.

DETAILS OF HEARING OF TAVWA WRIT PETITION IN SUPREME COURT TODAY ON 26/02/2026

2026-02-26T21:59:00.001+05:30

Today may not have unfolded exactly as we had hoped, but it has certainly not been a setback. Though our case was directed earlier to be listed on top of the board, the court had to first take up a few exceptionally important matters, including a PIL concerning child trafficking. These initial cases consumed substantial time. Since the court was scheduled to sit as a Special Bench in the second half, regular matters were heard only up to lunch, and unfortunately, our case could not be reached.

However, before the court rose, our advocate responsibly mentioned the matter before the Hon’ble Bench, pointing out that despite being ordered to be listed on top, the case could not be taken up. The Bench appreciated the submission and directed the Court Master to list our case at an early date. As a result of this effort, the case status now reflects a tentative listing date of 19.03.2026, in terms of today’s order. This itself is a positive development and clearly shows that our counsel’s timely intervention has yielded results. We are hopeful that the matter will be listed on the said date and taken up for hearing.

Friends, court proceedings move according to judicial priorities and practical constraints. While we are doing everything possible to advance the matter at the earliest, patience remains our greatest strength. Justice may sometimes move slowly, but it does move surely.

Let us remain calm, united, and optimistic. With perseverance and faith, we shall reach our goal—justice will prevail, sooner or later.

Team TAVWA

OROP FIRST REVISION PROBABLE ARREARES CALCULATOR ( 01/07/2019 TO 30/06/2014 ) SUBJECT TO OUTCOME OF X GROUP PAY CASE IN HSC

2026-02-22T16:19:00.005+05:30

OROP-II X-Group Arrears Calculator (Up to 33 Years)

OROP-II( FIRST REVISION ): X-GROUP ARREARS CALCULATOR FOR PRE-2016
X GROUP IAF VETERANS
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TABLE 7 & 8 FOR SEVICE UP TO 33 YEARS

Rank at Retirement Length of Service (Years)

Supreme Court Cases on X Group Pay (₹6200) – Complete Update .

2025-09-20T12:36:00.000+05:30

Supreme Court Cases on X Group Pay (₹6200) – Complete Update

At the very outset, let us reassure you that the issue of denial of full X Group Pay of ₹6200 to Pre-2016 Veterans under OROP-2 and OROP-3 is already before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a consolidated and well-represented manner. There should be no confusion or ambiguity – our case is strong, progressing, and fully covered through one Lead Petition and three Tagged Petitions.

Detailed List of Cases:

1️⃣ WP(C) 796/2023 – Sushil Kumar Choudhary & Others
- This is the Lead Petition, challenging Table Nos. 7 & 8 of OROP-2 and OROP-3.
- The petition argues that the denial of full X Group Pay of ₹6200 to Pre-2016 Veterans is arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the Cabinet Resolutions, MoD orders, and settled principles of pension parity.

2️⃣ WP(C) 1324/2023 – Technical Air Veterans Welfare Association (TAVWA)
- This is the 1st Tagged Petition, and it deserves special attention.
- Filed by the Technical Air Veterans Welfare Association, this case strongly reinforces the technical cadre’s rightful claim to X Pay of ₹6200.
- What makes this petition especially significant is that it is based on Cabinet approval and binding letters/circulars issued by the Ministry of Defence itself, which clearly recognized the entitlement of X Group Veterans to the enhanced pay of ₹6200.
- The petition therefore demonstrates that the denial under OROP-2 and OROP-3 is not only unjust and discriminatory, but also in direct violation of the Government’s own decisions and policy documents.
- Its importance lies in the fact that it represents the broad technical community, ensuring that the issue is not seen as isolated to one arm of the forces, but as a common grievance across services.

3️⃣ WP(C) 126/2024 – Welfare Association of Retired Mechanics of Indian Navy (WARMIN)
- This is the 2nd Tagged Petition, filed on behalf of Retired Naval Mechanics.
- It reinforces the claim that the OROP tables (7 & 8) violate equality by granting X Group Pay selectively.

4️⃣ WP(C) 391/2025 – Veterans Indian Navy Direct Entry Artificers
- This is the 3rd Tagged Petition, filed by Direct Entry Naval Artificers.
- Recently tagged with the above matters, it awaits compliance and is part of the same bunch of cases.

Core Issue Before the Court

All these petitions challenge the illegal bifurcation and denial of X Group Pay (₹6200) to Pre-2016 X Group Veterans, whereas Post-2016 personnel are given full benefit.
- The grievance is that such denial is discriminatory, violates the principle of 'equal pension for equal rank and equal length of service', and disregards earlier Cabinet decisions and Supreme Court judgments (Nakara, Balbir Singh Turn, etc.).

Current Status

- The Lead Case (WP(C) 796/2023) and the Tagged Petitions are being heard together.
- Among the tagged cases, the TAVWA Petition (Tagged Case-1) carries exceptional weight because it is grounded not only in legal parity but also in Cabinet approval and MoD’s own circulars, which makes it particularly difficult for the Government to contest.
- Once compliance of the recently tagged petitions is completed, the entire bunch will be listed before the CJI’s Court for substantive hearing and final adjudication.

Message to Technical Air veteran Welfare Association Members

Dear Veterans, please note that our cause is fully represented in the Supreme Court through the above four petitions. There should be no confusion or doubt. All petitions are moving together under the lead case of Sushil Kumar Choudhary & Others.
The outcome of these petitions will decide the entitlement of Pre-2016 X Group Veterans to full X Pay of ₹6200, ensuring justice and parity.
We request members to remain patient, united, and vigilant, as this is a matter of national importance for all Ex-Servicemen of Technical Categories across the three Services.

DNA Test Establishes Lineage Beyond Doubt: MoD Letters (05.09.2017 & 17.10.2018) and PCDA Circular 608 (26.10.2018) as Legitimate Descendants of the 7th CPC

2025-08-25T17:47:00.001+05:30

Unlawful Segregation of Pensioners by Pre-2016 & Post-2016 Classification under OROP-II & III: A Breach of Article 14

2025-08-23T19:27:00.002+05:30

Unlawful Invention and Arbitrary Application of the ‘Varying Benefits’ Doctrine by DESW/MoD

2025-08-15T20:49:00.000+05:30

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE – ILLEGAL CREATION AND MISUSE OF THE “VARYING BENEFITS” CONCEPT BY DESW/MoD

[Ground A] – Scope of the “Varying Benefit” Principle

1. The term “Varying Benefit” refers to pay, allowances, or service-related advantages granted only to those personnel who fulfill specific eligibility conditions prescribed by competent authority under statutory rules or valid policy decisions.
2. Such variation is legally permissible only when supported by statutory provisions, constitutional authority, or Cabinet-approved policy decisions. It cannot be artificially created by administrative instructions or during implementation in a manner that contravenes the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

[Ground B] – Instances of Legitimate “Varying Benefits” in the Defence Forces

B.1 – Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)

3. MACP is a compensatory measure for personnel who have qualified for promotion but could not be promoted due to lack of vacancies. It is granted after completion of 8, 16, and 24 years of service (MACP I, II, III respectively).
4. This applies to all PBOR who meet eligibility criteria, resulting in natural differentiation between personnel of the same rank and service length. This differentiation is lawful as it is explicitly sanctioned by policy and applicable rules.

