EQUIVALENCE OF MILITARY RANKS WITH CIVIL APPOINTMENTS OF MAJOR CIVIL SERVICES ON THE BASIS OF PAY AFTER THE 6TH

CPC

Military Ranks Universal Civil IAS in the State IAS & Group A IPS IDAS IRS
Grades Government Services under
Central Staffing
Scheme
Lieut (GP 5400) Junior Time Scale SDM / Addl DC/DM Not Empanelled under Asst SP Asst CDA Asst Commissioner
(GP 5400) CS Scheme
Capt (GP 6100) -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent-

Major (GP 6600) Senior Time Scale Dy Secy or Jt Secy to Under Secy to Govt of Addl SP / Addl DCP or Dy CDA Deputy Commissioner
(GP 6600) State Govt / DC/DM 1 India SP/SSP/DCP if posted
in charge of Distt (*See
Note Below)
-No equivalent- Junior Adm Grade Jt Secy or Addl Secy to Dy Secy to Govt of SP/SSP/DCP/AIG Jt CDA Joint Commissioner
(GP 7600) State Govt / DC/DM 2 India (*See Note Below)
Lt Col (GP 8000) -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent-

Col (GP 8700) Non-Functional Special Secy to State Director to Govt of Selection Grade of IPS Addl CDA Addl Commissioner
Selection Grade / Selec Govt India
Grade (GP 8700)
Brig (GP 8900) DIG/Conservator -No equivalent- -No equivalent- DIG (*See Note -No equivalent- -No equivalent-
Grade (GP 8900) Below)
Maj Gen (GP 10000) Senior Adm Grade Secy to State Govt 3 Jt Secy to Govt of IGP (*See Note CDA / IFA Commissioner
(GP 10000) India Below)
Lt Gen (GP 12000) Higher Adm Grade Principal Secy to State Addl Secy to Govt of Addl DGP PCDA Chief Commissioner /
1
Both STS and JAG Officers can be posted as DCs/DMs/Collectors. The nomenclature of Secretarial Ranks for STS and JAG officers also varies from State to State
2
Ditto as Footnote 1 above
3
Is equivalent in status to Maj Gen only if selected for empanelment as Jt Secy to Govt of India
 (GP 12000) Govt / Financial India (*See Note Below) Director General
Commissioner 4
No equivalent as of Higher Adm Grade + -No equivalent- -No equivalent- DGP Addl CGDA Member CBEC /
now (75500-80000 scale) (*See Note Below) CBDT
Lt Gen (Army Apex Scale Chief Secretary Secy to Govt of India DGP (One Cadre post CGDA Chairman CBEC /
Commander/VCOAS) (Fixed 80000) per State) CBDT
General -No equivalent- -No equivalent- Cabinet Secy -No equivalent- -No equivalent- -No equivalent-

EQUIVALENCE OF STATUS BETWEEN MILITARY RANKS AND CIVIL APPOINTMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WARRANT OF PRECEDENCE AS ON DATE

Irrespective of the pay equivalence, the President’s Secretariat vide notification No 33/Pres-79 dated 26 July 1979 (Amended upto Oct 2008) has laid down the status of military
and civil appointments till Maj Gen / Jt Secy to Govt of India for official functions. The layout of the same is as follows :

Cabinet Secretary (Article 11) – Chiefs of Services (Article 12) – Army Commanders / Vice Chiefs / Secretaries to Govt of India / Chief Secretaries within their States (Article 23)
– Lt Generals (Article 24) – Addl Secretaries to Govt of India / Chief Secretaries outside their States / DGs of CPOs / Director IB (Article 25) – Major Generals / Joint Secretaries
to Govt of India (Article 26)

1. Both STS and JAG Officers can be posted as DCs/DMs/Collectors. The nomenclature of Secretarial Ranks for STS and JAG Officers also varies from State to State.
2. Ditto as Footnote above.
3. Is equivalent in status to Maj Gen only if selected for empanelment as Jt Secy to Govt of India.
4. Is equivalent in status to Lt Gen only if selected for empanelment as Addl Secy to Govt of India.
* Note on Appointments in the Indian Police Service: The Distt police in charge is known by variable nomenclature in different states.

4
Is equivalent in status to Lt Gen only if selected for empanelment as Addl Secy to Govt of India
*Note on Appointments in the Indian Police Service : The Distt police in charge is known by variable nomenclature in different States. For example, irrespective of Grade, the said officer is known as SSP in Punjab
& UP but SP in Haryana and DCP in Metros. A Selection Grade IPS officer is also sometimes referred to as SSP. JAG Officer posted in Police HQrs is known as AIG.

*Officers of the rank of DIG, IGP, Addl DGP and DGP are only equated with their respective counterparts of the Army if selected to hold these appointments through Central empanelment under Govt of India. For
example, there may be an officer holding the appointment of DGP in a State but when the same officer is posted at the centre in a CPO, he/she may be placed two steps lower as an IGP.
PREPARED AND TABULATED BY :
Major Navdeep Singh, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court
navdeepsingh . india @ gmail . com
www . indianmilitary . info

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Actual Warrant of Precedence

ACTUAL WARRANT OF PRECEDENCE

Notes : (a) This Warrant of Precedence is compiled from a joint consideration of the existing Central Warrant of Precedence (which is till the rank of Major General) and Warrant
of Precedence – 1937, as per Minstry of Home Affairs' directions contained in Letter No 12/11/99-Pub II dated 26 Dec 1966, the validity of which has been confirmed by Letter
No 12/1/2007-Public dated 14 Aug 2007. The MHA has confirmed in 2007 that the Old Warrant of Precedence shall be taken as a guide to determine ranks below the ones
mentioned in the current WoP.

(b) Only the posts which are existing and relevant in the present scenario have been mentioned in this Warrant of Precedence. Military ranks have been highlighted.

