WE D NE S D A Y , A P R I L 1 , 2 0 0 9

The only practical wayo!t "or parity in pay an# career

pro$re%%ion &
There is lack of a meeting point between the civil and the defence services as
far as pay (and career) progression is concerned. A practical aspect of the
problem also emanates from the steep pyramid-like structure of the forces
which cannot be exactly configured with the civil set-up or so they think.
Another feature of the problem is the now 'tho!$h wron$ly( ensconced
Joint ecretary to !ovt of "ndia # $a%or !eneral e&uivalence at the executive
level in the $inistry of 'efence. Also with A( committee report
implementation) the time frame re&uired for promotions in the defence
services have undergone a humongous change in the backdrop of civil
promotions. *or example) the enior Time cale (T) +,-- . !+ //00)
e&uivalence with a 1aptain is no longer acceptable to the civilian set up
because while a 1apt is promoted to the rank in 2 years of service) an T
officer reaches that grade in four years.
o what is the way out 3 The way out is that pay and career progression
should be de-linked from military rank progression as far as comparison with
the civil services is concerned. $ilitary rank may continue to act as an
internal functional . command and control mechanism but without any
relevance to comparison with the civil services. *or example) 1apt with two
years of service as 1apt (total 4 years commissioned service) can be
elevated to T (!+ //00) %ust as in the civil services. A $a%or with three
years of service as $a%or (total 5 years commissioned service) can be
elevated to JA! (!+ 6/00) as is the case with civilian counterparts) 7t 1ol
with one year of service as 7t 1ol (total 84 years of commissioned service) is
upgraded to !+ 9500 and 7t 1ol . 1ol with total 89 years of service is
promoted to A! (!+ 80000). 1olonels) ,rigs and $a% !ens can stay in !+
80000 while for executive purposes) only a $a% !en can be granted the
functional signatory powers of a Joint ecretary to !ovt of "ndia to maintain
status &uo that is the root cause of the lack of a meeting point.
+romotions to higher levels) i.e) :A!; (7t !en) and Apex !rade (7t !en <
Army 1ommanders= . (1>A grade) can continue as hitherto before. This
would be in line with the time based promotions in the civil services and also
as implemented for all !ovt 'octors under the 1entral !ovt under the
'ynamic Assured 1areer +rogression cheme ('A1+).
Plea%e al%o per!%e thi% ta)!lar repre%entation o" the a)o*e propo%al
"or a )etter pict!re+
ide by side) we also need to highlight the fact again that the time being
spent in training in military establishments is not counted towards service as
in the case of others. ?e need to again impress on the establishment to
count our training period (after award of a degree of graduation) as service
for all intents and purposes.
,efore naysayers reduce the above to dust) " would like to point out that
such time based progression is not new to the forces. "n the @avy) 1aptains
with - years of service are upgraded to a higher !rade +ay. "f it has worked
for the @avy since times immemorial) it can damn well work for the sister
services. The military ranks have always acted as an internal functional
re&uirement and shall remain so. The above proposal would also eliminate
voices seeking AremovalB of one rank from the military hierarchy since this
would result in progression almost at par with the civil services without
tinkering our time tested rank structure.
$ore than anything else) we need to change our mind-set and find ways to
reach a mutually acceptable consensus on this very important issue.