B.2 – X Group Pay under the 6th CPC

5. Under the 6th CPC, an X Group Pay of ₹1,400 per month was authorised exclusively for X Group trades.
6. Y Group personnel of the same rank and service length were not entitled to this pay element, as it was reserved for a specific technical group. This was a lawful “varying benefit” backed by statutory orders.

B.3 – X Group Pay under the 7th CPC

7. The 7th CPC replaced the uniform ₹1,400 X Group Pay with two levels:
- ₹6,200 for AICTE Diploma-equivalent trades.
- ₹3,600 for Non-Diploma equivalent trades.
8. This bifurcation was effected through the MoD Gazette Resolution dated 05.09.2016, issued under Article 309 of the Constitution, and therefore carried full statutory authority.
9. This variation is lawful; however, all personnel within the higher X Group category (₹6,200) remain a homogeneous class for all further pay fixation purposes.

[Ground C] – Arbitrary and Illegal Creation of “Varying Benefit” under OROP Implementation

C.1 – Unauthorised Bifurcation by Cut-Off Date

10. In implementing OROP-II (PCDA Circular No. 666 dated 20.01.2023) and OROP-III (PCDA Circular No. 677 dated 06.09.2024), the DESW and PCDA illegally subdivided the higher X Group category (₹6,200) into two classes:
- Pre-2016 retirees.
- Post-2016 retirees.
11. This was done solely on the basis of an arbitrary cut-off date, without any statutory authority or Cabinet-approved policy decision.

C.2 – Violation of Equality and “Class within Class” Doctrine

12. The Supreme Court has consistently held (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130; Union of India v. SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125; State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148) that it is impermissible to create artificial sub-classifications within a homogeneous group of pensioners having the same rank, length of service, and qualification.
13. Pre- and Post-2016 higher X Group veterans are identically placed in all relevant aspects. The creation of separate pension tables (Tables 7 & 8 in OROP-II/III) introduces an unlawful “class within a class”, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

C.3 – Analogy of Colourable Exercise of Power

14. The act of inserting an arbitrary variation within an otherwise lawful benefit is akin to using illicit funds to construct a temple and then claiming sanctity under the name of God — a colourable exercise of power to disguise illegality as lawful action.

[Ground D] – Overreach by DESW in Policy Matters Reserved for CPC/MoD

15. The fixation of pay structures and pension entitlements is a policy function within the authority of the Central Pay Commission (CPC) and Cabinet decisions notified through statutory Gazette Resolutions.
16. The DESW, in implementing OROP, exceeded its administrative role by altering the scope of X Group Pay through unauthorised bifurcation, thereby usurping the policy-making function.
17. This overreach was further perpetuated by DESW’s circulation of pre-drafted “standard replies” to subordinate formations, giving the false impression that the cut-off date classification was lawful and final.

[Ground E] – Constitutional and Legal Consequences

18. The creation of arbitrary “varying benefits” within the higher X Group category lacks statutory foundation and violates the equality mandate of Articles 14 and 16.
19. It is therefore liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and ultra vires, restoring a uniform pension entitlement for all higher X Group veterans regardless of date of retirement.

The Rise, Evolution, and Eclipse of X Group Pay — A Chronological Account of Varying Benefits and Discrimination

2025-08-15T12:03:00.000+05:30

Chronological Evolution of X Group Pay as a Varying Benefit and the Discrimination in OROP Implementation

1. Introduction of X Group Pay under 6th CPC (2006 onwards)

With the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (6th CPC), an X Group Pay of ₹1,400 per month was legally and statutorily sanctioned for all Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) of the Defence Forces belonging to the X Group.
- This was a varying benefit compared to Y Group PBOR, who did not receive X Group Pay.
- Due to this statutory distinction, “same pension for the same rank with the same length of service” between X and Y Group personnel was not legally possible under the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme, as the X Group Pay formed an integral, variable component of pension.

2. Enhancement and Bifurcation under 7th CPC (2016 onwards)

The 7th Central Pay Commission further enhanced and bifurcated the X Group Pay introduced under the 6th CPC:
- ₹6,200 per month for X Group PBOR holding an AICTE-recognised or equivalent diploma.
- ₹3,600 per month for X Group PBOR without an AICTE-equivalent diploma.

This bifurcation arose because certain non-technical trades, such as GARUD in the Indian Air Force, were included under the X Group category.
The Air Headquarters (Air HQ) and Air Force Record Office (AFRO) issued the necessary statutory orders implementing this distinction based on qualification.
- This marked the second legal creation of a varying benefit within the X Group itself.
- Due to this legal separation, Lower X Group (₹3,600) personnel cannot claim parity in pension with Higher X Group (₹6,200) personnel of the same rank and service length, as the varying benefit is qualification-based.

3. Homogeneity of Higher X Group Post-7th CPC

After the 7th CPC, all Higher X Group personnel receiving ₹6,200 X Group Pay formed a homogeneous class distinct from:
- Lower X Group (₹3,600 X Pay), and
- All Y Group personnel (no X Pay entitlement).

In this framework, pension parity between these distinct groups was not feasible under OROP, as the legally sanctioned varying benefit continued to apply.

4. Arbitrary Division in OROP-2 (Post-2016 vs. Pre-2016)

With the implementation of OROP-2 after the 7th CPC, the homogeneous Higher X Group (₹6,200) was arbitrarily divided again:
- Post-2016 retirees continued to receive Higher X Group Pay (₹6,200) for pension fixation.
- Pre-2016 retirees—despite holding the same AICTE-equivalent diploma qualifications—were downgraded to the Lower X Group Pay (₹3,600) category for pension purposes.

This third illegal & Arbitrary split in X Group Pay was:
- Not based on qualification, but solely on date of retirement,
- In violation of the 7th CPC recommendations and the Union Cabinet’s approval, which recognised qualification—not retirement date—as the basis for X Pay entitlement.

This has:
- Financially discriminated against Pre-2016 AICTE-qualified X Group veterans.
- Degraded their hard-earned diploma qualifications, obtained after rigorous training and passing centralised technical examinations in AICTE-approved institutes of the IAF.

Summary

From the 6th CPC to OROP-2, X Group Pay has evolved as a legally recognised varying benefit, but the OROP-2 implementation has created an unlawful “class within a class” among AICTE-qualified veterans, violating the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and Cabinet-approved pay structures.

Timeline of X Group Pay Evolution

Year / Event	Details
2006 (6th CPC)	Introduction of ₹1,400 X Group Pay – legally sanctioned as varying benefit for X Group PBOR.
2016 (7th CPC)	Enhancement & bifurcation: ₹6,200 for AICTE-qualified; ₹3,600 for non-AICTE-qualified.
2016 onwards	Higher X Group forms homogeneous class distinct from Lower X Group & Y Group.
2023 (OROP-2)	Arbitrary split: Pre-2016 downgraded to ₹3,600 despite same qualifications.

The Life Story of X Group Pay – An Insight into the Trials, Triumphs, and Tragedies Across Its Journey

2025-08-14T10:12:00.000+05:30

The Life Story of X Group Pay

Birth and Purpose
I was born in the proud family of the Indian Air Force on a symbolic day — the day my creators decided that technical skill and dedication needed a special recognition. My parents, the Government of India and the Air Force leadership, gave me a name: ‘X Group Pay’. My purpose was clear — to honour the men who worked tirelessly to ensure the airworthiness of every aircraft, day and night.