1. HE The President of India

2. HE The Vice President of India

3. Prime Minister

4. Governors of States within their respective States

5. Former Presidents

5A Deputy Prime Minister

6. Chief Justice of India / Speaker of Lok Sabha

7. Cabinet Ministers of the Union / CMs within their States / Former PMs

7A Holders of Bharat Ratna Decoration

8. Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and High Commissioners of Commonwealth Countries / CMs outside their States / Governors outside their States

9. Judges of the Supreme Court

9A Chief Election Commissioner / Comptroller & Auditor General of India

10. Deputy Chairman Rajya Sabha / Deputy CMs of States / Deputy Speaker Lok Sabha / Members Planning Commission / Ministers of State of the Union

11. Attorney General of India / Cabinet Secretary / Lieutenant Governors within their UTs

12. Chiefs of Army, Air and Naval Staff

13. Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary accredited to India

14. Chairmen and Speakers of State Legislatures within their States / Chief Justices of High Courts within their jurisdictions

15. Cabinet Ministers of States within their States / CMs of UTs within their UTs / Deputy Union Ministers

16. Officiating Chiefs of Army, Air and Naval Staff of the rank of Lt Gen or equivalent
17. Chairman CAT / Chairman Minorities Commission / Chairman SC & ST Commission / Chairman UPSC / Chief Justices outside their jurisdiction / Puisne Judges of High
Court within their jurisdictions

18. Cabinet Ministers of States outside their States / Ministers of State in States within their States / Chairmen and Speakers of State Legislatures outside their States

19. Chief Commissioners of UTs not having a Council of Ministers within their UTs / Deputy Ministers in States within their States

20. Deputy Chairmen and Deputy Speakers of State Legislatures outside their States / Minister of State in States outside their States / Puisne Judges of High Courts outside their
jurisdictions.

21. Members of Parliament

22. Deputy Ministers in State outside their States

23. Army Commanders (GsOC-in-C) / VCOAS and equivalent in other services / Chief Secretaries to States within their States / Members of Minority Commission /
Secretaries to Govt of India / Secretary to President / Secretary to PM / Secretary Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha / Solicitor General

24. Officers of the rank of Lieutenant General or equivalent

25. Additional Secretaries to Govt of India / Addl Solicitor General / Advocate Generals of States / Chairman Tariff Commission / Chief Secretaries outside their States / Director
CBI / DG BSF / DG CRPF / Director IB / Lt Governors outside their UTs / Members UPSC / PSOs of Armed Forces of the rank of Major General and equivalent

26. Officers of the rank of Major General and equivalent / Joint Secretary to Govt of India

27. Vice Chancellors of Universities

28. Commissioners of Divisions within their respective charges

29. Brigade Commanders within their respective Charges

30. Brigadiers / Inspector General of Forests / Inspectors General of Police

31. Commissioners of Divisions outside their charges

32. Secretaries to State Governments

33. Colonels / Accountants General / Chief Conservator of Forests / Chief Engineers / Inspectors General of Prisons / Members of ICS (now known as IAS) and Indian Political
Service (now Indian Foreign Service) with 23 years ‘ standing

34. Controller Military Accounts and Pensions (now CDA)

35. Commissioners of Income Tax / Deputy Commissioners within their districts

36. District and Session Judges within their charges

37. DIG of Police

38. Lieutenant Colonels / Conservators of Forests / IAS and Foreign Service officers with 18 years standing / Superintending Engineers

39. Excise Commissioners / Registrar of Co-operative Societies

40. Deputy Commissioners of Districts / District and Sessions Judges / Superintendents of Police of Districts within their charges (also now known with variable nomenclature as
DCP / SSP in certain States)

41. DIG of Prisons / Officers of other Class-I Services and Provincial Services with 20 years standing

42. Majors / IAS and Foreign Service officers with 12 years service / SPs and DCPs with 15 to 20 years service

43. Asst Commissioners of Income Tax / Officers of Class-I and Provincial Services with 10 years standing

44. Divisional Engineers / Divisional Forest Officers / Executive Engineers / Superintendents of Central Jails
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 12:32 PM
Labels: Status, Warrant of Precedence

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Warrant of Precedence tinkered yet again, what does it mean for the Military ?

Well, the defence services bear the brunt again. The WoP was last overhauled in 1979 and the primary character has been maintained thereafter with small additions here and there.

The Govt however has carried out changes in Oct 2007 which are now being circulated within the govt machinery. How do these changes affect the military ? Here’s an outline :-

a) Chairperson UPSC upgraded to Article 9-A over Service Chiefs who are on Article 12. Chairperson UPSC was earlier on Article 17 below Service Chiefs and also below
Officiating Chiefs of the rank of Lt Gen who were on Article 16.

b) Chairpersons of National Commissions for SCs and STs (Yes, there are now two separate commissions for SCs and STs !) added on Article 17. Both these Chairpersons are
higher than Army Commanders / Vice Chiefs who are on Article 23.

c) Members of National Commissions for SCs and STs added on Article 23 with Army Commanders / Vice Chiefs.

As we all know, Army Commanders / Vice-Chiefs are equated with Secretaries to Govt of India on Article 23. However Note 10 (C) of the WoP makes an interesting reading :-

“Note 10 :

In Article 23: -

(a) ***
(b) ***
(c) In official functions held at Delhi/New Delhi, Army Commanders/Vice Chief of the Army Staff or equivalent in other Services will always rank after Secretaries to the
Government of India.”

Coupled with the fact that the 6th CPC has now explicitly stated that the pay of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) of the civil services shall be equivalent to a Major General of
the Army, the above changes again reflect the constant downgradation of military ranks in our society. It’s another issue altogether that vide a notification issued in 2008, IAS
officers would now reach the SAG in 14 years of service while a defence officer becomes a Maj Gen (if at all) in 33. On the other hand, 100% of directly recruited IAS officers
reach the SAG while less than 2% become Maj Generals (or equivalent) in the services.

