by 20 percent, without consulting armed forces headquarters.[2] :paras 10.4 and 11.2 [3]
In 1986, the sense of unease and distrust prompted by the Third Central Pay Commission (CPC) was exacerbated by the Rajiv Gandhi led Indian National Congress (I) Government’s decision to implement Rank Pay, which reduced basic pay of captain, majors, lt-colonel, colonels, and brigadiers, and their equivalent in the air-force, and the navy, relative to basic pay scales of civilian and police officers.[4]:Chapter 28, para 28.13, and p 304[5] The decision to reduce the basic pay of these ranks, implemented without consulting the armed forces, created radically asymmetries between police-military ranks, affected the pay, and pension of tens of thousands of officers and veterans, spawned two decades of contentious litigation by veterans. It became a lingering cause of distrust between the armed forces veterans and the MOD, which the government did little to ameliorate.[5]
In 2008, the Manmohan Singh led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in the wake of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (6CPC), discarded the concept of rank-pay. Instead it introduced Grade pay, and Pay bands, which instead of addressing the rank, pay, and pension asymmetries caused by ‘rank pay’ dispensation, reinforced existing asymmetries. The debasing of armed forces ranks was accompanied by decision in 2008 to create hundreds of new posts of secretaries, special Secretaries, director general of police (DGP) at the apex grade pay level to ensure that all civilian and police officers, including defence civilian officers, retire at the highest pay grade with the apex pay grade pensions with One Rank One Pay (OROP).
Background
Between 2008-14, during the tenure of the UPA Government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, myriad Armed Forces grievances prompted by perceived inequities subsumed with OROP issue to make OROP a potent rallying call that resonated with veterans of all ranks. Against the background of perceived discrimination, and slights, and dismissive response of the Government, armed forces veterans, in the later half 2008, started a campaign, of nationwide public protests, which included hunger strikes. In response to the OROP protests, which underscored the growing pay-pension-status asymmetries, the UPA Government, in 2011, appointed a parliamentary committee which found merit in the veterans demands for OROP.[2][9][10]
Issues
The causes that inform the OROP protest movement are not pension alone, as armed forces veterans have often tried to make clear, and the parliamentary committee recorded. The issues, veterans emphasize, are of justice, equity, honor, and national security.[11] The failure to address issue of pay-pension equity, and the underlying issue of honor, is not only an important cause for the OROP protest movement, but its escalation.[2]:para 2,10.2,10.4 and 11.2 [12][11] The causes and grievances that inform OROP protesters and their high ranking supporters, in addition to failure of the government to implement OROP, are a string of contentious decision taken by UPA Government, in 2008-9, in the wake of Sixth Central Pay Commission (6 CPC), that sharply degraded Armed Forces pay grades and ranks. Decisions, that have had a radical impact on the armed forces sense of self-esteem, honor, and their trust in the government and security bureaucracy, some of which come to dominate policy under the UPA government, and remain unaddressed by the BJP Government, are outlined in the succeeding paragraphs [2] :para 10.4 and 11.2 [13]
Reduction of armed forces pensionsIn 1973, the Indira Gandhi led Congress (I) terminated ‘One Rank One Pension’ the basis for deciding pension of Indian Armed Forces Personnel ‘which had been in vogue for 26 years since independence’ through an ex parte administrative order.[2]:para 10.1–2, and 6.2 In addition, the Government, on the basis of the report of third Pay commission, from which Armed Forces representation was excluded, and which was dominated by bureaucrats, increased the pension of civilians, who retired at 58, from 30 to 50 percent, a net increase of 20 percent; and reduced the pension of soldier, Non Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and Junior commissioned Officers (JCOs), by 20 percent, from 70 to 50 percent of basic pay, with the caveat that for full pension the minimum service was 33 years. But as soldiers in 1973 retired after 15 years service, at the age of 33-36, they got less than 30 percent of the pay as pension. Soldiers pension was thus decreased not by 20 percent but 40 percent from 70 to 30 percent. In addition to down grading military pensions, the government, without assigning reason, down graded the status of soldier by equating “infantry soldier with less than three years’ service” with a “semi-skilled/unskilled labour”. These decisions were all the more galling for the armed forces as these were based on the recommendation, and endorsement of Defence Secretary K B Lall, ICS, whose job it was to ensure the well being of the armed forces. The decision was announced two months after Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, who led the army in the victorious 1971 war, retired from service.[3] The reason for depressing the armed Forces pensions, which continues to rankle veterans and servings personnel, given by the Congress I government was that it wanted to ensure ‘equivalence’ of Armed Forces pensions with civilians.[11][13]
Rank Pay
The concept of rank-pay introduced in 1986,[4]:Chapter 28, para 28.13, and p 304 affected tens of thousand of serving and retired officers of the three armed forces. It started the process of undermining military ranks and making them subordinate to the police. Its discriminatory provisions reinforced the growing sense of distrust between the MOD and the veterans. It debased the military ranks of captain, majors, lt-colonel, colonels, and brigadiers, and their equivalent in the air-force and the Indian Navy.