Childhood and Standards
In my childhood, I was nurtured with high standards. Only those with an AICTE-recognized Diploma in Engineering or its equivalent obtained after rigorous training and passing a centralised technical examination including Theory, Practical, and Viva could claim me. I became a badge of excellence, tied to the most skilled technical trades who worked with precision on the complex machinery of advanced fighter jets, weapon systems, and ground support equipment.

Glory Days in Service
As I grew, I witnessed my family — the X Group Airmen — serving with unmatched dedication. I stood with them during the wars of 1965 and 1971, through the tense days of the Kargil conflict in 1999, and in countless humanitarian aids during natural calamities. My name was respected, my value undisputed, and my purpose unquestioned.

Troubled Times
But life is not without trials. One day, dark clouds gathered. The 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions also respected me with honors but my uncle (DESW) who was the custodian made an unequal division of my ancestral Property which created a most painful moment — my house was divided. Veterans who retired before a certain date were treated differently from those who came after, even though their qualifications and duties were exactly the same. I watched my own family split apart by an arbitrary line of control.

Loss of Recognition
As if that were not enough, the very qualification I represented — the AICTE Diploma equivalence earned through rigorous Air Force training — was questioned. My pride was bruised, my worth lowered, and many of my people felt their lifelong service had been diminished in the eyes of the very system they had served.

The Fight for Dignity
Yet, my story does not end here. My people have not abandoned me. They are fighting — in courts, through petitions, and in representations to the Ministry of Defence — to restore my dignity. They know my existence is not merely about a financial allowance; it is about respect, recognition, and the honour of those who kept our nation’s aircraft flying safely.

The Hope
I am X Group Pay — born from respect, raised in service, tested by adversity, and still standing with the hope that my family will one day be reunited, and my honour fully restored.

SPEAKING ORDERS FOR ELIGIBILITY OF X PAY RS. 6200 TO PRE-2016 RETIRED X GROUP VETERANS

2025-07-10T10:17:00.004+05:30

Sequence of events Leading to issuance of 7^th CPC Circulars Authorising X Group Pay 6200 to Pre-2016 X Group Retirees.

1) Recommendations by the 7th CPC vide Paras 6.2.87 and 6.2.88 regarding the revision of pension for pre-2016 retirees.CLICK

2) Government of India ,Ministry of defence Gazette Notification of Resolution No.1(7)/2016/D(Pay/Services)05/09/2016 vide Gazette SL No 02 Part 1 Section 3 dated 05/09/2016 in its Page 13 Annexure-1 Para 4(a) & Para (b) approving the 7th CPC recommendations by the Union Government Pertaining to Group X Pay of Rs. 6200 & 3600 on the Basis of their Diploma Equvalency.CLICK

3) Air Headquarters, through Letter No. AIR HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated 08/05/2017 Segregated the X Group trades for the Allocation of higher & lower X Group pay of 6200 & 3600 Respectively as per Page 13 Annexute-1, Para 4 (a) & Para 4(b) oft the above Gazette Notification of Resolution dated 05/09/2016 on the Basis of their Diploma Equivalency.CLICK

4) GOI.MOD Letter No. 17(01)/2017/(02)/D(Pension/Policy) dated 05/09/2017 for revision of pension of Pre-2016 Retirees in compliance with the Gazette Notification dated 05/09/2016.CLICK

5) PCDA Circular No. 585 dated 21/09/2017 in compliance with MOD letter dated 05/09/2017 for revision of pension of Pre-2016 Retirees.CLICK

6) MOD Letter No. 17(01)/2017/(02)/D(Pension/Policy) dated 17/10/2018 regarding notional pay fixation of pre-2016 retirees using concordance table.CLICK

7) PCDA Circular No. 608 dated 26/10/2018 containing concordance table for notional fixation of pension of Pre-2016 Retirees in compliance with MOD letter dated 17/10/2018.CLICK

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983), the Hon’ble Court held that:

“a homogeneous class of pensioners cannot be fractured by an arbitrary cut-off.”

In Col. B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India (2006) 11 SCC 709, it was held:

“... computation of pension cannot apply unequal treatment merely by date of retirement. Enhanced benefits by subsequent amendment must uniformly apply to the class.”

In Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (CA Diary No. 3744/2016), the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled:

“A Cabinet/ Executive decision cannot be modified by an Administrative instruction. Any administrative instruction contrary to a Cabinet/Executive Resolution is ultra vires.”

Copy of Full Judgements

1) D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983)

2) Col. B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India (2006) 11 SCC 709

3) Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (CA Diary No. 3744/2016)

Following Administrative Orders issued in contravention of Government Decisions constitute an act of indiscipline, erode their own credibility and competence, and inevitably invite judicial rebuff.

1) Grossly Irresponsible and Discriminatory Advice Issued by DESW to CGDA Vide Para (b) Clarification on Page 2 Dated 08/04/2022, in Response to the Patently Frivolous and Baseless Clarifications Sought by CGDA Vide Their Letter Dated 22/03/2022.

2) Discriminatory Administrative Orders Issued by DESW Dated 18/05/2023 in furtherance of their Ill-Conceived and arbitrary advice to CGDA Dated 18/04/2022

Air Headquarters Demonstrates Discipline, Courage and Adherence to Government Policy by Urging DESW to Reconsider Its Stand on the Eligibility of X Group Pay..

1) Air Headquarters, through Letter No. AIR HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated 08/05/2017 Segregated the X Group trades for the Allocation of higher & lower X Group pay of 6200 & 3600 Respectively as per Page 13 Annexute-1, Para 4 (a) & Para 4(b) oft the above Gazette Notification of Resolution dated 05/09/2016 on the Basis of their Diploma Equivalency.

2) Air Head Quarters Letter to DESW to Re-consider X Pay of Rs.6200 to Pre-2016 X Group Veterans as per Govt Orders

Consistent and Unambiguous Stand Taken by JCDA (AF), AFRO, and DAV — the Competent and Statutory Authorities Overseeing the Fixation of Pension for Air Veterans through the Issuance of PPOs, in Strict Adherence to Government Orders.

1) JCDA (AF) has authorised Pre-2016 Xgroup Air Veterans X Group Pay of Rs. 62OO by issue of EPPO, as Per PCDA Circular 608 dated 26/10/2018

2)JCDA (AF) has Revised the Pension of all Pre-2016 Air Veterans on the Basis of MOD Letter dated 17/10/2018 & PCDA Circular 608 dated 26/10/2018

Compiled by MBC Menon.

8th Pay Commission: Central govt to merge pay scales for Level 1-6 employees? Here’s what the new proposal says

2025-02-22T11:47:00.001+05:30

After the government last month gave it approval for setting up the 8th Pay Commission, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has recently invited suggestions from the Staff Side of the National Council JCM for finalising the 8th Central Pay Commission ToR.

8th Pay Commission: The National Council of Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) Staff Side has submitted its recommendations for the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC), advocating significant changes in pay structure, allowances and benefits for government employees. Among the key points of ToR is the proposal for merger of certain pay scales to streamline salary structures and address anomalies in career progression.

In the JCM system, the “National Council Staff Side” refers to the representatives of various employee unions and associations who participate in discussions with the government at the national level, while the “National Council Official Side” represents the government officials from different ministries and departments who engage with the staff side on various matters concerning employees. The National Council JCM is headed by the Union Cabinet Secretary.