The new amended Indian Central WoP can be accessed at :

The latest Indian Warrant of Precedence (Amended till 2008)

Our neighbour, Bangladesh meanwhile, has also taken out an amended WoP (revised edition – 07 Feb 2008) which can be accessed at :
The latest Bangladesh Warrant of Precedence (Amended till 2008)

Not that this exercise is of any practical use, but still here are some comparative notes from the revised Bangla version dated 07 Feb 2008 :-

a) In Bangladesh, the Cabinet Secy is listed alongwith the Chiefs on Article 12. In India, the Cabinet Secy is on Article 11 while Chiefs are lower on Article 12.

b) In Bangladesh, Chairperson Public Service Commission, Secretaries to Central Govt and Major Generals enjoy the same precedence on Article 16. In India, Secretaries to
Central Govt are equated with Vice Chiefs / Army Commanders holding the ranks of Lt Gen on Article 23 and above other Lt Generals who are on Article 24. Chairperson UPSC
is now (since Oct 2007) on Article 9 ahead of all of them.

c) In Bangladesh Joint Secretaries to Central Govt (with 25 + years’ service) are listed with Brigadiers with comparative service on Article 21. Other officers holding the status of
Joint Secretaries to Central Govt are equated with full Colonels on Article 22. In India, Joint Secretaries to Central Govt as well as other officers of equivalent rank are equated
with Major Generals on Article 26.

d) In Bangladesh, a DIG of Police is equated with a Lt Col on Article 24. In India, the 6th CPC has (incorrectly) equated a DIG with a Brigadier.
In the ultimate analysis, this is what we have achieved, status and parity wise, in the past one year :-

1. DIG is now officially equivalent to a Brigadier according to the 6th CPC.

2. Ministry of Home Affairs declares that all IPS officers shall attain the rank of DIG in 14 years’ service.

3. Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) is now officially equivalent to the rank of Major General as per 6th CPC.

4. Department of Personnel and Training declares that all IAS officers shall attain the SAG in 14 years of service.

5. What would be achievable by 100% IPS officers in 14 years would now be achievable by 7% defence officers in 28 years.

6. What would be achievable by 100% IAS officers in 14 years would now be achievable by 2% defence officers in 33 years.

7. Chairperson UPSC jumps from Article 17 of Warrant of Precedence to Article 9 whereas our Chiefs remain at Article 12.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

How do States treat the Military ?, here’s how :

The Warrant of Precedence issued by the Central Govt determines the inter-se status between Civil functionaries and officers of the Military. The Central WoP is only till the rank
of Major General.

Contrary to popular perception, the Central WoP is not that skewed, and in fact is quite balanced except for the glaringly disproportionate equation of a Joint Secretary Govt of
India with a Major General. The equation postulated by the Central WoP is :
Article 11 : Cabinet Secretary

Article 12 : Chiefs of Services

Article 23 : Lt Gen (GOsC-in-C) / Secretary to Govt of India / Chief Secretaries of States when within their States

Article 24 : Lt Gen

Article 25 : Additional Secretary to Govt of India / Chief Secretaries when outside their States / Ds G of Central Police Organizations

Other Secretarial Ranks (not listed in the Central WoP) in the Govt of India and States have the following broad equation :

Under Secretary to Govt of India (Joint Secretary in States) : Captain (Major in case 6th CPC recommendations are accepted as they are)

Deputy Secretary to Govt of India (Director / Additional Secretary in States) : Major (Lt Col in case 6th CPC recommendations are accepted as they are)

Director to Govt of India (Special Secretary in States) : Lt Col (Col in case 6th CPC recommendations are accepted as they are)

According to instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 1966, the old Warrant of 1937 is applicable below the rank of Major General and the same has been
conveyed to all State Governments. The current applicability of these instructions of 1966 has been confirmed by the MHA to me vide a letter as recent as August 2007.

The actual Warrant of Precedence, down till the rank of Major, is already available in this blog. You may click here to peruse the same.

Certain States have however floated their own warrants which are in utter violation of Central Govt instructions. A common problem is the equation of a DC/DM with a Brigadier
when attending ceremonial functions within the district of his charge irrespective of the actual grade of the officer concerned. This has been in practice because in a district the
DC/DM is supposed to be at the forefront of all functions and ceremonial occasions due to which there’s a functional requirement of preferential seating alongwith visiting
dignitaries. This equation has not only rankled the defence services but also Civil Service officers since junior officers posted as DCs/DMs take precedence over their seniors in
civil services within their districts. To take a similar example, in the old Warrant of 1937, Brigadiers commanding Infantry and Armoured Brigades held a much higher position
than other Brigadiers.
Even if we keep aside the above, some States have made a mockery of the existing instructions on the issue, Some examples :-
MEGHALAYA
Click here to see Meghalaya’s Warrant of Precedence

Meghalaya has placed a Joint Secretary to the State Govt (equivalent to Captain) on Article 18 over and above a Brigadier who is listed on Article 19.

Addl DCs/Addl DMs who can be officers of the Junior Time Scale (Lieutenant) and Addl Superintendents of Police have been placed on Article 20 alongwith Colonels and Lt
Colonels.

Sub-Divisional Officers (C) (equivalent to Lieutenants) have been placed on Article 21 which is two Articles higher than Majors who have been kept on Article 23 alongwith, hold
your breath, DySPs/Asst SPs. Now it may not be out of place to mention that a DSP in many states is a Group-B (formerly known as Class-II) Officer who actually is equated with
a Subedar Major. In fact even the 6th CPC has equated a DSP/ACP of the Delhi & Andaman Islands Police Service (which is under the Central Govt) with Subedar Majors of the
Army

MIZORAM
Click here to see Mizoram’s Warrant of Precedence

Another State which has equated an SDO (c) with a Major on Article 26 alongwith Under Secretaries to State Govt (Lieutenant) is Mizoram. This State has also, throwing all
norms to the wind, equated Office Superintendents / Superintendents of Excise / Distt Employment Officers / Youth Welfare Officers / Sanitation Officers / Assistants to
Collectors (All Group B / Class II) with a Captain of the Army.

JAMMU & KASHMIR

Click here to see J&K’s Warrant of Precedence

People would think that the J&K govt must be very thankful to the Army for obvious reasons. But read on to learn what they think of our Military ranks and status.

The J&K Govt places the Chiefs of the Services on Article 21 as opposed to Article 12 in the Central Warrant. Interestingly, High Court Judges who are junior to the Chiefs in the
Central Warrant (Article 17) are listed higher at Article 18 in the J&K WoP.
Lt Generals are listed alongwith DsG of CPOs whereas they are senior in comparison in the Central WoP

Civil Officers of the Selection Grade (equivalent to Lt Col) are listed on Article 29 alongwith Brigadiers. Even Superintending Engineers (SEs) are listed on the same Article with
Brigadiers.

