Confusion between Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) and Military Service Pay (MSP) and the need to ignore unnecessary rumours and false hopes

There are certain messages floating on social and other media that the Supreme Court of India has passed directions to pay ‘Military Service Pay’ with effect from January 2006 rather than from 2008 as was granted by the Government.

This is incorrect and there are no such directions. People are probably confusing the recent judgment on Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) with the concept of Military Service Pay (MSP). Even otherwise, de hors the absence of any such decision, no parallel can be drawn between the two issues.

As explained in the post of 17^th December 2017, the Sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended the implementation of the ‘Modified Assured Career Progression’ Scheme (MACP) providing for the grant of three financial upgradations of pay at the gap of 8, 16 and 24 years of service in case of stagnation, for the defence services.

The Special Army Instructions (SAI) on the subject had also been issued with effect from 01^st January 2006 and which contained therein the stipulation of MACP. However later, despite the existence of the said SAI, another fresh letter was issued by the Government stating that MACP will be prospectively implemented from 01^st September 2008.

Hence ultimately, unlike other pay related modalities which were implemented with effect from 01^st January 2006, MACP was implemented with effect from 01^st September 2008, thereby not including in its scope the personnel who were released from service between the two dates. The Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), however, ruled that the pay commission had granted all pay and pension related benefits from January 2006 and the prospective implementation was only effectuated for ‘allowances’ and hence MACP was also to be implemented from January 2006 since it pertained to upgradation of pay. While ordering so, the AFT had followed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had earlier ruled upon the implementation of improved pay-scales of defence personnel from 1996 rather than 1997 in an anomaly emanating out of the Fifth Pay Commission. The decision of the AFT was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court but the Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India thereby upholding the grant of MACP from 01 January 2006 rather than 01^st September 2008.

The aspect to be noted however in the above is that in case of MSP, the pay commission had itself noted that it shall be applied prospectively without any arrears (Para 2.3.12 of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report). Further, when the SAI 1/S/2008 was issued, while it applied benefits of all modalities from 2006 (including MACP), it had specifically stated in Paragraph 5 (d) that arrears of MSP shall only be paid with effect from 01^st September 2008. There was no such negative stipulation for MACP. Further MACP was a replacement for the earlier ACP while MSP was completely a new element.

Hence, as the above would show, while the MACP was applied from 2006 but later tacitly retrospectively withdrawn and made applicable from 2008, an action was at the heart of the debate in Courts, there was no such controversy with regard to MSP which was always meant to be paid prospectively from September 2008.

Though, at the surface, both issues might appear to be similar to the untrained eye, there is actually absolutely no parallel between the concepts of MACP and MSP, and hence it is in the interest of sanity to ignore messages being circulated that MSP arrears will be paid to all personnel with effect from 01 January 2006. One should avoid forwarding such messages since it may promote unnecessary litigation and propel false hopes.

Important decision for ranks other than Commissioned Officers who retired between 01-01-2006 and 30-08-2008

The Sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended the implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) providing for the grant of three financial upgradations of pay at the gap of 8, 16 and 24 years of service in case of stagnation.

Unlike other pay related modalities which were implemented with effect from 01 January 2006, the MACP was implemented with effect from 01 September 2008, thereby not including in its scope the personnel who were released from service between the two dates.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had however ruled that the pay commission had granted all pay and pension related benefits from January 2006 and the prospective implementation was only effectuated for ‘allowances’ and hence the MACP was also to be implemented from January 2006 since it pertained to upgradation of pay. While ordering so, the AFT had followed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had earlier ruled upon the implementation of improved pay-scales of defence personnel from 1996 rather than 1997 in an anomaly emanating out of the Fifth Pay Commission.

The decision of the AFT was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court but the Apex Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India thereby upholding the grant of MACP from 01 January 2006 rather than 01 September 2009. This will affect the pay and pensionary benefits of those personnel who retired during 01-01-2006 and 30-08-2008. 

Pre-2016 Airmen & NCs (E) retirees are to submit their service details to get corrigendum PPOs

Dear Air Veterans,

As per DAV  letter No. Air HQ/99798/Misc/7th CPC/O/RP/DAV dated 13^th October 2017 and Air HQ letter No. Air HQ/99798/9/SP/DAV dated 23^rd October 2017, in order to issue corrigendum PPOs to all ex-airmen, NCs (E) and their eligible family pensioners they are to submit the details in given format. The required information in case of Airmen may please be forwarded to DAV email dav.airmen@gov.in and NCs (E) to dirav.nce@gov.in by fax on 011-25696359 or by post on the following address:

            Director AV-III

            3^rd Floor

            AFRO

            Subroto Park

            New Delhi-110 010

            The details can be viewed by clicking here.