In response, Shiv Gopal Mishra, Secretary, NC-JCM Staff Side, has submitted a detailed proposal outlining key areas that need attention. One of the major recommendations of the Staff Side is merging pay scales for government employees under 1-6 pay levels.

The pay scale structure has as many as 18 levels, starting from level 1 and going up to level 18. After the 7th Pay Commission, the minimum pay at level 1 was fixed Rs 18,000 per month, while the maximum pay at level 18 was fixed at Rs 2,50,000 per month.

Proposal to merge pay scales:

One of the key suggestions put forward by the Staff Side is the merger of lower pay scales to ensure fairer compensation and smoother career progression. The recommendation includes merging:

Level 1 with Level 2

Level 3 with Level 4

Level 5 with Level 6

How will these mergers impact salary of employees under Level 1-6?

The Level 1 employee currently gets Rs 18,000 per month as basic pay while Level 2 receives Rs 19,900. If both these levels are merge into one it will benefit Level 1 employee more as the revised pay structure then will start from one. If we calculate the hike in pay after 8th pay commission based on expected fitment factor of up to 2.86, the revised basic would go up to Rs 51,480.

Similarly if the Level 3 and Level 4 are merged, the revised salary for employees under the merged pay level would be Rs 72,930.

For Level 5 and 6, the salary may go up to Rs 1,01, 244 for employees based on 2.86 fitment factor.

This move aims to eliminate disparities in pay progression and provide a more structured salary hierarchy. The proposal highlights that such a merger will benefit employees by reducing stagnation and ensuring better financial growth over time.

Demand for DA/DR merger:

Apart from the pay scale merger, the Staff Side has strongly advocated for the immediate merger of Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) with basic pay and pension. The proposal suggests that a certain percentage of DA/DR should be integrated into the pay structure to enhance take-home salaries and pensions, reducing the impact of inflation on government employees and pensioners.

Interim relief for employees:

Another crucial demand is the sanctioning of Interim Relief to Central Government employees and pensioners before the final implementation of the 8th CPC recommendations. This is intended to provide immediate financial support, addressing the rising cost of living while the commission deliberates on long-term pay revisions.

Revision of retirement benefits:

The Staff Side has also urged the government to improve retirement benefits, including:ncreasing the pension restoration period from 15 years to 12 years.

Implementing the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s recommendation for pension enhancement every five years.

Ensuring parity between past and future pensioners:

Additionally, there is a strong push for the restoration of the Defined Benefit Pension Scheme under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021), for employees recruited after 2004, replacing the existing contributory pension system.

What’s next?

The Staff Side has requested the government to hold a Standing Committee Meeting to discuss these recommendations before finalizing the Terms of Reference for the 8th CPC. If accepted, these changes could bring significant financial relief and structural reforms for millions of government employees and pensioners across various sectors.

What’s the latest development on 8th Pay Commission front?

The government is expected to appoint a 3-member 8th pay panel, to be headed by a chairman, this month. The pay commission will submit its report to the government in about 12 months time. The government will decide on the revision of pension and salary for over 1.2 crore central government employees and pensioners based on the panel’s recommendations.

8th Pay Commission may begin work in April FY25-26, reveals Expenditure Secretary Manoj Govil

2025-02-22T11:19:00.009+05:30

Expenditure Secretary Manoj Govil has revealed to CNBC-TV18 that the 8th Pay Commission will likely start their work in the month of April for FY 2025-26. The report said that the Union cabinet will have to give its nod to terms of reference (ToR). The Commission will ask Ministry of Department of Personnel & Training and the Ministry of Defence’s views on the matter. Govil also said that the 8th Pay Commission will have no financial effect on financial year 2026, according to the report<

The report further quoted Govil saying that the Union budget for next year will include funds to cover the financial impact of the 8th Pay Commission. The scheme is likely to affect India’s Unified Pension Scheme (UPS).

What is the 8th Pay Commission?

The Centre is working on setting up the 8th Pay Commission to review and update the salaries and pensions for all the central government employees and the ones who have retired. This revision will involve increase in salary, Dearness Allowance adjustments so that it matches India’s inflation rate.

However, the government has not provided specific details on the percentage of salary hikes for employees and retirees yet. A report by Business Today had said that the minimum basic salary may likely increase from Rs 18,000 to Rs 51,480.

According to a Mint report, the 8th Pay Commission is likely to benefit around 50 lakh government employees, which also includes defence personnel.

This Commission is created every 10 years to discuss and decide on the revision of salaries and pensions. The government has established 7 pay commissions since 1946 and is now working on setting up the 8th Pay Commission this year.

8th Pay Commission Terms of Reference: Commuted pension restoration after 12 years, pension revision every 5 years among key proposals

2025-02-22T10:49:00.000+05:30

8th Pay Commission: Among several proposals, the proposed ToR focuses on revising pay structures, allowances, and retirement benefits for various categories of central government employees.

8th Pay Commission Terms of Reference: Over 1 crore central government employees and pensioners are eagerly awaiting the appointment of the chairman and two members, as announced by the Centre last month, under the 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC). The government is expected to announce the names soon.

Meanwhile, all eyes are on the Terms of Reference (ToR), which is still to be firmed up and may be finalised by April.

In response to a letter from the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), the National Council – Joint Consultative Machinery (NC-JCM) Staff Side submitted the proposed ToR for the upcoming 8th pay panel.

Shiva Gopal Mishra, Secretary, NC-JCM (Staff Side), in a letter earlier, emphasised the need for a Standing Committee Meeting to deliberate on the details before finalisation of ToR. Among several proposals, the proposed ToR focuses on revising pay structures, allowances, and retirement benefits for various categories of central government employees. It also talks about demands like restoration of the commuted portion of pension after 12 years instead of 15 years and implementation of Parliamentary Standing Committee recommendations for enhancement of pension after every 5 years.

NC-JCM Staff Side met with the DoPT Secretary on February 12, 2025 to discuss the ToR

The key points included in the proposed ToR are:

Pay and allowances restructuring:

The ToR proposes review of pay structure for all categories of central government employees, including All India Services, Defence Forces, Para-Military Forces, Postal Employees (Gramin Dak Sevaks), and Union Territories personnel. It also seeks merging non-viable pay scales to improve career progression.

The ToR from Staff Side focuses on addressing anomalies in the MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) Scheme and recommend at least five promotions in service.

Minimum Wage & National Pay Policy

The ToR wants the panel to determine a decent and dignified minimum wage based on the Aykroyd formula and the 15th Indian Labour Conference recommendations. It recommends changes in cost of living and family consumption patterns while formulating the pay structure.

Dearness Allowance (DA) & Interim Relief

It suggests merging DA with basic pay and pension to ensure better financial security for employees and pensioners. The ToR also recommends interim relief for central government employees until the implementation of the 8th CPC recommendations.

Retirement Benefits & Pension Reforms

The Staff Side of NC-JCM also sought in ToR revise pension, gratuity, and family pension benefits. It also talks about restoration of the defined pension scheme (CCS Pension Rules 1972) for employees recruited after January 1, 2004. The ToR also recommends restoration of commuted portion of pension after 12 years instead of 15 years and implementation of Parliamentary Standing Committee recommendations for enhancement of pension after every 5 years.

Medical & Welfare Benefits

Another key point in the ToR is the demand for improvement in CGHS (Central Government Health Scheme) facilities, ensuring cashless and hassle-free medical services for employees and pensioners, including postal pensioners.