The Army being a Central subject and listed on the Union List of the Constitution of India is not obliged to follow these illegal orders of precedence which have been formulated
by States by flouting Central Govt guidelines with impunity. Maybe it is time for Govt of India to step in and set things right.......
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 3:01 PM

Thursday, September 18, 2008

The equation debate continues ! (with special reference to Lt Colonels and Superintending Engineers of Central Engineering Services)

(The following opinion is this blogger’s own and may not be construed opposed to any particular service. The author has the highest regard for all services including the MES -
every single service is playing its part in the system. The discussion may please be kept dignified. Abusive or derogatory comments on any service are not welcome. Thanks)

A lot has been said about the equivalence of Superintending Engineers (SEs) and Lt Colonels. While MES officers claim that SEs are equivalent to full Colonels, Army officers
refute this and say that SEs can only be equated at best with Lt Colonels.

Let us touch the issue historically and analyse how we have reached the present anomalous situation wherein SEs have been placed in Pay Band-4 while Lt Colonels have been
retained in Pay Band-3.
Past precedent : Traditionally, the appointment of Commander Works Engineers (CWE) was interchangeably held by Lt Col from the Army and SE from the MES, though the
pay of an SE was in between a Major and a Lt Col. Within the Corps of Engineers, the appointment of CWE was equated with the Command of an Engineer Regiment and hence
when the rank of COs of Engineer Regiments was raised to full Colonel in the 1980s, the Army also raised the rank of officers posted as CWEs so as to maintain a parity between a
CO of an Engineer Regiment and a CWE. Resultantly, the Army started posting full Colonels as CWEs. But this was merely an in-house arrangement of the Army and did not
ipso-facto mean that SEs now became equivalent to full Colonels. The establishment manual till date maintains that the post of CWE technically can be held by a Lt Col from the
Army or SE from the MES. It was the Army’s internal cadre management that now full Colonels were being posted as CWEs. The status or pay scale of SEs was not upgraded.

The concept of tenability of posts : Officers of the MES have often lamented that since Colonels are posted as CWEs, a post which is also held by civilian SEs, both have to be
equated. However, within the govt there are many posts which can be held by different grades/ranks from different cadres and the issue is not that simple. There is a difference
between an appointment/post and a grade/rank. The tenability of posts has infact nothing to do with one’s grade or rank. To take an example, the post of an Assistant Garrison
Engineer (AGE) is held both by Civilian Assistant Engineers (AEs – Group B/Class-II) and Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs – Group A/Class-I), now would it mean that AEs
of the MES have become equivalent to AEEs ? Most definitely not !, it simply means that the appointment of an AGE is tenable by both grades - AEs and AEEs. On the other
hand, an AGE till the 80s could be a Subedar Major, 2/Lt, Lt or a Capt but it could not have meant of course that a Subedar Major then became equal to a Capt. Could the Army
then also say that a Subedar Major (Group-B) was equivalent to an AEE (Group A) since both held the same post of AGE ? Of Course not. When different cadres feed one single
line of posts, it is perfectly normal to have varying tenability norms to suit that particular cadre. Let us take another example, the post of DC/DM/Collector of a District can be held
by STS, JAG or NFSG officers and similar is the case with the district police chief who in the district administration works under the DC/DM/Collector. Now it so happens many
times that the DC is an officer of the STS while the police head is an officer of the JAG or NFSG, so can IAS officers be then allowed to say that the Non-Functional Selection
Grade (NFSG) of the IPS is now junior to the Senior Time Scale (STS) of the IAS ?, most definitely not !. Moreover in the MES, SEs posted as CWEs cannot write the ACRs of Lt
Cols posted as GEs. The Warrant of Precedence, the establishment manual and MoD guidelines till date equate SEs with Lt Colonels.

Pay Scales : The following is a comparative analysis of the starting pay of SEs and Lt Cols :

3rd CPC
Lt Col – Rs 1700
SE – Rs 1500

4th CPC
Lt Col – Rs 4700
SE – Rs 3700
5th CPC
Lt Col – Rs 15,100
SE – Rs 14,300

6th CPC
Lt Col – Rs 15900 – 39100 with Grade Pay of Rs 7600 * (* under revision)
SE – Rs 37400 – 67000 with Grade Pay of Rs 8700

Rank Pay Confusion : This blogger has seen many comments wherein it is mentioned that Rank Pay is not to be counted for status purposes. It may be underlined here that Rank
Pay was carved out of Basic Pay in the 4th CPC since an integrated pay scale of Rs 2300-5100 was implemented. The logic behind Rank Pay was to differentiate between various
ranks since the integrated scale was the same from 2/Lt till Brigadier. A minima was also brought into force to which the rank pay was added to bring out the correct pay scale. To
put it more clearly, while the pay-scale of a 2/Lt remained 2300-5100, the pay scale of a Lt Col was based on a minima of Rs 3900 with a Rank Pay of Rs 800 within the integrated
scale of Rs 2300-5100, which basically meant that the actual pay scale of Lt Col came out to be Rs 4700 – 5900. To say that Rank Pay was not a part of Basic would mean that all
ranks from 2/Lt to Brigadier are of the same status since they were in the same scale of Rs 2300-5100 !. Moreover, the Central Govt also adequately clarified in SAIs issued after
the 4th and 5th CPCs that Rank Pay was very much a part of Basic Pay. There is no force of law in any letter issued by any administrative authority contrary to the said SAIs. The
MoD in 2007 has also again clarified that there are NO orders which state that Rank Pay is not to be added into basic pay for comparison of status. Please see this document to see
the equation in Army HQ as actually followed.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

More on “Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) is equivalent to Major General” misnomer etc

(The below mentioned is the second part of the series. Readers are again requested to keep the discussion forum dignified and not to degenerate members of other
services and cadres. Though I am totally for freedom of speech and expression, undignified and abusive comments and comments with personal remarks shall be
deleted. Counter-logic and difference of opinion is more than welcome though.)