On Reemployment, Dignity of Labour and an Egalitarian Society

A few days ago, I responded to a tweet wherein a Subedar Major was driving a cab to earn his living. I found the situation odd because of reasons I would articulate in due course, within this write-up.

There were mixed reactions to my response on twitter. Some agreed with me, while some, including a few of my very good friends, stated that we should respect dignity of labour and that there was nothing wrong in driving a cab to earn one’s living.

I fully stand behind the concept of dignity of labour. I also firmly believe in an egalitarian society. I further believe in living a life shorn of redundant ceremonial regalia and working with my own hands. But that is not the point that I wish to make.

My plain and simple argument is that as a society and a nation we have failed to harness the skills of our military veterans, in this case, a Subedar Major of the Corps of Engineers of the Indian Army who would have served in uniform for at least three decades and who retired from a Group B (Formerly known as Class II) level gazetted appointment. Would a Subedar Major be driving a cab if offered a commensurate post-retirement placement by us as national policy? the answer would probably be in the negative. Would an equivalent gazetted police or civil officer be found driving a cab like him? The answer to that too would probably be in the negative.

Egalitarianism and dignity of labour is one thing, however making use of skills and providing a dignified post-retirement re-settlement to soldiers is a different issue altogether. Our soldiers start retiring in their 30s, while some of us may be happy to see them stand guard at the neighbourhood ATMs that simply is not what they are worth. All organisations have a certain hierarchy based upon skills and experience, and that hierarchy cannot be merely brushed aside or stretched to absurd levels in the name of ‘dignity of labour’, since if that be so, then there would be no harm in a retired Colonel or a retired DIG of Police taking up the appointment of a security guard after retirement! If that be so, then there should be and would be no reason for holding on to any hierarchy in any organisation or establishment.

Though much effort is going into it today, the state of resettlement of our soldiers is not worth praise. To take an example, the Railways, with much fanfare keep initiating special drives for recruitment of ex-servicemen. But what are the appointments? -the jobs of cleaners and helpers and khalasis at Group D level (junior even to a newly recruited Sepoy) being offered to all ranks, including to Junior Commissioned Officers of the rank of Naib Subedar, Subedar and Subedar Major. Appointing a former senior functionary of the Army as a cleaner or even a driver is not dignity of labour, it is an affront to the dignity and experience of the military rank, it is indignity of skill sets, it is exploitation of human resources. A fauji lives and dies for his izzat but there is no protection of his military status on re-employment on the civil side. This old news-report would also show how such appointments were accepted with heavy hearts by ex-servicemen and not willingly. Our society also is blissfully unaware that if soldiers are unable to find a suitable vocation after their early release from the defence services at the peak of their lives, they at times develop complexes and even psychiatric ailments, which, of course is an area not even documented or researched upon this side of the world.

Of about 60,000 personnel who retire every year, the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR) is able to adjust only about 4000. Even after the DGR had written to all Defence Public Sector Undertakings on directions of the Defence Minister, just 8 PSUs even cared to reply with only about 9.5% vacancies utilized. If such is the response of the official establishment even to the right intentioned moves of the political executive, one can well imagine the overall state of affairs.

Familial and societal responsibilities are at peak levels when soldiers retire in their 30s and 40s. Their income drops down exactly to half when they are released, unlike their civilian counterparts who continue in guaranteed employment till the age of 60. To thrust upon any kind of job onto such veterans in the name of ‘dignity of labour’ not commensurate to their skills or experience, would thus be a disservice, to say the least, in my humble opinion. 

Courtesy: Maj Navdeep Singh

“Babu Hatao, Fauji Bachao”: Trifling with the Fauj and National Security

Civil-military relations are today at an all-time low and although the decades-long continuity of the bureaucratic hand is obvious in the current NDA-2 dispensation, there is also evidence of the political leadership humiliating the military. Let us begin with the CBI’s arrest of Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi, India’s former Air Chief, in connection with the Agusta Westland helicopter purchase deal. It raises some questions not only about the functioning of the political leadership and the bureaucrat-police network, but also about hidden motivations and unintended compromise of national security due to its effect on the morale of India’s military.

Questions arise as to why ACM Tyagi was arrested when others involved were not. Was it done deliberately to humiliate him and thereby India’s military? Was this the handiwork of bureaucrats and/or the police? Who among the political hierarchy authorised his arrest?

