In the early November meeting between the three chiefs and Expenditure Secretary Sushama Nath, it is learnt that the chiefs kicked of the topic on the Lieutenant General pay scale by indicating that the status of a Lt Gen had remained completely inert for the last three decades, despite that the fact that Heads of Police had been constantly upgraded with each passing Pay Commission.
At this point, it is learnt that the Expenditure Secretary placed on record that neither the 6thPC nor the government resolution had altered the existing position or status of the Lt Gen rank in relation to the DGP rank. A presentation was then made by the services side to illustrate the "constant erosion of status":
- III CPC
(i) Police head in each state an IG, equal to a Maj Gen
(ii) All Lt Gens were superior to head of police in the state
- IV CPC
(i) Created posts of DG Police in larger states with pay scales equal to a Lt Gen
(ii) Also, ex-cadre posts of Addl DG Police were created in the scale of IG Police
- V CPC
(i) Encadred Addl DG Police and granted the same scale as a Lt Gen
(ii) Also upgraded DG Police to a superior scale, that is, of Rs 24,050-26,000
(iii) Smaller states granted posts of DG Police in higher scales
(iv) Group of Officers was referred the issue of "restoration of status of Lt Gen", who referred the matter to the government
The Ajai Vikram Singh Committee also recommended extension of scale of DGP to Lt Gen
- VI CPC
(i) Services demand for restoration of status equation with DG Police not addressed by the CPC
(ii) IPS demand for creation of posts of Spl DG Police was also not accepted
- Government Resolution
(i) One DGP per state however, placed in the apex scale of Rs 80,000 (fixed) with status of Secretary
(ii) All of ther DGPs given a new higher scale of HAG+
This marked the end of the presentation. At this point, it is learnt that Army chief General Deepak Kapoor spoke about the "adverse impact" of the lower status of Lt Gens, particularly in areas where the Army was deployed in the counter-insurgency role, such as J&K and the North East -- areas where Corps Commanders are required to head unified command structures. It was also apparently indicated that the existing position of the Warrant of Precedence was that of Lt Gen in article 24, whereas the DGPs of state and central Paramilitary forces placed at a lower article 25.
At this juncture, the Expenditure Secretary is understood to have suggested that in future, officers would stagnate at the top of the scale in PB-4 long before their promotion to the three-star rank. In response, the chiefs indicated that a similar stagnation would also occur in the civil services -- and this could not from any angle be taken as a reason for denying Lt Gens the HAG+ scale. General Kapoor is understood to have re-emphasised at this point once more that the issue was not of monetary gains, but about status, particularly in the coordination of operations in J&K and the North East.
Labels: Controversy, Government-Policy-Politics, Headlines Today, LiveFist Exclusive, Military Pay, Personalities