DEGRADATION OF ARMED FORCES : RANK RANKLE IN FORCES -MoD, armed forces lock horns over panel report

SOURCE;


[ http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/mod-armed-forces-lock-horns-over-panel-report/484780.html ]

 [  http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/panel-report-may-lead-to-discontent-armed-forces/485368.html  ]


[  http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/status-parity-issues-remain-despite-announcements/485765.html ]




             ARE THE ARMED FORCES 

                   BEING PRESSURISED 

                                 TO

              SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE 

                              ON 

                THE DEATH WARRANT ?

        RANK RANKLE IN FORCES 

                          PART-I

[ http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/mod-armed-forces-lock-horns-over-panel-report/484780.html ]

MoD, armed forces lock horns over panel report

The committee in its report has not spoken about the ranks of Captain and Lieutenant while suggesting rank parity norms

 October 20

In a move that threatens to question the seniority in military ranks, a report of a committee of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has resulted in a heated exchange of correspondence between various wings of the ministry and the forces.

The three-member committee headed by an Additional Secretary-rank officer had been tasked to study rank-equivalence norms between the armed forces and the civilians employed in the Armed Forces Headquarters, called the (AFHQ) cadre.

The armed forces are contesting the committee’s 21-page draft report that has not yet been presented to the MoD, top sources confirmed to The Tribune.

The Principal Personnel Officers Committee (PPOC), a body of the three armed forces, has reacted sharply and shot off a letter questioning the several claims made in the report and the documents relied upon to arrive at the conclusions, sources said. Sources point out that if the committee’s report is accepted, there would be serious ramifications on the morale of officers in the ranks of Lieutenant, Captain and Major of the Indian Army and their equivalents in the Navy and IAF.

The first 10 years of service of an officer are spent in these ranks and the committee in its report has not spoken about the ranks of Captain and Lieutenant when suggesting its rank parity norms.

A Major and Lieutenant Colonel have been made equal to the Deputy Director; a Colonel is equal to a Joint Director; a Brigadier is equal to Director and the Major General equal to Principal Director.

The forces are protesting these as the warrant of precedence (WoP) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs says a Major General is equal to a Joint Secretary and a Brigadier is equal to a Deputy Director General.

The forces are questioning the various equations drawn out by the MoD.

The committee had been set up in October last year by the then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar.

Parrikar had ordered a ‘cross-checking of facts’ on rank parity between officers of the three forces and civilians. The forces had protested saying that equivalence had been disturbed and the status of service officers had been downgraded following an MoD note in October last year.

One year later, the committee says the MoD note issued in October last year has basically reiterated the arrangements which have existed for years. In other words, the protest of the three forces has been brushed aside.

The committee has suggested that a standing committee be constituted to resolve the ongoing issues between the forces and the AFHQ cadre.

The AFHQ cadre was set up in the mid-1960s and was meant to provide only Secretarial support and has no executive authority or powers.

Tomorrow: The stinging protest by the forces










        RANK RANKLE IN FORCES 

                         PART-II

 [  http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/panel-report-may-lead-to-discontent-armed-forces/485368.html  ]

Panel report may lead to discontent: Armed forces

 October 21

 A storm is brewing in South Block, headquarters of the Ministry of Defence in the national capital. In view of the rank-parity committee’s draft, the armed forces have warned against violating “established equations”. They say it could cause “dissatisfaction” among forces and give rise to “avoidable litigation”.

The 21-page draft report of the committee headed by an additional secretary rank officer is on rank-equivalence norms between the armed forces and the civilians employed in the Armed Forces Headquarters, called the AFHQ cadre. The report has not yet been presented to the MoD. The armed forces are protesting vehemently. 

The Principal Personnel Officers Committee (PPOC), a body of the three armed forces, in a letter to the three-member committee on September 22, reiterated rank benchmarks and questioned the veracity of the documents submitted by the AFHQ cadre. The PPOC said the rank-parity claims of the AFHQ cadre are based on unsubstantiated documents largely based on a letter written by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 1968. 