The ToR also recommends enhancements to Children’s Education Allowance and hostel subsidy up to post-graduation level.

8th Pay Commission: Single fitment factor for all pay levels in demand; why is this not allowed now?

2025-02-22T10:30:00.001+05:30

If the government accepts the demand for a common fitment factor in 8th Pay Commission, then then the percentage of pay hikes would be the same for all employees as a single multiplier would be used to compute revised salaries and allowances at all levels.

The Central Government Employee's representative in the National Council of Joint Consultative Machinery (NC-JCM) has demanded that there should be a common fitment factor across all pay levels in the 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC), according to a report by NDTV Profit.

The report quoted Shiv Gopal Mishra, secretary, NC-JCM (Staff Side) as saying that the fitment factor should be same across all pay levels or pay bands. This may help reduce the widening gap between minimum and maximum salaries offered to central government employees.

If the government accepts the demand for a common fitment factor in 8th pay commission, then then the percentage of pay hikes would be the same for all employees as a single multiplier would be used to compute revised salaries and allowances at all levels.

Why common fitment factor is not available now

The 7th pay commission had taken a different approach on fitment factor for all employees. For employees in Pay Band 1, it had recommended a fitment factor of 2.57. But for employees in higher pay bands, it had taken recommended different multipliers by taking into account the index of rationalisation.

For instance, the multipliers used in Pay Band 2 with Grade Pay ₹4200 and Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay 5400 were 2.62 and 2.67 respectively. But the multiplier used in Pay Band 1 with Grade Pay 1800 was 2.57.

The 7th CPC was of the belief that the role, responsibility and accountability increases as an employee moves up in the hierarchy.

“Rationalisation has been done to ensure that the quantum of jump, in financial terms, between these pay bands is reasonable. This has been achieved by applying ‘index of rationalisation’ from PB-2 onwards on the premise that with enhancement of levels from Pay Band 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and onwards, the role, responsibility and accountability increases at each step in the hierarchy,” the 7th CPC said.

“The proposed pay structure reflects the same principle. Hence, the existing entry pay at each level corresponding to successive grades pay in each pay band, from PB-2 onwards, has been enhanced by an ‘index of rationalisation’,” it added.

Work in progress

While the government announced the decision to set up the 8th Pay Commission recently, it is yet to be officially established.

It is, however, expected that the the commission would be set up timely and it would have enough time to prepare and submit its report by next year.

The NC-JCM Staff Side recently submitted its suggestions for the Terms of Reference of the 8th pay commission.

A meeting of the Staff Side and government officials to discuss the Terms of Reference suggestions was also held recently.

MSP CASE DISMISSED BY SUPREME COURT AS WITHDRAWN

2025-02-11T19:34:00.003+05:30

OFFICIAL ANOUNCEMENT OF 8TH CPC

2025-01-17T13:14:00.000+05:30

Briefing to media persons, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said, the union Cbinet has approved to constitute the 8th Central Pay Commission.

2025-01-16T18:56:00.002+05:30

Briefing to media persons, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said, “Prime Minister has approved the 8th Central Pay Commission for all employees of Central Government."

The names for the head and members of the 8th Pay panel will be announced soon, the minister added.

While Central Govt employees have been waiting to hear this good news from Modi govt in 2024 budget, as the Central govt employee union has demanded setting up of 8th Pay commission during 2024 budget discussion meeting with FM Nirmal Sitharaman, the FM didn’t announce the same in her budgest speech.

With Delhi elections due in Feb, the announcement of setting up of 8th Pay Commission will have a profound impact on the upcoming Delhi polls as they form a sizeable chunk in certain constituencies.

Moreover, as the implementation year will be Jan 1 , 2026, when the two significant polls – West Bengal Assembly elections in June 2026 and UP assembly polls in April 2027 are due– the 8th Pay commission may play a key role in the poll outcomes.

CENTRAL GOVT EMPLOYEE SIZE

As on date, the size of central govt employee and pensioners nationally stood at 3.5million and 5.2mn respectively, as stated in the Budget 2024-25..

WHY 8th PAY COMMISSION KEY TO POLLS?

The main reason for the pay commission assuming a big role in polls lies in the significant hike in minimum salary of Central Govt employees, which will cast a cascading effect on the state government employees in all states, as they will also see salary hikes in accordance with 8th Pay Commission pay matrix. A State govt can deny 8th pay commission benefits to its employees on its own peril only.

WHAT WILL BE MINIMUM SALARY UNDER 8th PAY COMMISSION?

As per a Central Govt employee Union, the minimum pay scale under 8th Pay Commision will rise to a whopping Rs 41,000 vis-à-vis Rs 18,000 under 7th pay commission.

They have presented the following calculation to arrive at the minimum salary in 8th pay commission. The CGEU report says the following. It elaborates:

7th Pay Commission has described how it arrived Minimum Pay
To estimate the minimum pay in the government,
the VI CPC used the norms set by the 15th Indian Labor Conference (ILC) in 1957 to determine the need-based minimum wage for a single industrial worker.

The norms set by the ILC are as below:

A need-based minimum wage for a single worker should cover all the needs of a worker’s family.
The normative family is taken to consist of a spouse and two children below the age of 14.
With the husband assigned 1 unit, wife, 0.8 unit and two children, 0.6 units each,
the minimum wage needs to address 3 consumption units
The specifications were derived from the recommendations of Dr. Wallace Aykroyd, the noted nutritionist, which stated that an average Indian adult engaged in moderate activity should, on a daily basis, consume 2,700 calories comprising 65 grams of protein and around 45-60 grams of fat.
Dr Aykroyd had further pointed out that animal proteins, such as milk, eggs, fish, liver and meat, are biologically more efficient than vegetable proteins and suggested that they should form at least one-fifth of the total protein intake
The clothing requirements should be based on per capita consumption of 18 yards per annum, which gives 72 yards per annum (5.5 meters per month) for the average worker’s family.
For housing, the rent corresponding to the minimum area provided under the government’s industrial housing schemes is to be taken.
The 15th ILC kept it at 7.5 percent of the total minimum wage
Fuel, lighting and other items of expenditure should constitute an additional 20 percent of the total minimum wage

After considering all relevant factors the Commission has recommended for keeping the minimum pay in government at Rs 18,000 per month, w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

As per their calculations, based on current inflation rate, the minimum salary of a central govt employee comes out at Rs 40,798.

The CGEU report predicts, “Based on the current inflation rates and consumer price index, the 8th CPC Minimum Pay will be set at Rs.41000. And for pensioners, the minum pension will be approximately around Rs 18000. Consequently, this will lead to a Fitment factor of 2.28."

The 7th Pay Commission had a fitment factor of 2.57.

WHAT IS FITMENT FACTOR: This is term first used by the 7th Pay Commission. It means a multiplication value that when multiplied with the basic pay of 6th Pay Commission will result into a new basic pay.

DESW SEEMS TO BE DIGGING UNDER THEIR OWN FEET.

2025-01-08T20:37:00.002+05:30

DESW takes the stand in AFT that 7th CPC Recomendation is applicable only to those who were in service on or after 01/01/2016 & by stating so MOD is digging under their own feet since X Group Pay of Rs 3600 & 6200 is recomended by 7th CPC from the rate of Rs 1400 in 6th CPC. They can not take different stand on both recomendation of 7th CPC as per their will & wish thus making it mockery of law & justice. Hence they have no uniforfm stand on Recomendations of 7TH CPC, Another Important matter is that 7th CPC recomendations itself is not an Anothority for MOD to sate. It is the Cbninet resolution accepeting the recomendations of 7th CPC by the union cabinet after addition/ deletion/ modification is the only Authority for MOD to implement with necessary Administrative Circulars/ Implementation orders without contravening the cabinet resolution which is a satutory docuent.It is shocking & heartbreaking to watch that AFT'S are dancing to the tune of MOD.

ATTENTION ADVOCATES REPRESENTING ARMY X GROUP PAY CASES IN AFT

2025-01-07T14:07:00.007+05:30

WAKE UP CALL FOR ADVOCATES PRESENTING ARMY X GROUP PAY CASES IN DIFFERENT AFTs

It has been observed that advocates have largely refrained from challenging the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) assertion that the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommended an X Pay of ₹6200 exclusively for personnel who joined after 2016. Consequently, many Army X Pay cases have been dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunals (AFTs) on this basis. This raises an important question: why have advocates not actively contested this claim by requesting the production of statutory rules or official documentation from the MOD to substantiate such an assertion? The failure to bring this issue to the attention of the courts is concerning, as it is a fundamental legal principle that courts only consider the matters presented to them. The absence of such advocacy warrants deeper scrutiny, raising concerns about the legal grounds for this approach and its potential implications for affected personnel.

Additionally, Army petitioners have failed to highlight the Cabinet Resolution dated 05/09/2016, which bifurcates the X Pay into two categories—₹6200 and ₹3600—based solely on qualification and not the alleged cut-off date of 01/01/2016, as claimed by the MOD. Both X Pay rates are duly authorized and applicable to trades, irrespective of retirement dates. The Cabinet Resolution, which accepts the recommendations of the 7th CPC, is a statutory rule that cannot be amended or modified by an administrative instruction from the MOD. The 7th CPC recommendations themselves are not statutory rules until accepted by the Cabinet, with or without modifications. Therefore, the MOD’s assertion that ₹6200 X Pay applies only to post-2016 retirees is misleading and unsupported by any statutory rules. This claim seems to be ultra vires to the statutory rules enacted by the Union Cabinet and the MOD has failed to substantiate its argument with any legal backing.

It also appears that the AFTs may not be fully aware of the legal context of this matter and are, unfortunately, aligning with the Union of India’s (UOI) position without demanding the relevant documents that would substantiate the UOI’s argument. The AFTs must not overlook & adhere the Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of D.S. Nakara vs UOI, Col. B J Akkara vs UOI, and UOI vs. Balbir Singh Turn, as these rulings must be adopted as a guide lines for similar cases and cannot be ignored in an attempt to appease the MOD.

Furthermore, the MOD has cited the judgment in the One Rank One Pension (OROP) case (WP (C) 419/2016) to suit its convenience but has conveniently overlooked that the OROP case pertains to personnel of the same rank and length of service. The issues raised in the OROP case are not relevant to the X Pay matter, which concerns the X Group Pay that applies uniformly to all ranks of eligible trades, as notified by the competent authority.

In addition, the 7th CPC notably increased the Military Service Pay (MSP) from ₹2000 under the 6th CPC to ₹5200 under the 7th CPC, effective from 01/01/2016. This increase was applied uniformly to all Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR), irrespective of their rank, group, length of service, or retirement date thus complying with statutory requirement.

However, the MOD has adopted a different and questionable approach with regard to Pre-2016 X Group retirees. The X Group, which is a homogeneous group under both the 6th and 7th CPCs, has been treated differently, with the MOD using the effective date of payment as a cut-off date, making Pre-2016 X Group retirees ineligible for the ₹6200 X Pay. Despite the 7th CPC recommending the X Pay increase to ₹6200, approved by the Union Cabinet with effect from 01/01/2016, the MOD has applied this revision only to post-2016 retirees without any legal or statutory backing, creating an inequitable application of the benefits.

This inconsistency raises significant concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the MOD's approach, particularly within the context of military pay revisions. Legally, the effective date of a recommendation, such as the revised MSP, is typically tied to the payment of benefits and cannot be interpreted as excluding retirees prior to that date unless explicitly stated. In the absence of any specific exclusion for Pre-2016 retirees, the revised X Pay of ₹6200, like the MSP, should be interpreted as applicable to all eligible personnel, irrespective of their retirement date. Such an interpretation would align with fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination, ensuring that all service members—whether they retired before or after 2016—are entitled to the benefits outlined in the revised pay structure.

The failure to explicitly include statutory exclusions for retirees prior to 2016 in the Cabinet Resolution, a statutory document, undermines the Ministry of Defence's (MOD) ability to implement a cut-off date that unjustly discriminates against pre-2016 retirees. This unauthorised action with out any legal backing is ultra vires the Cabinet Resolution and, as such, must be struck down by the court. The MOD should also be issued with a stern reprimand for this ill-conceived ulterior motive.The disparity in treatment between retirees requires immediate re-evaluation to ensure that all personnel are afforded the fair and equitable compensation to which they are justly entitled under the revised pay scales

The selection of homogeneous X Group trades as the basis for differentiating between Pre- and Post-2016 personnel, relying on frivolous contentions and invisible rules, appears malafide, arbitrary, and discriminatory. This approach should be legally contested, as it lacks a legitimate basis.

In conclusion, the MOD’s position on X Pay for post-2016 personnel is unsupported by statutory rules. The AFTs should critically examine the statutory framework and relevant Supreme Court judgments before rendering a judgment. The issue demands a thorough legal review to ensure the rights of personnel are upheld in accordance with the established rules and the constitutional principles of fairness and equality.

AIR HQ TAKES FIRM STAND ON THE ELIGIBILITY OF PRE-2016 X GROUP VETERANS FOR X PAY OF RS. 6200

2024-12-06T20:46:00.000+05:30

STATUS OF X GROUP PAY CASE IN AFT PB DELHI FILED BY VETERAN SR. N0. 292911 SGT S V SUNDARESAN

2024-11-09T17:21:00.001+05:30

LIFE CERTIFICATE SUBMISSION THROUGH JEEVAN PRAMAN MOBILE APP:- HINTS AND FULL EXPLANATION WITH PICTORAL PRESENTATION

2024-11-08T14:40:00.001+05:30

FULL PROCEEDURE WITH PICTORAL PRESENTATION

A Format in nutshell for a Petition to be filed by X Group Air Veterans in courts ( for reference )

2024-10-31T13:28:00.037+05:30

BACKGROUND:

The Petitioner is a retired Air veteran from the Indian Air Force and has served the nation with honor and distinction. The petitioner challenges the recent implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP-2) scheme, specifically regarding the determination and calculation of pension for all pre-2016 retirees, focusing on the recognition of the X Group Pay benefits as mandated by the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC).
FACTUAL MATRIX: a. The 6th CPC established a uniform X Group Pay of Rs. 1400 for Technical trades. Under the 7th CPC recommendations, this pay was appropriately bifurcated into Rs. 6200 (for trades possessing AICTE equivalent diplomas) and Rs. 3600 (for non-AICTE equivalents).
b. The X Group Pay of Rs. 6200 is critical in calculating a retiree's Basic Pension and Dearness Allowance (DA), ensuring correct financial recognition for those qualifying under AICTE standards, irrespective of their retirement date. c. Revised Pension Payment Orders (EPPOs) affirming the revised eligibility for the X Group Pay have been issued for all pre-2016 retirees who are qualified, reflecting the updated financial entitlements under the 7th CPC and marking a significant advancement in the pension system to reflect the true service rendered.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK: a. The Cabinet-approved methodology for pension calculation outlined by the 7th CPC uniformly includes all reckonable elements in determining basic pension for pre-2016 retirees. This encompasses Military Service Pay (MSP), X Group Pay, and other applicable allowances. b. The notional calculation of pension revisions, articulated in various Ministry of Defence (MOD) communications, emphasizes the mandatory inclusion of all reckonable elements to secure equitable treatment for every armed forces personnel.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: a. It has been firmly established by various judgments of the Supreme Court that the recommendations of Pay Commissions, which consist of experts in the field, should not be interfered with by the courts. Such recommendations represent a considered assessment of the needs and requirements of the defense personnel, and any alteration from the prescribed methodology would undermine the established legal framework. b. The principles of equality and non-discrimination, as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, must guide the application of OROP, thereby mandating that analogous classes of pensioners must receive equal treatment.
GRIEVANCE: a. The petitioner seeks to highlight that any endeavor to bifurcate or exclude the reckonable elements—specifically the X Group Pay of Rs. 6200 and MSP—from the pension calculations under OROP-2 is not only arbitrary but deeply discriminatory. b. The legally mandated notional fixation of pensions, with all reckonable components, must remain universally applicable to future pension revisions to fulfill the promise of OROP and maintain equitable financial treatment for veterans.
SPECIFIC LEGAL INSTRUCTIONS: a. The MOD Letters No. 17(01)/2017/(02)/D (Pension/Policy) dated 05/09/2017, and subsequent communications, provide clear directives regarding the eligibility of all pre-2016 Armed Forces pensioners for the revised pension calculations. b. Paragraph 3 of the MOD letter affirms the examination of the recommended formulation by 7th CPC, underlining an obligation for all governing bodies to adhere to this formulation in calculating pensions for individuals who served the nation.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF: a. The petitioner respectfully urges this Hon’ble Court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure that the pension calculations for all eligible pre-2016 retirees incorporate the legally recognized X Group Pay of Rs. 6200 in conjunction with other reckonable elements as per the provisions of the 7th CPC. b. Further, the petitioner seeks a declaration that any exclusion of these reckonable elements from OROP-2 calculations violates the established legal framework, thus contravening constitutional principles of fairness and equity.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Admit the writ petition,
(b) Issue the writ of mandamus as sought above,
(c) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Dated this __________ day of __________ 2024.
Place: New Delhi
(PETITIONER)
[Name, Address, and Contact details]
(Advocate for the Petitioner)
[Name, Address, and Contact details]
Please Note That:- This is a nutshell of a petition to be filed in courtsC which has to expanded further by using circulars/Policy letters wherever applicable & the same as Annexures..
Annexure-1
AICTE Approval Letter F.No. AICTE/UG/G-41 dated: 10/03/2003 regarding Approval Air force training Institutes & Names of Training courses conducted by them as Equavalant to AICTE Standards.
Annexure-2
Para 4(a) & 4 (b) of 7th CPC Cabinet Resolution dated: 05-09-2016 Authorising X Group Pay Rs.6200 / Rs 3600 to Group X trades on the basis of Equvalancy of AICTE/NON-AICTE Qualification Respectively
Annexure-3
Eligible Trades for X Pay 6200 Vide Air HQ Letter No. Air HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated: 08 May 2017
Annexure-4
Ministry of Defence (MOD) Letter No. 17(01)2017(02)D(Pension Policy) dated: 05/09/2017 ( Refer Para 3 & 4 )
Revision of Pension of Pre-2016 Defence Forces Pensioners/Family Pensioners
Annexure-5
PCDA Circular No. 585 dated: 21/09/2017
Revision of Pension of Pre-2016 Defence Forces Pensioners/Family Pensioners
Annexure-6
MOD Letter No. 17(01)2017(02)D(Pension Policy) dated: 17/10/2018
Revision of Pension of Pre-2016 Pensioners/Family Pensioners in 7th CPC by Concordance Tables
Annexure-7
PCDA Circular No. 608 dated: 26/10/2018
Revision of Pension of Pre-2016 Pensioners/Family Pensioners in 7th CPC by Concordance Tables
Annexure-8
Dte of PA Air HQ (V B) Letter No. Air HQ/40802/7/PA-1, ACAS (Accounts & AV) dated: 12/11/2018 Issue of Diploma Certificates to Airmen Proceeding on Discharge
Annexure-9
Air HQ Letter No. Air HQ/99144/6/AFPCC dated: 20/06/2023
Requesting Review of MOD, DESW Decision on X Pay 6200
Annexure-10
AIR HQ Diploma Equivalency - Confirmation by Air HQ of Diploma Issued under Authority of Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Department of Education) OM Number F-18-5275-T-2/T-2 dated: 22/07/1977 being equivalent to Diploma issued under AICTE Letter No. AICTE/UG/G-41 dated: 10/03/2003

The Methodology & Modus operandi adopted by 7th CPC can not be Altered by OROP Revision instructions.

2024-10-15T16:14:00.031+05:30

The Methodology & Modus operandi adopted by 7^th CPC can not be Altered by OROP Revision instructions.

The existing uniform X Group Pay of Rs 1400 under the 6th CPC for X Group Technical trades has been enhanced by the 7th CPC and bifurcated into Rs 6200 and Rs 3600, based on AICTE equivalent diploma and non-AICTE respectively. This X Group Pay of Rs 6200, being eligible for the calculation of Basic Pension and Dearness Allowance for AICTE equivalent X Group trades, forms the basic structure of their Basic Pension, irrespective of the date of retirement. All pre-2016 (pre-7th CPC) AICTE equivalent X Group trade retirees have been issued revised Pension Payment Orders reflecting this revised eligibility.eligibility of Rs 6200 under 7thg CPC.

The Cabinet-approved version of the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) has uniformly applied the methodology for the calculation and conversion of basic pension and basic pay for Pre-2016 retirees. The first method, referred to as the Notional Method of Calculation, involves gathering data for each individual retiree from the 3rd CPC onwards, which is a time-consuming process. As a temporary measure, an alternative method, known as the Multiplication Factor Method, was introduced. This method uses a multiplication factor to adjust the existing basic pay, reckonable elements, and dearness relief until the benefits under the notional method are finalized.

Subsequently, the pension for all Pre-2016 retirees was recalculated on a notional basis. This process involved determining their basic pension or basic pay, starting from the 3rd th CPC to the 7th CPC pay matrix, and including reckonable elements under the 7th CPC, such as Military Service Pay (MSP) and X Group Pay, as applicable. This recalculation was in accordance with the Cabinet Resolution dated 05/09/2016 and PCDA Circular No. 585.

Following the notional revision of basic pension, pre-2016 retirees who were eligible for X Group Pay of Rs. 6,200 received their corrigendum EPPO’s showing their revised eligibility under 7^th CPC. These orders reflected their revised basic pension under the 7th CPC pay matrix and separately mentioned their revised MSP as Rs. 5,200 and revised X Group Pay as Rs. 6,200, as applicable to X Group Technical Trades and based on eligibility, equivalent to an AICTE diploma, as notified in Air HQ Circular No. Air HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated 08/05/2017.

