Harsha Kakar
There are rumours afloat that Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) for the
armed forces may be released sometime soon. It could be either on the orders of
the court based on an appeal whose decision is awaited, or by the government
prior to the elections, seeking to assuage the armed forces. This has been the
demand from all sections of the military.
While everyone desires that NFU be made applicable for the armed forces,
internally the forces would need to evaluate their systems and methodology for
its implementation, to prevent legal battles and cater for their specific
conditions of service as against the Group A and allied services for whom it
has already been released.
The Group A services comprise of three central civil services, which are
allocated to states and employed by the Centre on deputation. They are the IAS,
IPS and the IFS (Indian Forest Service). All others including the IFS (Indian
Foreign Service), revenue and others (44 of them) are affiliated only to the Centre
which is responsible for their promotions and postings and hence are termed
allied services. Traditionally, the Group A services have been senior to the
allied services.
The armed forces, whose officers are ‘commissioned’, are as per
government orders, higher in status and position to both the Group A and the
Allied services. However, by declaring the service HQs as attached HQs from
independence, they have been kept away from decision making and hence regularly
degraded in status. This is a result of fears of a coup if the army is too
closely involved in government. This fear has been exaggerated by the
bureaucracy.
Thus, when the armed forces officers seek to demand NFU as allocated to
civil services considering their pattern of affiliation to only the Centre,
they would be dubbed as ‘allied services’ and not a Group A service as they are
not allocated to any state. They would then become the 45th allied service,
which would be permanently below the status of Group A services.
The structure of the armed forces is also at vast variance from all
other services. The armed forces have a pyramidical structure while others have
a near cylindrical one. Within the armed forces due to the structure,
supersession comes at every rank commencing from Lt Colonel upwards while in
the civil services, anyone graded above average is to be promoted, which may
however be delayed due to vacancies.
NFU, within the civil services, is a grant to enhance status of
employees to the level of those who have risen earlier. This remains until the
individual who is awaiting promotion obtains his promotion. Very few are
superseded. In a statement in May 2017, the army chief stated that there is a
misconception doing the rounds that because NFU has been granted to the civil
services, the status of the armed forces has been downgraded.
He added, “A letter from the government states that NFU will be a purely
financial upgrade and it will not bestow any right to the officer to claim
promotion or designation to a higher post.” Why has this not been implemented
in letter and spirit, mainly by those organisations where army and civil
counterparts work together remains a mystery.
Further, within the armed forces, promotion up to the rank of Lt Col and
equivalents in other services is time bound and there is no delay in
promotions; hence NFU would be valid from where supersession commences, based
on promotion boards. When the above is considered in totality, it emerges that
NFU when granted to the defence services must be different in nature and form.
It cannot be simply duplicated.
There have been multiple cases in the past, the Ex-Servicemen
Compensatory Health Service (ECHS) being a prime example, where the concept has
been copied from the civilian model, in this case the Central Government Health
Scheme, and implementation failed only because an in-depth study involving
specific armed forces requirements had not been factored in. The same should
not happen with the NFU.
When the spirit behind the NFU is assessed, a few issues would need to
be resolved before it is implemented. The first is that while an officer who
has been superseded would be granted an equivalent upgrade as those of his
colleagues who have risen, he would not get the same privileges and status. As
different from the civil services, where promotion avenues remain open, in his
case they are closed. Thus, he would only be compensated financially, without
change in status.
Secondly, since NFU is only a financial upgrade, it would not impact
pensions, which would remain dependent on the rank at which the officer
retires. This implies that an officer drawing the grade of his colleagues of a
higher rank, would not obtain a pension of the same. These two key issues must
be amicably resolved to enhance satisfaction and reduce litigation.
Since NFU once allotted would be common for the three services it is
imperative that they evaluate its implications and evolve a common procedure
for implementation. It is unlikely that the government would continue accepting
changes to the model. The aim should be to enhance satisfaction to the cadre
for the long term, rather than for the immediate moment. Further, its
implementation should not lead to increased legal cases.
The army is presently moving forward on its own cadre review, which may
be impacted as it would offset the protocol balance within the services. NFU
and the cadre review would need to be considered possibly together. The ideal
agency to assess, analyse and offer a viable solution for the betterment of the
complete armed forces cadre is the HQ Integrated Defence Staff.
It could conduct a study with members from all services and evolve a
model to benefit the system, within the legal framework, rather than end up as
a disappointment. Simply copying the civilian model to implement this in a rush
would only enhance dissatisfaction and anger, as service conditions are unique.
The writer is a retired Major-General
of the Indian Army.
By
the kind courtesy of
No comments:
Post a Comment