The issue of equivalence of status and pay has long been a controversial one. The contention of the 6th CPC that there is an established relativity between the
Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) and Maj Gen is flawed and perhaps emanates from an incorrect interpretation of the Warrant of Precedence which lists a
Major General equivalent to a Joint Secretary to Govt of India. Firstly, Note 1 to the current WoP makes it amply clear that the order of precedence is meant for
ceremonial purposes only. Secondly, it is not the SAG that has been equated with a Major General but the appointment of a Joint Secretary to Govt of India and
that too only for ceremonial purposes. Merely because a Joint Secretary GoI happens to be an officer of the SAG would not automatically mean that all SAG
officers become equivalent to Major Generals. In fact, SAG level officers also hold the appointment of ‘Director to Govt of India’ under the Central Staffing
Scheme (CSS) till they are empanelled by Govt of India as Joint Secretaries. While SAG is a grade, Joint Secretary to GoI is an appointment. SAG officers who are
empanelled and holding the appointment of Joint Secretary to GoI under the Central Staffing Scheme can alone (if at all) be compared with Major Generals.
Unfortunately, even the past pay commissions have been treating SAG officers at par with Major Generals for pay purposes. Traditionally however, certain SAG
officers have even been equated with Colonels / Brigadiers of the Army, a very close example would be that of an MES Chief Engineer (SAG) who holds
interchangeable charge with a Brigadier of the Corps of Engineers. While the Maj Gen-JS to GoI equivalence from the WoP has been taken as the basis of
equation of pay, the same has not been done for Lt Generals. A Lt General who features on Article 24 of the current WoP has been granted a scale two steps lower
than a DG of CPOs who is junior to Lt Gen and is placed on Article 25. Featuring on the WoP depends upon the appointment of a person and not his grade, to take
an example, a Chief Secretary to State Govt within his state is featured on Article 23 (equivalent to Army Commander / Secy to Govt of India) but when the same
officer is outside his State, his position drops to Article 25 (below even a Lt Gen). Coming back to the self-created interpretational equivalence articulated by the
6th CPC - a DIG has nothing in common with a Brigadier except the rank badges. 100% of directly recruited IPS officers attain the rank of DIG while less than
8% make it to Brigadier in the Army. An IPS officer reaches the rank of DIG in 14 years (Please refer to Rule 3 C (i) and Proviso of Rule 3 of IPS Pay Rules, 2007
published in Gazette of India on 21 Feb 2008) whereas it takes 28 years to become a Brig in the defence services. Till now the rank of a DIG was placed between a
Lt Col and a full Colonel.

The nomenclature / designation confusion : It is sad but we have been made to believe the Maj Gen – JS GoI equivalence since long and timely action was not taken
about it. The problem lies somewhere else. Earlier the Secretarial ranks were differently nomenclatured than today and the hierarchy was as follows : -

Rank 1 : Asst Secy Govt of India (Article 61 of Old WoP)

Rank 2 : Under Secy Govt of India (Article 57 of Old WoP)

Rank 3 : Addl Dy Secy to Govt of India (Article 45 of Old WoP)

Rank 4 : Dy Secy to Govt of India (Also on Article 45 of Old WoP)

Rank 5 : Joint Secy to Govt of India (Article 29 of Old WoP - was equated with a Maj Gen)
Rank 6 : Addl Secy to Govt of India (Article 27 of Old WoP)

Rank 7 : Secy to Govt of India (Article 26 of the old WoP. Whereas Lt Gen was on Article 24 while GOsC-in-C were on Article 16)

This with time was later changed to the following nomenclature :

Rank 1 : Under Secy to Govt of India

Rank 2 : Dy Secy to Govt of India

Rank 3 : Director

Rank 4 : Joint Secy to Govt of India (still cleverly equated with Maj Gen since in the old warrant such was the case)

Rank 5 : Addl Secy to Govt of India

Rank 6 : Secy to Govt of India

Rank 7 : Cabinet Secretary

Hence, while the Maj Gen – JS equation was cleverly maintained, it was not realized by the services or even by the govt that the erstwhile Secretarial Rank 5 of Jt
Secy had now become Addl Secy to GoI. In fact going by the changed logic, today’s Joint Secretary should have been equated with a Lt Col (equivalent to Dy Secy
to GoI / Rank 4 under the old nomenclature). We just stuck to designations and not to the actual hierarchy that was changed and re-named over the years.
Moreover, if we keep aside the appointment equation which has always been confusing, the length of service equation as was maintained is clear as a crystal and
this should have been used as a benchmark to determine scales and status even in the past :-

(a) Members of the ICS with 30 years of service were equated with Brigadiers commanding Infantry and Cavalry Brigades on Article 32 of the Old Warrant.
Other Brigadiers featured on Article 35.
 (b) Colonels of all Arms and Services and Lt Colonels of Indian Medical Service (now AMC) were on Article 38 and so were officers of the ICS with 23 years’
service and also Chief Engineers (now SAG). The rank of DIG was listed on Article 45 of the Old Warrant.

(c) Lt Colonels were listed on Article 47 of the Old Warrant alongwith ICS officers with 18 years of service.

(d) Majors were listed on Article 59 with ICS officers with 12 to 18 years’ service and IP (Indian Police – now known as IPS) officers with 15 to 20 years of service.

The status equation as on date leaves much to be desired though.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Pride and Precedence : Major Manvendra Singh (Territorial Army), Member of Parliament, Barmer

Before this, a Newsflash : Mr Pranab Mukherjee met the PM on the military pay issue today. He is positive that the anomalies would be resolved very soon.

You can also view this (below) write-up here

(The views are the writer's own, this blog may not subscribe to the political statements expressed in this write-up)

Pride & Precedence : Manvendra Singh

The Congress party's DNA does not allow it to handle three subjects with insight, intellect or innovation. On most other issues the party comes up with interesting ideas, even if the
process adopted is bizarre. But DNA is, in this case, essentially about memory and that is precisely the undoing of the Congress party when it comes to dealing with Pakistan,
China, and the Indian armed forces. Not necessarily in the same breadth, but even as individual subjects.

While the principal culprit would of course be the invertebrate nature of the average Congressperson, the onus for this intellectual disaster falls squarely on the shoulders of late
Prime Minister Nehru. The sheer scale of his capabilities and intellect when compared to what his contemporaries possessed created an aura of impenetrable proportions. It was, in
a sense, India's first example of outsourcing wherein the party simply left thought to its leader. Whatever policy Nehru formulated was enshrined in party shastras. No reason to
think again.

The ideas that the great leader bequeathed his small party did not require intelligence in implementing, as if they were cast in stone. But for the economic policy that was tossed out
by an equally interesting leader, the late PV Narasimha Rao, the inability to think out of the box over Pakistan, China and the Armed Forces remains an enduring legacy. A brief
attempt over these three issues during the term of the late Rajiv Gandhi came to naught as the enormous inertia of the Congress party checked him.

The same inertia has come to mark the incredibly inept handling of the armed forces Pay Commission crisis. The Government of India has compounded errors with its
unbelievable ignorance about the grievance of the armed forces. The three chiefs have displayed their own ineptitude in how they've carried the message for their services, but
more on that later.

The root of the crisis lies in the strange Indian practice of constituting a pay commission that would look at the army in Siachen and the additional secretary in South Block. How
the two job requirements, and service ethos, can ever be written about on the same page defies explanation. Despite that the government did not appoint an armed forces member
on the commission even when it had the opportunity to do so.

The end result of which is that the service headquarters are banging their heads on the wall to plead that the report as it stands is not implement able. Unlike what anybody has
alluded to or accused the chiefs of not doing, the issue is not over pay, but over precedence. And as the doorman of any government official knows, it is precedence that carries the
order of the day. But in this case the order of the day is going to have two very serious crises.

In the short term the government's ignorance, and insistence, is certain to wreck carefully crafted unified command structures in insurgency areas. Just as politicians stand accused
of turning the socio-political clock back in the Kashmir valley, politicians can now also be accused of aiming to turn the operational clock back. The reason being that the Pay
Commission has come up with its own formulations over pay and precedence.

While it had the authority to look into matters of pay, it did not have the licence to tamper with precedence. And by doing what it has done, it has ensured that the carefully worked
out counter-insurgency mechanism stands on the verge of collapsing. The primacy accorded to the army vis-a-vis police, state and central, is being systematically being whittled
away.

As a former journalist who covered the last Pay Commission, and its very sorry air force fiasco, suffice to say that what confronts the country today is far more serious. And
insidious. The key officers accountable for India's tactics on the Line of Control or in anti-insurgency operations within are to lose the very precedence that has given them the
authority to bring the situation to where it is.

While the responsibility devolved upon the state and central police forces, the control continued to spiral out of hand. It was only when the Army was deployed, and set into motion
its own counter-insurgency grid, that a semblance of control could be seen. Now this same Army is being made accountable to the police forces in terms of precedence. When this
has not happened in any other country in the world, how India could hope to re-invent this relationship is perplexing to say the least.

The second serious crisis is one the country will have to face when it goes into a conventional war. As per the war manual the Army takes command of the BSF and the Navy of
the Coast Guard. When this tinkering of precedence has happened, who will now relinquish to whom? It is a very serious crisis of command and one which is testing the resilience
of the three services.

There weren't any blogs during the last Pay Commission, and nor was there much of an email presence. Yet mobilisation happened on levels that could be termed scary. Both these
new technologies have given much air to voices of those that have always remained mute.

In order to have the honour of wearing the President's commission an officer forfeits certain fundamental rights. This holds true for all ranks. The historical and global logic being
that the sheer scale of that honour is enough to compensate for those losses. Those who have experienced the pleasure and honour of the uniform will vouch for the judiciousness
of this exchange. So it is galling when the three chiefs seek to right a wrong and they're accused of sedition. Being soldiers they're of course meant, and seen, to be mum on all
matters. But when honour is at stake it is the duty of all to stand up and be counted. For this is at the core of India's civilisation as enshrined in the Bhagvad Gita.

In their inexperience with politicians, and their ineptitude at being messengers, the chiefs were delivering the wrong message all this while. It had nothing to do with pay but with
precedence. It is in the nature of all bureaucracies to encroach. The military bureaucracy also does it when given a chance. But this creeping encroachment encouraged by political
blindness could cost the country very dearly. For at stake is the honour of India's armed forces, the institution that the country holds dearest. And giving it to those that the country
loathes, in khaki, safari and white.

Courtesy Rediff, Thank You.

-
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 6:15 PM 12 comments
Labels: Pay Commission, Territorial Army, Warrant of Precedence
-

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

First visible dent to status which was bound to happen : Direct 6th CPC fallout

Before I come to the main issue, a brief background.

So I laughed when I saw in the 6th CPC report that there was an ‘established relativity’ between a DIG of Police and a Brigadier.

There had been none, relativity that is. There was nothing common between a DIG and a Brig except the rank badges. More so since in the late 1950s when the MHA had upgraded
the rank badges of IPS officers, in a meeting between senior functionaries of the MoD and them, MHA representatives had promised that though they had granted an Ashoka and
three stars to a DIG, the rank badges would have no bearing on the actual status of a Brig. Clearly there could be no comparison since 100% of IPS officers attain the rank of DIG
in 14 years of service including training whereas less than 7% make it to Brig in the defence services and that too in 28 years of service excluding training.
If the 6th CPC had talked of relativity, here is what the actual relativity was till the 6th CPC :

At the time of independence, according to Governor General of India’s notification No F/49/9/35-Public (G), a Colonel was placed on Serial No 38 for status, a DIG on Number 45
and a Lt Col on Number 47. Hence a DIG was 7 steps lower than a Colonel and 2 steps higher than a Lt Col. At the most recent stage of 5th CPC scales, the starting pay of a DIG
(Rs 16,400) was sandwiched between a Lt Col (Rs 15,100) and a Col (Rs 17,100).

The 6th CPC and subsequently the CoS however equated a DIG with a Brig (both granted a Grade Pay of Rs 8900). The 6th CPC and elements in the MoF also emphasized that
they had not disturbed any status equation and even earlier a DIG was considered equal to a Brig.

How wrong they were. A recent example was of Scheduled Banks in India who have an appointment known as the Chief Security Officer (CSO) in Senior Management Grade
Scale -5 (SMGS-V) the requirement for which was that the applicant should be either a Colonel or a DIG.

After the 6th CPC, the same advertisement has been issued with the requirement that the applicant should be either a Brigadier or a DIG.

And they said that the 6th CPC has merely maintained the existing relativities. Below is proof as to how on the contrary existing and established relativities have been blatantly
disturbed only after the 6th CPC :

Here is a pre-CPC (2006) advertisement for the post of CSO of a Bank with a rank requirement of Colonel / DIG

Here is a post-CPC (2008) advertisement for the post of CSO of a Bank with a rank requirement of Brigadier / DIG

Isn’t the slide visible to the naked eye ?

-
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 6:25 PM 16 comments
Labels: Grade Pay, Pay Commission, Status, Warrant of Precedence

Monday, March 9, 2009

Oh oh Abhinav, wrong number !!