The legacy of rank-pay, and 4CPC, found echo in the 6CPC, and the 7CPC and continues to be a cause of distrust, false parities and anomalous pay scales.[5] The implementation of BJP Government in 2016 of separate pay matrix for the police, and the armed forces, accentuated the anomalies in time scale pay grades between armed forces officers and the IPS, which had remain unresolved since 1986, when the congress government had reduced the basic pay of armed forces officers relative to police officers, by deducting ‘rank-pay’ from the basic-pay.[14][15][16] The 7CPC decision on pay grades for the armed forces were called blatantly ‘discriminatory’ by former Chief of Indian Army General Ved P Malik, who said the intent was to degrade armed forces ranks in comparison with police time scale ranks.[5][17]
OROP-2008 for Civil-Police Officers
Even though OROP was not a transparently stated civil service or police officers demand, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rewarded senior civil servant and IPS officers with OROP at the apex scale, the highest pay grade in the government. The decision to grant ‘ OROP’ to the senior most government servants was taken, not by parliament, or ministerial committee, but by bureaucrats in Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare (DOP&PW), and the Prime Minister’s Office. According to Avay Shukla, a former officer of the Indian Administrative Service, ( 1975 batch, Himachal Pradesh cadre), who retired at the apex grade, and is recipient of Apex Grade OROP-2008 linked pension, the decision to grant OROP-2008 to the civil and police services was implemented not by public notification, but a cunningly worded internal memorandum issued by Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare, a department under the Prime Minister’s office. Avay Shukla, in 2015, at the height of the OPOP protests, in a newspaper article revealed that apex OROP for the civil services was done slyly. As ‘Apex-OROP’ was done secretly it has neither been discussed or scrutinized by the media, or the Ministry of Finance, and for this reason remained little known, and only gained salience after the veterans started their protests.[6][7][8]:para 1.2.8–9
‘Apex-OROP-2008’, is not as selective as it appears. Apex grade pay OROP pension covers thousands of retired, serving, and future Civil Service officers, including 4802 Indian Administrative Service officers,[18] 600 Indian Foreign Service officers,[19] and 4720 the IPS officers majority of whom because of their cadre structures( proliferation of apex ranks) are guaranteed that they will retire at the apex scale, not with standing what their responsibilities or duties entail.[7][20]
Most senior police and civil service officer are shy to acknowledge that they had been granted Apex OROP. Prasad, IAS, former defence secretary, who retired on 30 June 2004, on 22 August 2015, in a debate on national TV denied that he was getting Apex-OROP.[21] J.K. Khanna, an IPS officer, who retired as DGP, in 2011, and Avay Shukla, IAS, who retired in 2010, confirmed in 2015 that they like other IAS and IPS officers are getting Apex OROP.[6][7]
In contrast to almost hundred percent Apex-OROP coverage to past and future retiree from the civil services, including majority of defence civilian officers in Ministry of Defence responsible for providing secretarial, logistic, and rear area services to the Armed Forces, like accounts and audit, land, only one tenth of one percent of the armed forces officers, as ‘stratagem’ and hedge against their opposition to the scheme, were also included in the apex OROP scheme.[7][22] Those covered include the three heads of the Defence Forces, Army Commanders, and few other Lt Generals, and their equivalents in the Navy, and Air Force. The attempt to buy the silence of the Chiefs of the armed Forces on an issue that affects the entire officers corps, not unexpectedly, has not gone down well with veterans.[7] Those excluded included Lt Generals, Major Generals, Vice Admirals, and Rear Admirals, and Air Marshals, the commanders of the Armed Forces largest formations: its Corps, Divisions, air commands, bases, fleets and training establishments.[22]
Sanction of Apex-OROP to thousands of officials, among other factors, has contributed to wide support that OROP protest enjoys; it has become an additional “causus belli” for the veterans protest over OROP.[6][9][10] It is also the probable cause for the unprecedented letter by former Chiefs of Defence Forces of India to the Government declaring their support for OROP for the Armed Forces.[23]Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) for police officers and others[edit]