While the effective date of implementation for the 7th CPC was 01/01/2016, the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP-2) was set from 01/07/2019. The basic pension under the 7th CPC, including all reckonable elements determined on a notional basis, forms a basic structure and integral part of the pension and serves as the basis for the calculation of OROP from 01/01/2016. The Provisions of OROP cannot be used to dispute or discriminate against a homogeneous group whose pension is legally fixed by the cabinet-approved 7th CPC including the reckonable elements of MSP and X Group Pay of Rs. 6,200, as shown in their revised EPPOs. These elements being an integral part of their pension and should be considered in any future revisions, including under OROP-2. It has has been observed by Apex courts in Many Judgement that the Recommendations of Pay Commissions which consists of technocrats & Experts drawn from relevant field can not interfered by courts.

Para 3 & 4 of MOD Letter No 17(01)/2017/(02)/D( Pension/Policy) dt.05/09/2017 notified as an authority for PCDA circular No. 585 dated 21/09/2017 read as here under:-

' Para3- In accordance with the decisions mentioned in this Minisrtry's Resolution No. 17(1)/2014/D (Pension/Pol) dated 30/09/2016 and letter No. 17(01)/2016/-D(Pen/Pol) dated 29/10/2016, the fesibility of the first formulation recommended by the 7th CPC has been examined by the committee headed by Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioner's Wefare'

' Para 4- The aforesaid Committee has submitted its report and recommendati ons made by the Committee have been considered by the Government. Accordingly it has been descided that revised Pension / family Pension of all Armed Foces Personnel who retired / died Prior to 01/01/2016, shall be revised by notionally fixing their Pay in the Pay matrix recommended by the 7th CPC in the level corresponding to the Pay in the Pay scale / Pay band and grade Pay at which they retired / died. This will be done by notional Pay fixation under each intervening Pay Commission based on the formula for revision of Pay. The revised rates of Military service Pay Non Practicing Allowance, where applicable, and X Group Pay & Classification Allowance for JCO/ORs, if applicable, notified in terms of of 7th CPC orders shall also be added to the amount of Pay Notionally arrived at under the 7th CPC Pay matrix and shall be termed as notional reckonable emolument as on 01/01/2016. while fixing Pay on notional basis, the Pay fixation formulae, approved by the Government and other relant instructios on the subject in force at the relevant time, shall be strictly followed."

Para-1of MOD Letter No 17 (01) /2017/(02)/D(Pension/ Pol) dated : 17/10/2018 which is notifeid as an authority to issue PCDA Circular No 608 dated: 26/10/2018, further Emphasize the eligibility of X Pay under 7th CPC to all eligible Pre-2016 retired veterans with out any cut off date, reads as follow-s:

" The undersigned is directed to convey that instructions were issued for revision of Pension / family Pension With effect from 01/01/2016 in respect of Armed Forces Pensioners / family Pensioners who retired / died Prior to 0/01/2016 vide this Ministry's letter No. 17 (01)/2017(02)/D(Pension/ Policy) dated 05/09/2017. As per the same revision of Pension for Pre-2016 Armed Forces Pensioners/family Pensioers under first formulaion , was to be done by notionally fixing their Pay in the Pay Matrix recommended by 7th Central Pay Commission in the level corresponding to the Pay in the Pay scale/ Pay band and grade Pay at which they retired. The notional Pay fixation in the 7th CPC Pay matrix has to be arrived by fixing the Pay under each intervening Pay commission based on the formula for revision of Pay. The revised rates of Military service Pay, Non Practicing Allowance, where applicable, and ' x ' Group Pay & classification Allowance for JCO/ORs , if applicable notified in terms of 7th CPC orders, shall also be added to the amount of pay notionally arrived at under the 7th CPC Pay matrix and shall be terme as notional reckonable emolument as on 01/01/2016 for determining the revised Pension/family Pension in term of Para 5 of this Ministry's letter dated 05/09/2017.

In conclusion, any attempt to bifurcate or exclude the reckonable elements of pension already established under the 7th CPC for the purposes of OROP-2 would be arbitrary and discriminatory, as it violates the legal framework established by the Cabinet Resolution and the corresponding EPPOs. The legally mandated notional fixation of pension, with all its reckonable elements, must continue to be applied uniformly in future pension revisions, including all future revisions in OROP.

Following Documents in their cronological order confirms aplicabilty of X Pay of 6200 to eligible Pre-2016 retirees beyond any ambiguity.

1) ANNEXURE-1 AICTE Approval Letter F.No. AICTE/UG/G-41 dated: 10/03/2003 (CLICK TO VIEW)

2) ANNEXURE-2 Para 4(a) & 4 (b) of 7th CPC Cabinet Resolution dated: 05-09-2016 Authorising X Group Pay Rs.6200 / Rs 3600 to Group X trades on the basis of Equvalancy of AICTE/NON-AICTE Qualification Respectively (CLICK TO VIEW)

3) ANNEXURE-3 Eligible Trades for X Pay 6200,Vide Air HQ Letter No. Air HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated: 08 May 2017(CLICK TO VIEW).

4) ANNEXURE-4 Ministry of Defence (MOD) Letter No. 17(01)2017(02)D(Pension Policy) dated: 05/09/2017 Revision of Pension of Pre-2016 Defence Forces Pensioners/Family Pensioners (CLICK TO VIEW)

5) ANNEXURE-5 PCDA Circular No. 585 dated: 21/09/2017 Revision of Pension of Pre-2016 Defence Forces Pensioners/Family Pensioners (CLICK TO VIEW)

6) ANNEXURE-6 MOD Letter No. 17(01)2017(02)D(Pension Policy) dated: 17/10/2018 Revision of Pension of Pre-2016 Pensioners/Family Pensioners in 7th CPC by Concordance Tables (CLICK TO VIEW)

7) ANNEXURE-7 PCDA Circular No. 608 dated: 26/10/2018 Revision of Pension of Pre-2016 Pensioners/Family Pensioners in 7th CPC by Concordance Tables (CLICK TO VIEW)

8) ANNEXURE-8 Dte of PA Air HQ (V B) Letter No. Air HQ/40802/7/PA-1, ACAS (Accounts & AV) dated: 12/11/2018 Issue of Diploma Certificates to Airmen Proceeding on Discharge (CLICK TO VIEW)

9) ANNEXURE-9 Air HQ Letter No. Air HQ/99144/6/AFPCC dated: 20/06/2023 Requesting Review of MOD, DESW Decision on X Pay 6200 (CLICK TO VIEW)

10) ANNEXURE-10 AIR HQ Diploma Equivalency - Confirmation by Air HQ of Diploma Issued under Authority of Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Department of Education) OM Number F-18-5275-T-2/T-2 dated: 22/07/1977 being equivalent to Diploma issued under AICTE Letter No. AICTE/UG/G-41 dated: 10/03/2003 (CLICK TO VIEW)

LIST OF AICTE RECOGNISED DIPLOMA ISSUED BY INDIAN AIR FORCE TRAINING INSTITUTES

2024-10-11T22:27:00.003+05:30

LIST OF AICTE RECOGNISED DIPLOMA ISSUED BY ARMY TRAINING INSTITUTES

2024-10-11T21:50:00.004+05:30

.