The military awaits a fair deal

ACCORDING to media reports, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court recently. Citing the findings of a “high-level committee” constituted to review the demands for salary upgradation of armed forces personnel, the MoD informed the court that “…the complexities in implementation, possible legal complications and significantly large financial implications do not favour the grant of NFU (non-functional financial upgradation) to armed forces personnel.”

Given that one of the signatories to the affidavit is a serving Major General, the unstated acquiescence of the military must be assumed, and no dissent should emerge from our disciplined armed forces. However, NFU has played a major role in distorting the relativity between the civilian Services and the armed forces, and has become an irritant in civil-military relations. There is good reason, therefore, for retired Army officers to seek redressal from courts.

The professional hierarchy that drives the government’s administrative machinery — all recruited via the Union Public Service Commission — is three-tiered. The first among equals are the three All-India Services which serve at the Centre as well as in states: the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Indian Forest Service (IFoS). At the next rung are the Central Group ‘A’ Services, that include the Foreign, Revenue, Audit, Postal and other Services. The third tier is occupied by the technical/specialised services, providing expertise in medicine, engineering, science, etc.

Most of these Services have distinct cadre rules and are formally classified as Organised Group ‘A’ Services (OGAS). This categorisation assumes significance since it has come to form the basis of decisions taken by the 10-yearly Central Pay Commissions (CPC) in deciding salaries and allowances of Central government employees. Since the status of the armed forces has been (deliberately?) kept vague and undefined, successive CPCs, maintaining that they do not fall into any “recognised category”, have employed whimsical logic to depress the emoluments and, consequently, the status of the military relative to the Civil Services.

At the heart of the NFU contention lies the “remunerative edge” granted to the IAS and the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) by the 4th CPC (1986), which manifests as additional increments across three senior grades. Other Central Services agitated against this “edge”, terming it discriminatory, and argued that this preferential treatment was iniquitous since all candidates were recruited through a common UPSC examination and contrary to the principle of “equal pay for equal work.”

Consequently, NFU was introduced in 2006 by the 6th CPC in order to address the disparity between the IAS and other Central Group ‘A’ Services. Whenever an IAS officer (the benchmark) is empanelled for a particular grade at the Centre, all officers of the OGAS would automatically be granted the same pay scale after a delay of two years, regardless of whether a vacancy existed for their actual promotion. Initially, the government granted NFU only to the OGAS. However, following representations, it was extended to the IPS and IFoS in 2010. The Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) then approached the courts (2012-19), and after a protracted legal battle, the apex court held that the CAPFs met all criteria for “Organised Group ‘A’ Services” and directed the government to grant them NFU retrospectively from 2006.

The armed forces, even though aggrieved by all these decisions, had no avenue for seeking redressal till the convening of the 7th CPC in 2014 offered them a rare opportunity. In the Joint Services Memorandum (JSM) presented before the CPC, they stated that by extending NFU to the OGAS, but denying it to the military, the 6th CPC (2006) had created a severely anomalous situation.

Commenting on the JSM, a member of the CPC stated that he “…agrees with the view that exclusion of Defence Forces from NFU has been unfair. The gap between career progression in the Defence Forces in comparison with 49 Organised Group ‘A’ Services and IPS/IFoS, which was already large, has been stretched beyond reasonable limits… there is no basis for denying them NFU simply on the ground that they are not classified as an Organised Group ‘A’ Service…This has undermined the status and morale of the Defence Forces, and has been a matter of concern for them for the past decade.”

The JSM had further pointed out that such changes, by downgrading them relative to the IAS, IPS and the CAPFs, had undermined the status of military commanders. Moreover, civilian personnel of organisations such as the Border Roads, Military Engineering Services and Naval Armament Services — created to support the armed forces — having overtaken their military superiors in terms of pay grades, were now demanding an altered relationship.

Then, as now, the MoD seems to have acted as a “spoiler” and its negative intervention served to torpedo the JSM. Against this backdrop, a striking aspect of the 7th CPC report is the discussion (and dissonance) that emerges between the Chairman and two members of the commission, Vivek Rae (an IAS officer), and the economist Dr Rathin Roy, regarding NFU.

In the Chairman’s considered opinion, “…since NFU has been in existence for the last ten years and is being availed by all the Organised Group ‘A’ Services, it should be allowed to continue. The same will be available not only to all organised Central Group ‘A’ Services but also members of CAPFs, ICG (Indian Coast Guard) and Defence Forces.” The two members of the commission have, however, recorded their dissent with this opinion.

Elaborating on the case for withdrawal of NFU from Organised Group ‘A’ Services, Rae said, “In the view of the undersigned, it was a mistake to grant NFU to 49 Organised Group ‘A’ Services, IPS and IFoS till HAG (Higher Administrative Grade) level on untenable grounds of parity with IAS. Exclusion of Defence Forces and CAPFs only aggravated the mistake.” Dr Roy, strongly supporting the case for withdrawal of NFU, said: “I join the dissent of my colleague Mr Vivek Rae and recommend that NFU at the Group `A’ level be completely done away with.”

While the MoD may have summarily dismissed the armed forces’ case, the 7th CPC’s rigorous deliberations point to two logical alternatives: either abolish NFU for all Services or extend it to military personnel. Relying on the courts or passing the buck to the 8th CPC is unlikely to provide a solution. Nor will dilatory tactics — citing “complexity” or “financial implications” — make the problem go away. An objective examination must be undertaken urgently to find a fair and equitable resolution to this imbroglio created by years of indifference towards our military fraternity.