The Rank Pay Judgment - Mathew Oomen

by Mathew Oommen 

          4^th September 2012 will remain an important day for the defence forces in their fight for justice. On this day a three judge bench of the Supreme Court  announced a judgment in favour of the officers’ entitlement of the rank pay.   The judgment provides relief to nearly 20,000 officers who were in service between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.2006. In order to get a better understanding of how the defence forces are treated, details of this case need to be disseminated.

          In keeping with their more difficult and challenging job, the armed forces have traditionally enjoyed an edge in their emoluments vis-à-vis their civilian counter parts. Gradually, after the armed forces were brought under a common pay commission, the edge got eroded. Realising this and in order to make the armed forces an attractive career option, the Fourth Pay Commission introduced an element of rank pay for officers from Captain to Brigadier, and their equivalent in the Navy and Air Force. This was on a sliding rank-related scale varying from Rs 200 to 1200 per month. The fact that this was in addition to the pay was clearly stated by the Pay Commission. This was also blindingly clear to all and was inherent in the intention to provide the armed forces an edge.

          However, at the time of fixation, the salary was reduced by an amount equal to the rank pay. The end result was that while not getting a dime extra as recommended by the Pay Commission, the officers actually landed with a lower salary and the resultant lowered status vis-à-vis their civilian counterparts. An intended benefit was thus reduced to a loss by the officialdom.

         The lowered salary had a spiral effect on dearness allowance, pension, gratuity, commutation etc. Aggrieved, Retired Major Dhanapalan approached the Kerala High court contending that his salary had been wrongly fixed. He won the case. The government, as is their wont, kept challenging the judgment till the apex court but the officer finally won and received his arrears. The news spread and   several petitions were filed by similarly placed officers before different High Courts.  On a request from the government, all these cases were transferred to the Supreme Court.    

          Following lengthy arguments, on 8 March 2010, the apex court finally ruled in favour of the officers and asked the government to pay the arrears to all affected officers with 6% interest from 1.1.1986. The government sought modification/recall of the order. Thereafter whenever the case was listed – ten times in 2010 and 2011 - invariably the Solicitor General, who was representing the government, was unavailable to argue.   Admittedly, the SG is a busy person but his continued absence in a case affecting the interest of 20,000 serving and retired defence officers, is a sad reflection on government’s priorities.  When the SG did not attend six hearings in a row between November 2011 and April 2012, this writer even met the Hon’ble Law Minister Shri Salman Khurshid on 7 June 2012 and sought his corrective directions.  

          The final hearing on 4^th September involved lengthy arguments. Among other things the government contended that this would cause an extra burden on the exchequer. This is strange. The amount should actually have been paid to the officers from 1986 onwards and was illegitimately an illegally held back by the government. It cannot therefore be termed extra expenditure. However, as a concession the court allowed that the interest on arrears be paid from 1.1.2006 instead of 1.1.1986 that was earlier decreed. In a rearguard action the SG also argued that the relief be extended to only the litigant officers, but the court ruled that all affected officers be paid their dues. The government has been allowed 12 weeks to do so.

          Let us look at the sad reality. Apart from the humiliation of lowered status, a Colonel for example, who should have been receiving Rs 1000 per month in the Nineteen Eighties, would get the same amount in arrears now. With the diminishing rupee value, it cannot add to his quality of life today to the extent it could then. Many beneficiaries have also passed away in the interim carrying their sense of injustice along with them.

          Mistakes are human. However, this wrong fixation was not a mistake; it was a mischief. The Pay Commission’s recommendation was changed in an arbitrary manner to do down the defence officers. Rightly, the guilty should have been identified and punished. In the absence of any accountability, same brazenness continues. Another anomaly has been introduced in the pension fixation after the Sixth Pay Commission by changing the term ‘in the pay band’ to read ‘of the pay band’ that resulted in five ranks from a Lt Colonel to a Lt General getting equal pension.

          There is growing disenchantment among the serving and retired defence members. Stressing this, even the Defence Minister in his letter to the Prime Minister in June this year cautioned that if not attended, the situation may take a bad turn.  It is indeed a sad development for the country. One hopes the advice injects speed in resolving the numerous grievances of the defence personnel. The cause of most problems is perceived to be the bureaucracy that has been allowed to exercise unbridled power over the armed forces under the guise of civilian control. In fact even now many beneficiaries feel the bureaucrats would find some way to scuttle implementation of this judgment.  Unhappy experience feeds such apprehension.

In a democracy civilian control over the armed forces is indisputable. But this control is to be exercised by the political establishment, who must not abdicate their responsibility and hand the reins over to the bureaucracy.

The author is a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff