Negatives in the 7th Central Pay Commission Report – a detailed analysis


1. OROP: A Myth?

Has one rank, one pension (OROP) been really introduced as claimed by the Chairman of the 7th CPC on TV channels? The answer is no. The formulation recommended by the 7th CPC is not OROP but it gives due weightage to the past increments. To that extent, it is welcome. It departs from the past practice of the CPCs where due weightage was never given to the past increments and bunching used to be done (for serving officers) to determine the revised pay. In the case of pre-CPC pensioners, there was absolutely no credit given to the past increments and all such retirees were fixed at the bottom of the revised pay. This practice unjustifiably equated those with a longer tenure in the last rank who had earned a higher number of increments with those who had earned less or none. The formulation recommended by the 7th CPC is in line with judicial verdicts. It brings about parity between the current retirees and the past pensioners who had earned the same number of increments in the last pay scale at the time of retirement. But it will not truly mean OROP as it will still not bring equity by way of parity. Pensioners will still not get the same pension in the same rank which will be decided by the last pay drawn in case of the current retirees.


J.K. KhannaTo make the system really OROP compliant, a radical change in the concept of pay scales is required. We must recognise the real culprit behind the disparity: the running pay scales. If all the ranks have fixed pay, at whatever level, the question of different pensions for same ranks will not arise. The half yearly revision of Dearness Allowance fully takes care of the inflation. If this formulation does not find favour with the Trade Unions, it can be adopted for All India Services, Central Services and other gazetted posts. It will be in line with the law settled by the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakra and SPS Vains cases (explained in later paras) as it will solve two perpetual problems faced by pensioners:-

i)      Fixed pay will mean the same pension for the same rank.

ii)     It will remove the legal challenge of seniors drawing less pension than juniors.


The number of increments has been increased for DGPs from 1 to 3 and for ADGs from 6 to 7, without offering any justification. For DGPs, the 4th CPC had 4 increments, 5th CPC reduced it to 3 and the 6th CPC further reduced the number to 2 which was further brought down to 1 on re-fixation. The 7th CPC has dragged us back by two decades to 3 increments. In respect of other ranks also, the Commission has proposed an unrealistic number of increments. For AIS/CS for the ranks equivalent to IG and below, the position is as under:-


Proposed Revised Scale

Proposed No. of Increments

Normal Tenure in the Rank


Rs.1,44,200 – 2,18,200


7 Years


Rs.1,31,100 – 2,16,600


4 Years

SP (Selection Grade)

Rs.1,18,500 – 2,14,100


2 Years

SP (J.A. Grade)

Rs.78,800 – 2,09,200


4 Years

SP (Sr. Time Scale)

Rs.67,700 – 2,08,700


5 Years

Still lower ranks have 39 increments! The suggestion of 38 increments for an SP in the Sr. Time Scale exceeds the average length of total service of an Officer. It is meaningless and ridiculous when the normal tenure of an SP in the Senior Time Scale is only about 5 years. It is queer to note that the SP’s pay scale has been stretched so much that it overlaps the 4 higher ranks! Consequently, pre-CPC pensioners will continue to draw less pension than post-CPC retirees, as explained in para 5 ahead.

In the case of HAG+ scale of DGPs in 6th CPC, though the applicable scale was Rs.75,500-80,000 containing 2 increments, it was revised to Rs.77,765-80,000, containing only 1 increment vide Office Memorandum F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.13 of DoP&PW. This was necessitated by the anomaly that had arisen by merger of an inferior scale of Rs.22,400-600-26,000 (S-31) with the DGP’s superior scale of Rs.24,050-650-26,000 (S-32) to form a common HAG+ scale of Rs.75,500-80,000 after the 6th CPC. Vide the referred OM, the entry level of the old scale holders of Rs.22,400-26,000 (S-31) was fixed at Rs.75,500 and that of the old scale holders of Rs.24,050-650-26,000 (S-32) (DGPs) was re-fixed at Rs.77,765. In effect, the pay scale of DGPs was recast as Rs.77,765 – Rs.80,000, with only one increment to reach the top of the scale. The 7th CPC has given no reason to do away with this distinction between S-31 & S-32 scales. DGP is the last attainable rank in the IPS. It comes at the fag end of the career, generally leaving a short tenure before retirement which may not qualify for any increment for most of the officers.


Have only as many number of increments as the normal tenure of an officer at that stage is. If someone stagnates, stagnation increments can be sanctioned to him like it used to be done in the distant past. Such a step will solve the problem of overlapping of scales also, with consequential compliance of the Supreme Court ruling that seniors will not draw less pension than juniors.


As mentioned earlier, DGPs, who retired between 1.1.06 and 31.12.15, had only 1 increment in the scale Rs.77,765 – 80,000. The 7th CPC has recommended a replacement scale with 3 increments. This would create a problem in revision of pay/pension as the old 1 increment can not be related to the new 3 increments. This would create a problem for the serving officers also as they would require 3 years to reach the top of the scale. Similar problem will arise in the case of other ranks also where the number of existing and proposed increments differ.


The past increments may be applied to the revised scales in the reverse order, i.e. from top downwards for fixation of revised pay/pension. If not, the number of years one served/ stagnated in that rank may be treated as the virtual number of increments and given full weightage.


Rank Singled Out

It is for the first time in the history of the Central Pay Commissions that DGP’s pay scale has been downgraded by the 7th CPC. In the past, the top of the running scale of DGPs always touched the Apex Pay, e.g. Rs.7600-8000, Rs.24050-26000 and Rs.75500/77765-80000 all touched the Apex Pay of Rs.8000, Rs.26000 and Rs.80000 respectively in the 4th, 5th and 6th CPCs. The 7th CPC’s HAG+ pay scale of Rs.205400 – 224400 with 3 increments of 3% each ends Rs.600 below the Apex Pay of Rs.225000. Though only a minor difference of Rs.600, it downgrades the status of a DGP vis-à-vis the DGP(HoPF). Surprisingly, this step-motherly treatment has been given only to the DGP rank. All other pay scales overlap the higher ranks by a wide margin as shown in Sl. 2 above and Sl. 5 below. 


(i) Treat all DGPs as equal as per law settled by the Supreme Court. The class differentiation between the State DGPs started in 2008, with the relevant IPS (Pay) Rule amended on 27.9.2008 as under:-

Rule 3(D) (iii) Apex Scale: Rs 80000 (fixed), Grade Pay: nil (by upgradation of one existing post of Director General of Police as head of police force in each State cadre [with effect from the date of issue of notification of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 2008].

The Apex Pay meant for the DGP(HoPF), is clearly and visibly a step higher than the other DGPs and they can not be termed as equal. The use of the word “upgradation” in the above amendment clearly shows that DGP(HoPF) is a promoted post. As such, rules of promotion have to be followed for selecting the DGP(HoPF) and no DGP can be superseded without departmental proceedings. Similarly, DGP(HoPF) can not be downgraded/demoted to the HAG+ scale without departmental proceedings. Under the current practice of selecting DGP(HoPF) from a panel of 3 names formulated by the UPSC, often times, a junior is appointed as DGP(HoPF). This is tantamount to supersession of one or two seniors without cause, unless they are also accorded the Apex pay. Whenever there is a change in the power structure in the State Government, very often, the incumbent DGP(HoPF) is removed to another post, reducing his scale from Apex to HAG+. This amounts to demotion which is not permissible without disciplinary proceedings. Such lateral movements confirm that, in reality, the Govt treats all the posts of DGP as equal. But they can not be treated as equal without equating their pay scales. This discrimination has already led to a plethora of court cases all over India. The only solution to this tangle is to equate the pay scales of all the DGPs, and that can not be done without granting Apex Scale to all the DGPs. This will save the Govt from unwanted litigation. As mentioned earlier, equalisation will hardly cast any financial burden on the exchequer.

(ii) The 7th CPC has recommended that if a DGP(HoPF)  is removed from that post, his pay, i.e. the apex pay, should be protected. It is in line with judicial verdicts. On similar lines, as per NBR (Next Below Rule), if any junior DGP is made the HoPF, all his seniors are entitled to get the equivalent pay, i.e. the Apex Pay. All the more reason why the pay of all the DGPs should be equalised.


Illegality Perpetuated

The class discrimination has been aggravated by the 7th CPC despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary. The juniors retiring after 1.1.16 will continue to draw more pension than pre-1.1.16 retiree seniors because of overlapping of scales and an increase in the number of increments. Consequently, a pre-2016 retiree DGP, retiring at the entry level, will draw less pension than a post-2016 retiree senior DIG as shown in the table below:-


Revised Scale

Revised Minimum Pension

Revised Maximum Pension


Rs.2,05,400 – 2,24,400




Rs.1,82,200 – 2,24,100




Rs.1,44,200 – 2,18,200




Rs.1,31,100 – 2,16,600



Stretching it further, the position in respect of SPs is as under:-


Revised Scale

Revised Minimum Pension

Revised Maximum Pension

Selection Grade SP

Rs.1,18,500 – 2,14,100



Junior Administrative Grade SP

Rs.78,800 –




Senior Time Scale SP

Rs.67,700 –




Although the grant of 38 increments to an SP in the Senior Time Scale is meaningless, in actuality, his promotional pay may get fixed high in the scale by virtue of his higher pay in the lower rank. Thus, theoretically speaking, a pre-2016 retiree DGP, retiring at the entry level, will draw less pension than a post-2016 retiree Senior SP. Similar will be the position in case of other ranks.


i)      As suggested earlier, cutting down the number of increments and ensuring that no pay scale overlaps the next higher scale.

ii)     Make a rule that a senior will not draw less pension than the highest pension admissible to a junior. This suggestion is in line with the Next Below Rule and the Supreme Court judgements in: (i) D.S. Nakara & Others Vs. Union of India and (ii) Union of India Vs. Major General (Rtd) SPS Vains. The legal position is explained in subsequent paras.

iii)   Also, ensure that revised pension will not be less than the equivalent of the last pay drawn. This rule already exists for the current retirees but not for the pre-CPC retirees.

6. PRE – 2006  RETIREE  DGPs

Apex Pay for DGPs(HoPF) was introduced w.e.f. 27.9.08. After this, the biggest injustice has been caused to the pre-27.9.08 retiree DGPs, both by the 6th CPC and the 7th CPC. They have been denied the Apex Pension even if they had served as Heads of Police Force. As per law, explained subsequently, all pre-27.9.08 retiree DGPs are entitled to Apex Pension which should be granted to them.


     Arbitrary & Discriminatory

Despite initially projecting to have a uniform multiplication index of 2.57, the 7th CPC has changed it inexplicably and arbitrarily to 2.62, 2.67, 2.72, 2.78 and 2.81 for higher levels/ranks. This has introduced a wide disparity and discrimination in the scales. In the interest of equity, the index should be straightened to a uniform figure for all.


Inspite of all the arithmetics and legal points favouring reduction in the restoration period of commuted pension, the  7th CPC has refused to tinker with the 15 year recovery period, without offering any explanation. The 5th CPC had recommended reduction of the period to 12 years, giving solid reasons. The DoP&PW had also recommended reduction to 13 years. FORIPSO had also given a detailed and convincing Power Point Presentation before the Commission which has not even been discussed in the Report. The Govt should take a view now.


1) Last Pay and Not Last Pay Scale Relevant for Pension Fixation:-

As per Rule 18 of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958, the pension of an officer is fixed on his retirement on the basis of the average of the pay drawn during the last 10 months or the last pay drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiree. The pension is thus fixed only on the basis of the last pay drawn and not on the basis of the last pay scale drawn.Obviously, the pay scale from which this pay is drawn has no relevance for fixation of pension. Pension once sanctioned can not be revised subsequently to the disadvantage of the pensioner except as a punishment or to correct a clerical error in calculation of the original pension.

2) Illegal Classification of Pensioners:-

Pensioners have been illegally divided into two classes: pre-2016 retirees and post-2016 retirees. This is contrary to the crystal clear Orders of the Supreme Court in: (i) D.S. Nakara & Others Vs. Union of India and (ii) Union of India Vs. Major General (Rtd) SPS Vains (these cases are being discussed in subsequent paras). To elaborate, if officer A retired from the pre-revised running HAG+ scale of Rs.75500/77765-80000 and his last pay drawn was Rs.80,000, then, as per rule, his pension was fixed at Rs.40,000 p.m. Likewise, if officer B retired from the pre-revised Apex Pay of Rs.80,000 (Fixed), then also his pension was fixed at an identical figure of Rs.40,000 p.m. This created perfect equality between the two types of pensioners, A and B. Thus, the pay scale was and is irrelevant for fixation of initial pension at the time of retirement and it is only the last pay drawn that matters. This clearly implies that retired officers receiving the same basic pension (say, for example, Rs.40,000 p.m.) belong to the same class and the principle of equality applies to them. Their pension revision to Rs.1,02,700 / 1,05,800 / 1,08,950 / 1,12,200 in the case of A and to Rs.1,12,500 p.m. in the case of B after the 7th Pay Commission amounts to creation of two different classes of pensioners who were identical and belonged to the same class at the time of retirement. This contemptuously goes against the above cited SC Orders, leading to an unwarranted disadvantage to A, in clear and patent violation of the principle of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (equality before law). The pay revision notification certifies that its implementation would not adversely affect any pensioner but, in reality, it does. Resultantly, equals have been made unequals and vice versa. The Doctrine of Intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, as required for a legally permissible classification under Article 14 of the Constitution fails here. A fundamental principle of law settled in several cases is that Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation. “Pay Scale” may be relevant for the serving officers, but it is irrelevant for pensioners who have already retired and for whom the last “Pay” drawn is the only relevant issue and criterion to determine their pension. Keeping the maximum of HAG+ scale nominally below Apex pay will lead to violation of Article 14 when the pension of pre-2016 retirees at the maximum of the pre revised scales is to be fixed in the post-2016 scale. While pre-2016 retirees in Apex pay will get revised pension in the new Apex pay, DGPs drawing identical pre-revised pension will now draw less pension because the new HAG+ scale does not touch the new Apex pay. This will lead to a plethora of fresh litigation.

3) Violation of Rule 9(1) & (2) of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954:-

The ex-cadre post of DGP, from which a pensioner had retired, is required to be declared equivalent in status and responsibility to the cadre post of DGP under Rule 9(1) & (2) of IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954. This rule goes as under:-

“9. Pay of Members of the Service appointed to Post not included in Schedule III –

(1)        No member of the Service shall be appointed to a post other than a post specified in Schedule III, unless the State Government concerned in respect of posts under its control, or the Central Government in respect of posts under its control, as the case may be, makes a declaration that the said post is equivalent in status and responsibility to a post specified in the said Schedule.

(2)        The Pay of a member of the Service on appointment to a post other than a post specified in Schedule III shall be the same as he would have been entitled to, had he been appointed to the post to which the said post is declared equivalent.”

Thus, there is an umbilical cord relationship between the retiree ex-cadre post and the cadre post of DGP. This clearly implies that all the pre-27.9.08 retiree DGPs are equal and are entitled to the same pay/pension benefits and privileges which the then DGP(HoPF) is entitled to. In turn, the then DGP(HoPF) is entitled to the same pay/pension benefits as today’s DGP(HoPF) by virtue of ‘legal fiction’ propounded by the SC in S.S.Chahal’s case (cited later). These are mandatory and statutory provisions which have an unbreachable sanctity. Clearly, the pension of all DGs w.e.f. 27.9.08 is linked to whatever is the entitlement of the DGP(HoPF), i.e. Rs.40,000 as per the Apex Pay of Rs.80,000 (pre-7th CPC).

It is to be noted that the word “Status” in the above rule is defined solely by the Pay Scale. The following facts clearly point towards it:-

(i)    The ‘Order of Precedence’ is dictated by the Pay Scale and it defines the ‘Status’ of the person in the list;

(ii)   In respect of official residential accomodation, Apex Scale officers are entitled to the highest category C-1 type houses in Delhi as a matter of right on first priority basis. No such priority is given to the HAG+ officers who are placed in the general waiting list;

(iii)  During international official tours, Apex Scale officers are entitled to fly First Class while HAG+ holders can fly only Business class;

(iv)  CPOs like CRPF and BSF are headed by a DG in the Apex Scale. Under him are a number of DGs designated as special DGs to distinguish them from the chief DG. They are placed in the HAG+ scale. They are directly subordinate to the chief DG whose ‘Status’ is higher.

4) Retirement is from Post, not from Pay Scale:-

No one is ever appointed to a pay scale but to a post. Pension, having been linked to the post from which a person retired, has to change every time the pay scale of the post is revised. As explained in the previous para, in view of the mandatory provision of Rule 9(2) of IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954, all DGPs’ pension entitlement is for Rs.40,000 (pre-7th CPC) because of its direct linkage to the post of the DGP(HoPF).

5) Prejudicially Affecting Retrospective Effect Not Permissible:-

Section 3(1A) of the All India Services Act, 1951 deals with the rule making power of the Government and requires that “…. no retrospective effect shall be given to any rule so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such rule may be applicable.” The All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958 have been framed under the aforesaid rule-making power under the All India Services Act. Therefore, it is not permissible to prejudicially affect the interests of the old pensioners by a subsequent provision that came into effect after their retirement.



1. D.S. Nakara & Others Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 (p 323), AIR 1983 SC 130:-

In fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.16, pre-2016 retiree DGPs are being discriminated against vis-à-vis the later retirees who are similarly placed as explained earlier. They have been treated as belonging to an inferior class different from them. This classification blatantly goes against the Apex Court Order in this Case which amounts to contempt of court. The highlights of the SC Judgement are:-

  • Pension is a right, not a bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and, therefore, can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for the service rendered. Thus, pension is an extension of pay.
  • Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the fixation of a cut off date, as a result of which equals were treated as unequals, was wholly arbitrary. One of the questions posed in the aforesaid decision was whether a class of pensioners could be divided for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by a certain date and those who retired thereafter. The question was answered by the Constitution Bench that such division, being both arbitrary and unprincipled, the classification did not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  • The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the Doctrine of Intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved was taken up in this case by a Constitution Bench. It was observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion, those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. It was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, in as much as, the pension rules being statutory in character, the amended rules, specifying a cut off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of calculation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • Liberalisation in computation of pension effective from specified date divides pensioners so as to confer benefit on some while denying it to others. Such classification was held arbitrary, devoid of rational nexus to object of liberalisation and violative of Article 14.
  • All pensioners entitled to receive pension under the relevant rules form a class irrespective of the dates of their retirement and there cannot be a mini-classification within this class. The differential treatment accorded to those who had retired prior to the specified date is violative of Article 14 as the choice of specified date is wholly arbitrary and the classification based on the fortuitous circumstance of retirement before or subsequent to the specified date is invalid.
  • HELD: Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation, their position is substantially the same. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In other words, there ought to be causal connection between the basis of classification and the object of the statute.
  • It is indisputable that pensioners for payment of pension form a class. When the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme in order to augment social security in old age to government servants, it could not grant the benefits of liberalisation only to those who retired subsequent to the specified date and deny the same to those who had retired prior to that date. The division which classified the pensioners into two classes on the basis of the specified date was devoid of any rational principle and was both arbitrary and unprincipled being unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the guarantee of equal treatment contained in Article 14 was violated in as much as the pension rules, which were statutory in character, meted out differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter ofcomputation of pension from the dates specified in the impugned memoranda.

2. Union of India Vs. Major General (Rtd) SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125:-

In this case, the issue was whether there could be a disparity in payment of pension between officers of the same rank who had retired prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales and those who retired thereafter. The dispute arose due to disparity in determination of pension of pre-1.1.96 and post-1.1.96 retirees who retired from Defence services as Major General or equivalent. The Pension of the pre-1.1.96 retiree Major Generals was fixed lower than the post-1.1.96 retiree Major Generals. The Court held that the date of retirement was immaterial. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to all services. The highlights of the SC Order are:-

  • The judgement was rendered on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution and in consonance with the principle of administrative fair play. Differentiation between officers holding the same rank on the date of retirement is wholly erroneous and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • “The said decision of the Central Govt does not address the problem of a disparity having created within the same class so that two officers both retiring as Major Generals, one prior to 1.1.96 and the other after 1.1.96, would get two different amounts of pension. While the officers who retired prior to 1.1.96 would now get the same pension as payable to a Brigadier on account of the stepping up of pension in keeping with the Fundamental Rules, the other set of Major Generals who retired after 1.1.96 will get a higher amount of pension since they would be entitled to the benefit of the revision of pay scales after 1.1.96. In our view, it would be arbitrary to allow such a situation to continue since the same also offends the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution”. It has to be kept in mind that the rank of Brigadier is a feeder post for the promotional rank of Major General having higher and more onerous responsibilities.
  • “The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension”.
  • It was directed that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis with prospective effect from the date of filing of the writ petition and to pay them the difference within three months from date with interest at 10% per annum.

By this judgement, a principle has been laid down and law settled that a senior shall not draw less pension than a junior.

3. S.S.Chahal’s Case: SLP (Civil) Nos. 27166-27168/2008:

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Swaran Singh Chahal IFS (Rtd) & Others [From the Judgement and Order dated 26/03/2008 in   CWP Nos. 109/2001, 110/2001 & 978/2000 of The High Court of H.P. at Shimla]. The concept of ‘Legal Fiction’ has been propounded/confirmed by the Supreme Court of India in this case in its order passed on 13.9.10. By legal fiction, an IPS officer retiring from an ex-cadre post in the rank of DGP, declared equivalent in status and responsibility to the post of DGP(HoPF) under Rule 9(1) & (2) of IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954, would be deemed to have retired from the post of DGP(HoPF). It has been clearly laid down that where designations and pay scales are improved without any change in responsibilities of the office held, pension has to be revised in the scale applicable. This rebuts GOI’s stand that pre-27.9.08 HoPF retirees can’t be treated on par with post-27.9.08 DGPs(HoPF). All pre-2016 retiree DGPs, for all intents and purposes by legal fiction, are deemed to have retired from the post of DGP(HoPF) and are entitled to be sanctioned Apex Pension accordingly.

About J.K. Khanna

J.K. KhannaJ.K. Khanna is a retired IPS Officer of Bihar Cadre, 1974-batch. He retired in the rank of D.G.Police in 2011. He is the Secretary of the Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) which is an all India body, representing 23 States.

Facebook Comments