(iii) Secretary, D/o Expenditure
(iv) Secretary, D/o Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare
(v) Secretary, D/o Personnel and Training
• Initial pay-fixation of Lt Col/Colonel and
• Review and enhancement of grade pay
• Placing of all Lts General in HAG+ scale
• Grant of non-functional upgradation (NFU) to
armed forces personnel
• Dual family pension
• Family pension to mentally/physically challenged children
of armed forces personnel on marriage
I am with Navdeep on this, if indeed such a committe has been constituted.
It is not the membership of the Committee that matters as much as the rationale that they bring to justfy their decisions, and more importantly, what is sought by the Service HQs from the committee. I have said this many times in the past(and would love to be contradicted with some specifics) that the primary cause of the problems is the 'Proposals' from Service HQs and not the CPCs, MoD or the bureaucracy. Can we correct it at least this time?
In other words, resolution of 'one issue' could resolve most problems.
The single important issue that needs to be resolved but would not be, by the above approach, is that of Major's pension. Again, the reason for the low pension of Major is that Service HQs sought(and GOI agreed) to downgrade the Majors to Capt's pay. (Nothing new in this approach. At the IV CPC, we had sought and done away with the pay scales of Lt Col, Col and Brig to much fanfare).
One is for Service Hqs to retract and revert the Major's to their original position thereby restoring pay/ pension of Major, or to de-link the pension of Pre- AVS/Bagga Major from the present one. I would suggest the latter, keeping 2006(VI CPC) as the cut off. This should give pre-2006 Majors the SG level(now drawn by retd Cols) pension because that is what they were drawing earlier.
Many long retired Majors have, in many forums, commented on the big difference in pensions of Majors and Lt Cols. This is because the pay/ pension of Major(as they knew it) has disappeared. It is essentially the gap between a Capt's pension and Lt Col's. In fact, if the Lt col gets his due, the gap would be even wider.
A workable via media was suggested to both NHQ(during Bagga committee deliberations) and to all three Service HQs in the build-up to VI CPC. This was to make the Major correspond to Dy Secy(9 years incl trg period). I suspect this would have been very beneficial from both organisational and personal point of view, but did not find acceptance. Those in service can ponder over it again.
OROP, on which much emotional capital has been expended, is something I still don't understand and therefore offer no comment. If someone can explain, in figures, what difference it would make over existing provisions, will be grateful.
1. Non-negotiables - essentially all the discriminatory issues above plus anymore that can be identified.
2. Others in order of precedence - Issues that affect all, issues that affect a large no, issues that affect a smaller no and so on.
It would also be a good idea to give wide publicity to 'what is being asked for and why'. May reduce elbow room for the negotiators on both sides but in this case that may be a good thing for those affected. It would be much more difficult to deny what is legitimately due. Those affected will also know where the buck stopped.
For whatever it is worth to those who may be involved in the discussions