A young IPS Officer, Abhinav Kumar, wrote this for the Hindustan Times recently. While I let it pass in the first glance, on second thoughts I said what the heck ?!!. To begin
with, I would be candid enough to admit that what he writes usually makes sense and as a fact I like what he writes. But I cannot say the same about these two fickle annotations in
his write up :

“First of all, how fair and accurate is the comparison with the All-India Services ? The 5,400-strong IAS preside over roughly 15 million civil servants who work for the central
and state governments, whereas the 3,800-strong IPS manages over 2.3 million central and state police personnel. Entry to the civil services is at four different levels. In contrast,
our 1.4 million-strong armed forces have just two levels of entry with a combined sanctioned strength of 67,540 officers — with about 55,000 actually serving.”

“The military obsession with protocol and the exclusion of all other concerns is mystifying. Why should a Lieutenant Colonel, a rank that the army no longer allows to command
its basic unit, a battalion, be superior in protocol to a district magistrate or a superintendent of police, officers entrusted with looking after the basic unit of our governance, the
district ?.”

So Abhinav, it is only officers entrusted with districts who should be granted a superior protocol and not others eh ? So what do we do with those IAS and IPS officers who are not
in districts ?, thrust on them a lower status and lower pay ? What about that SP who after his district tenure is posted as SP Computerisation or SP Litigation or SP Law & Order or
SP xyz abc whatever. What about that DC who after finishing his tenure is posted as a Deputy Secretary of some non-descript department ?. Pay him or her less would you say ?.
What about those multiple DsGP and Chief Secretary grade officers floating around in State Secretariats handling practically non-existent assignments ? Do we pay them on the
basis of the number of people they have under their command ?. Things are not that simple. Your comment on the number of employees being ‘presided over’ or ‘managed’ is
childish. Tomorrow you would say that a Professor of a University should be paid less than a Havaldar since he or she presides over or manages none whereas a Havaldar still has
a Section serving under his Command. It’s laughable to say the least. A military officer from the very beginning is a judge, commander, manager, administrator all rolled into one.
Being in charge of human life is the biggest responsibility, much more than managing thousands of acres. But this of course is not to belittle the IAS or the IPS who just like the
military have their respective designated roles to play. Pay and status should be directly linked with rank, grade and length of service and not with any appointment that someone
lucky may be holding on one particular day. The pitfalls of accepting your argument are many. For instance in the military context, a Major from the Corps of Engineers who is
posted as a Garrison Engineer and who handles projects worth crores and enjoys a clout unmatchable in any other service cannot possibly claim better pay and status than that
equivalent Major of the Infantry commanding a company somewhere in a godforsaken place just on the basis of the self-assumed so called 'importance' of appointment.

And Abhinav, by the way, a Lt Col does enjoy higher protocol than most DCs and SPs. And yes, by the way, it is Lt Cols (who are acting Cols) who command Battalions.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Stretching Abhinav’s argument further : history speaks otherwise

While Abhinav Kumar had harped on the fact that Lt Cols who no longer command Battalions should not be granted a higher protocol than district administrative and police heads
and that IAS and IPS officers preside over and manage more employees than military officers and hence deserve more pay and higher protocol than the defence services, it would
be worthwhile to take a look as to how status equations were placed by the govt at the time of independence vis-à-vis sheer numbers as Abhinav would have wanted readers to
believe. Also it is an established administrative norm that status and pay equations are never determined by number of employees presided over but are a resultant of a multiplicity
of factors such as established relativity, functionality, duties performed, handling of human lives, equipment and importance to community. Stretching Abhinav’s logic, let’s
analyse this blast from the past circa 1947 which would show that status and pay equations were never contingent upon the number of employees under supervision :

Brigadiers commanding about 3ooo men were equated with an IG Police – the highest police rank in charge of an entire state.

Lt Cols of the erstwhile Indian Medical Service (now AMC) commanding none were senior to the then second highest rank in the police hierarchy – the DIG.

Colonels who used to hold staff appointments with zero troops under command were equated with the highest rank in forest hierarchy – the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Lieutenant Colonels commanding less than 1000 troops were equated with the head of the entire excise machinery – the excise commissioner.
Majors who rarely commanded more than 100 men were always equated with Imperial Police officers with 15 to 20 years of service who used to head districts which were larger
than some states of today.

So how is it that the status and pay were brought down ?. There is nothing in the successive pay commission reports which remotely suggests the depression of status of military
ranks. In fact, pay commissions have made us believe that a status quo was always maintained between the pay of military and civil officers. Fine, but then how is it that a civil
officer in the 3rd CPC grade of Rs 1650-1800 was granted Pay Band-4 with a Grade Pay of Rs 8700 by the 6th CPC while a Lt Col who was placed at Rs 1750-1950 was granted
Pay Band-3 with a Grade Pay of Rs 7600 by the same Pay Commission ? How is it that a Capt is shown against Senior Time Scale under the 3rd CPC comparative table on Page
73 of the 6th CPC and suddenly is shown degraded and clubbed with 2nd Lieut and Lieut against the Junior Time Scale in the table representing 4th CPC – three military ranks
equated with one civil grade and that too the lowest one !. There is nothing in the 4th CPC that suggests the downgradation of a Capt from STS to JTS level so how is it
represented as such ?. Magic wand ?, No, but a crafty mind the execution of which escapes the untrained eye of not just the military but even the highest echelons of the
bureaucracy and the cabinet. Again I would say that it’s those innocuous looking notes of the lower bureaucracy which hurt the most than anything else.

As stated by me earlier, the pitfalls of accepting Abhinav’s arguments are many. Every single Group-A officer starts with the same salary under the Govt of India, if the ‘number of
employees presided over’ argument is taken into consideration, then we’ll see most Group-A civil servants being placed below thanedaars or even havaldars. Within the defence
forces, we’ll have officers from arms seeking superiority in pay and protocol over officers from the services. Professors of Universities and senior govt doctors and scientists
would be down in the dumps because of the absence of those numerical attributes so much considered cardinal and vital by our friend Abhinav.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 6:01 AM 33 comments
Labels: Misc, Status, Warrant of Precedence

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Abhinav replies and amplifies : join the debate