These questions are not about whether or not ACM Tyagi is guilty of receiving bribes or any other offence. That matter will be settled by the courts after examining all evidence. But when evidence is still being collected, when ACM Tyagi is cooperating with the CBI in collection of evidence, and there is no prima facie case against him, his arrest raises the question: Why was ACM Tyagi singled out for humiliation?

Humiliating the Military

Let us recall that during the NDA-1 rule under PM Vajpayee, Defence Minister George Fernandes summarily dismissed Navy Chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat from service. It is clear that the government wanted to show its power over the military by summarily dismissing a Defence Service Chief, because the proper and sensible thing to do was to summon Admiral Bhagwat and ask him to resign. Dismissing him in a peremptory manner was an act of cowardice. The most generous view one can take is that the government (politician-bureaucrat) had no clue as to the repercussions that public humiliation of a serving Defence Chief would have on the morale of the Indian Navy and the sister services. Or was the summary dismissal by design? What was the purpose served by humiliating Admiral Bhagwat and the military as a whole?

Now that ACM Tyagi and the military have been humiliated by the NDA-2 Government, in retrospect Admiral Bhagwat’s dismissal appears to fall in place, especially because in between the Bhagwat and Tyagi incidents, there have been incidents in the NDA-2 tenure which appear to have been directed at humiliating the military and adversely affecting the soldiers’ morale, and thereby compromising national security. To name a few in random sequence:

• Sending police to manhandle peacefully agitating Veterans at Jantar Mantar;

• Stating that OROP would be given to military Veterans by taking it from dues to poor farmers;

• Notwithstanding reservations of the Defence Services Chiefs, peremptorily directing the three Service Chiefs to implement the 7CPC award without delay;

• Keeping the military without access to the 7CPC Anomalies Committee which was secretly arranged for civilians;

• Raising the salaries of the CRPF above that of soldiers;

• Downgradation of military ranks vis-a-vis civilian officials;

• Granting NFU to IPS but not to the military;

• The issue of pay parity with IAS/IPS;

• Lower hazard allowance than IAS/IPS;

• Stating that the Army did not know its own capability to carry out the post-Uri surgical strike until it was told so;

• Reducing disability pension immediately following the post-Uri surgical strike;

• The military commander being pushed aside by a bureaucrat at the 2016 Red Fort Independence Day function; and

• Insulting military war memorials and guard of honour by a functionary deliberately dressing inappropriately or casually.

These and more are apart from the Department of Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare appealing as a matter of policy against every judicial decision given in favour of individual Veterans.

Meddling with military leadership

The recent unprecedented step of “deep selection” of Lt Gen Bipin Rawat as the Army Chief-designate by superceding two senior officers, even though this is within the discretionary powers of the Cabinet, has caused disquiet among soldiers and Veterans. The reason for disquiet is that the government appears not to understand that Lt Gen Rawat is not superior in merit to his two seniors whom he has superceded, and if his experience in counter-insurgency is the criterion for his selection, it glosses over the fact that the Army is deployed in counter-insurgency only because of the decades-long failure of the bureaucracy-police in its primary role of internal security. If however deep selection was a political decision, this could seriously compromise the Army (the military in general) remaining as India’s last bastion of secular practice, and encourage sycophancy among officers to the permanent detriment of military professionalism.

It is necessary to note that previous governments, including NDA-1 and the Congress regimes preceding and including UPA-1 and UPA-2, had undoubtedly given the military a raw deal, particularly with regard to successive Central Pay Commissions and the OROP demand. Gen Vaidya was appointed the Army Chief by superceding Lt Gen Sinha, and Army Chief Gen Rodrigues was publicly castigated for his “bandicoots” remark. Even though the political leadership was primarily responsible, the hand of the bureaucracy was clear to every serving and retired soldier.

The precipitous dip in civil-military relations is because the bureaucrat-police machinations are increasingly blatant, and rather than taking control of the military and releasing it from the Babu-stranglehold, some top political leaders are thoughtlessly causing humiliation. Questions are being asked as to who will bring this to the notice of the National Security Council. One Veteran even suggested a slogan on the lines: “Babu hatao, Fauji bachao”, so that civilian control of the military is actually with the Union Cabinet.

Considering that the NSA is a police officer with enormous clout at the topmost level, upgrading of the status of the police over the military while simultaneously humiliating the military is extremely dangerous for the security and safety of India.

Major General S.G. Vombatkere, VSM, retired as the Additional DG Discipline and Vigilance in the Army HQ AG’s Branch. He is a member of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). With over 520 published papers in national and international journals and seminars, his area of interest is strategic and development-related issues. He can be contacted at e-mail: sg9kere[at]live.com