“Its veracity is in serious doubt,” stated the stinging protest letter. It cites a 2007 MHA letter which clarified that no such document exists to establish equivalence between defence officers and civilians except for the warrant of precedence. The same was reiterated by the Group of Ministers’ report in 2008. The armed forces have cited that the charter of the PPOC cleared by the Union Cabinet mandates policy matters of the AFHQ cadre. 

The AFHQ officials in their presentation to the committee have disputed this Cabinet memo dated 1974 and subsequent MoD letter in 2002. The PPOC has argued that the AFHQ cadre headed by a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) has made various communications regarding status equivalence based on “nonexistent” precedence. “Gross misrepresentation seems to have been made regarding equivalence, cadre restructuring and creation of higher posts,” the letter from PPOC suggests while seeking that all such letters be examined for their appropriateness. 

Talking about ranks, it said Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs), who rise from the ranks, are mandated as gazetted ‘group B’ employees. Commissioned Officers are equal to ranks of all-India services and the IPS. 

In July, the Army had written to the MoD saying that JCOs are accorded gazetted status as per an Act of Parliament and have legally defined status. However, when posted at South Block, a JCO is issued an identity card equating him with group C, the lowest in the government employee cadre. 

Tomorrow: Helpless, despite announcements

            RANK RANKLE IN FORCES

                        PART-III

[  http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/status-parity-issues-remain-despite-announcements/485765.html ]

Status, parity issues remain despite announcements

October 22



Almost nine years ago, on December 27, 2008, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a detailed note asking for setting up a high-powered committee to resolve the issues of status and parity among the armed forces, the Central armed police and also the civilians.

This implied having a well-defined parity among the forces and other cadres like the IAS and IPS.  Certain ranks have been “added” at the higher level in the past three decades in the IAS and IPS.

In all these years, no committee has been set up that could, for once and all, decide on the matter. In the hierarchy-driven forces, encroachments on status are a strict no-no. Announcements are made and then noting happens, noted a senior functionary.

The December 2008 PMO note originated after forces protested against what they termed as “lowering” of status by the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Besides then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, the decision makers included then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and then Defence Minister AK Antony.  

The non-functional upgradation (NFU) is yet another issue. The 7th CPC report tabled in 2016 said NFU should be given to forces. The government differed. The matter is now before the Supreme Court. A “non-functional scale (pay) upgradation” is allowed by the government to Group-A officers. Meaning they get the same scale as a Joint Secretary, but after 24 years of service. The NFU increases the salary of an individual by taking it to the upper scale. In the government, all facilities, perks, accommodation, travel allowance, vehicle, etc., are decided on basis of pay scales.

Strangely, the armed forces are neither classified as group “A” services nor are they termed as “Central services” like the IAS or the IPS, hence, they do not get an NFU. Now, with others getting NFU the gap gets widened. On the operational side, all civilian officers in Border Roads Organisation or the Military Engineering Services get this NFU, making them “senior” in hierarchy to the armed forces officers, who are otherwise senior in warrant of precedence  (WoP) defined by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

In November last year, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) notified a three-member committee to study rank equivalence between the armed forces and the civilians employed in the Armed Forces Headquarters, called the AFHQ cadre.

The MoD appointed an Additional Secretary as head of the committee, while a Lt-Gen rank officer, who as per the WoP is ahead in status, was made a member of the committee. How the Armed forces accepted this, is not known.  The committee has made 21-page draft report that has not yet been presented to the MoD.

 The armed forces are protesting vehemently at the proposed “lowering” of their status.

In case of the forces, the ranks and their roles, functions and names have remained more or less the same since the British era. No more than 20 per cent of make it to the rank of Colonel as there are no automatic promotions. The percentage drops sharply for Brigadier, Maj General and Lt General.

(Concluded)