Sanction of OROP at apex scale to all civil services and Police officers was accompanied by grant of “Non Functional Upgrade” (NFU) also called “non-functional financial up-gradation” (NFFU) [8]:para 11.20 to all civil services including the Indian Police Service[24]:p 156 note 3, and Annexure -I, p 319 by the Congress(I) led United Progressive Alliance(UPA) Government, in 2008, to reward civil servants of 49 ‘Organized Central Group A Services’, with automatic time bound pay promotions till the Higher Administrative Grade(HAG), a grade equated by Government with Lt Generals, Vice Admirals, and Air Marshals of Armed Forces.[25] :para 7.3.18-7.3.25[26][27][28]
The unexplained exclusion of Armed Forces officers corps from the NFU, despite representation by the Chief of Staff,[27] has wide-ranging implications :[29] it impacts adversely the pay and pension structures, of colonels, brigadier and generals, and their equivalents in the navy and the air-force; it like OROP, become an emotive ‘honor‘ issue;[30] and, according to former senior military commanders, has had a corrosive impact on the Armed Forces morale, status, cohesion, and national security,[25] :para 7.3.25[27][31] Despite the serious long term implications of NFU, the issue was ignored by the UPA government, and even the BJP Government has chosen not to dwell on it.
Up Graduation of heads of Central and State Police Forces
In addition to NFU, Apex OROP for police and civil servants, the UPA Government, in 2008, in recognition of the growing influence of Indian Police service in Ministry of Home (MHA), India’s Interior Ministry, promoted the heads of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), and even of the smaller MHA Forces, like the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) (CISF) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), The Railway Police, an IG level post, to the highest grade pay, or the apex scale, with pay scale of Rs.80,000 (fixed).[32]:page 645–46 [32]:para 3.2.12 In addition, the Government upgraded heads of Police in all states, small or large, to Director General level to the highest grade pay, or the apex scale of Rs 80,000(fixed). This increased the number of IPS officers with several dozen, and made the Director Generals(DG) of these Central and state Forces at par in rank, pay, and status with Armed Forces senior most Lieutenant Generals, Air Marshals and Vice Admirals.[24] The only MHA Armed Forces left out from up gradation to the higher grades was the Assam rifles, which is headed by an army Lt General, and the National Security Guard (NSG), which has a sizable army component.
The implication of these up gradations are many: the immediate effect was that scores of IPS officers not withstanding their responsibilities were immediately made senior in pay grade, and status to Armed forces formation and fleet commanders, who were denied proportionate upgrades despite representation by the COSC committee; mass up-gradation and creation of new posts of secretaries and special secretaries, and DGs with apex grade pay level, also affected relative pensions.[8]:pages 645–46; para 3.2.12 ‘Non-functional financial up-gradation'(NFU) was not extended to Armed Forces.[33]
Asymmetries in time scale pay, pension, and allowances[
The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government headed by Manmohan Singh, following the recommendations of the sixth pay commission, mandated with effect from 01.09.2008, six time scale pay grade promotions on completion of 4, 9, 13, 14, 16/18 years of service for all officers in civil services including defense civilian officers in the MOD responsible for providing secretarial, and logistic support to the armed forces, and police officers including custom, revenue, railway, and industrial police.[34] :p 31, para 2 In comparison with six time-scale pay upgrades-promotions for the police, and defence civilian officers, the government approved three time scale pay upgrade-promotions for armed forces officers on completion of 2, 6, and 13 years of service, and at a far lower scale.
The decision by UPA government to introduce and aggravate asymmetries in the pay and pension and allowances between the different police organizations and armed forces even in the time scale pay grades, which the government did not explain, was cause of widespread disappointment amongst veterans and serving officers, and is a cause of orop protests movement and the continued support that it receives, and is likely to continue to get.[1]:p 1 [35]
The time scale promotions and related increases in pay, and allowances for government officers, including the police, are not contingent on vacancies or change in responsibilities. But are accompanied by increase pay, allowances and significant perks, difficult to accurately monetize, such as entitlements for hotel accommodation, class of air and rail travel, type of passport, use of staff car, size of office, increase in dedicated personal staff, etc.
Civil -Police- Military Officers Timescale promotions-pay grades (2008–16)
Asymmetries in time scale pay-grades for civil-police-and the armed forces officers as result of government decision in 2008 are tabulated below