First of all, let me introduce Abhinav Kumar to you. He’s an IPS officer of the Uttrakhand cadre and a thinking cop for sure. Before joining the IPS, he was a journalist with India
Today and readers would be happy to learn that he is BA (Hons), MA in Philosophy and Economics from the University of Oxford. Well, all of you saw my rejoinder to Abhinav’s
piece touching the military and I do also hope that you glanced through my introduction to my disagreement on his write up when I said that I had a liking for the work of his pen.
My views were not at variance with him per se but with one aspect of his article dealing with protocol addressed by me here and here.
Abhinav has responded to the issue at hand. Before readers peruse his reply, I would like to point out that this is being initiated for a meaningful debate on the subject and I would
not expect personal comments or remarks deprecating any particular service. Also as regular visitors would know, this blog gives utmost importance to the freedom of expression
and personal opinion, hence both sides of the motion have to be equally respected and tolerated. Before I put across his letter for you, you may like to see his earlier work
especially on the inherent superiority granted to the IAS by the 6th CPC, his insightful piece on our society and institutions with Nithari as the backdrop and on the life of a Police
Constable. Never known to mince his words, the officer very bravely faced the tirade of some old school babus after his ibid article on the pay edge to the IAS was published. The
show cause notice issued to him on the recommendations of the Department of Personnel and Training was however stayed by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand.

Here is what Abhinav has to say on the matter :

Dear Sir,

Read your latest post about my article with interest. Sir just a few more points for your kind consideration:

1. Is it the case that the Warrant of Precedence at the time of Independence should be held sacrosanct and held as the basis of determining relative pay and status for all times to
come? You may like to look at other mature democracies and see how they accord pay and status amongst different public services. Or is it your case that India should use
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar as the template when deciding the status of the Armed Forces in civil society?

2. The steep pyramid in the armed forces and the high rates of attrition at each rank, are features that exist due to the internal logic of the Armed Forces. My point, which has been
twisted completely out of context by participants on your blog, was that the sheer size of the officer cadre of the Armed Forces makes it next to impossible to make a meaningful
comparison with the much smaller IAS/IPS cadres. I feel the step to create a separate pay commission for the Armed Forces is a welcome move. Objectively speaking in terms of
total emoluments, our Armed Forces are far better paid than other public services. Do we need to pay them more to attract youngsters? Definitely, but this cannot be an open-ended
commitment.

3. The Armed Forces as well as the Police Forces exist to preserve the external and internal security of the nation. They are of course proud symbols of national identity but surely
national identity and the task of nation building are dependent on other important categories of public servants and professions, especially engineers, doctors, teachers, artists and
even politicians. For all of us in uniform, pride in our respective institutions is essential for organizational effectiveness, but it cannot be based on contempt for other institutions
that are just as essential to a healthy nation.

4. On the issue of corruption, sir I think all our public services, including the Armed Forces suffer grievously from the cancer of corruption. Corruption in the police is perhaps the
most talked about because it is the most visible, but if you seriously believe that the Armed Forces are immune to this evil then I think you are disregarding the obvious. The
common man is not directly affected by corruption in our Armed Forces, that does not mean it doesn't exist or that it does not harm our nation. And pointing this out does not make
me any less patriotic as many respondents on your blog seem to suggest.

5. My piece in HT appeared in grossly truncated form and it may have amplified my observations on the Armed Forces unfairly. It was initially prompted by the criticism of the
Ashok Chakra awards to deceased police officers by retired senior soldiers. Sir it is nobody's case that Karkare and company displayed the kind of physical courage that was
showed by Major Somnath Sharma or Lt Khetrapal or Havaldar Abdul Hamid. However please consider the fact that there may be the possibility of different contexts to and
definitions of bravery. In the national imagination, I grant partly a media creation, what happened in Mumbai starting 26/11 was also a battleground and Shri Karkare and others
were the first casualties of that engagement and the entire nation mourned them as martyrs. They went to their deaths willingly despite lacking the training, the equipment and the
orientation to properly face the situation. Civil Society does not question your professional wisdom and integrity when you tell us Officer X or Jawan Y earned the PVC. Please
respect the emotional wisdom and affection of civil society when it chose to honour them. In the limited experience of us civilians they were heroes. I wept almost 10 years ago
when I saw the body of Captain Vikram Batra and I wept this time around too. We in the police don't have a very glorious or inspiring history as our Armed Forces, but even we
love and revere our martyrs. Please respect that if not as professional soldiers at least as gentlemen.

Warm Regards

Abhinav

Monday, March 23, 2009

Slip from the ladder

Sample these historic equations :

Pre-1937
Highest Police Rank in a State : Colonel
Second Highest Police Rank in a State : Lt Colonel

1937
Highest Police Rank in a State : Brigadier
Second Highest Police Rank in a State : Approximately equated with a Lt Col

1947
Highest Police Rank in a State : Brigadier
Second Highest Police Rank in a State : Approximately equated with a Lt Col

1973
Highest Police Rank in a State : Maj Gen
Second Highest Police Rank in a State : Brig

1986
Highest Police Rank in a State : Lt Gen
Second Highest Police Rank in a State : Maj Gen

Post-2006
Highest Police Rank in a State : Lt Gen (Army Commander / VCOAS Grade)
Second Highest Police Rank in a State : Lt Gen

For determining the grades for the defence services, the 6th CPC has drawn a parallel with the Indian Police Service. In fact, for the first time, this pay commission has linked
military salaries to Police grades using the latter as the backdrop. The police nomenclature of appointments has changed over the years. If indeed a comparison was to be made, it
should have been made with the position in the hierarchy and not with the mere name of the appointment, which after umpteen number of redesignations and upgradations, has lost
its inherent relevance. Hence if the highest police rank of a state was equated with a Col initially, what made the military rank go down on the status and pay ladder – is there any
explanation in any pay panel report ? No, not at all. If thereafter, for a long period of time, an IGP was the apex police officer looking after the policing of an entire state and was
equated with a Maj General, why is now a Maj Gen placed fourth from the top as far as comparison with the police is concerned. In fact changes in nomenclature and upgradations
on the civil side without any actual functional effect on civil services have resulted in an indirect mess in the defence services. The same happened in case of police and also in
Secretarial appointments under Govt of India as is clarified in this earlier post on this blog. For example, when the initial Secretarial hierarchy of Asst Secy to Govt of India /
Under Secy / Addl Dy Secy / Dy Secy / Joint Secy / Addl Secy / Secy to Govt of India was over the years redesignated and changed to Under Secy to Govt of India / Dy Secy /
Director / Joint Secy / Addl Secy / Secy / Cabinet Secy, the powers that be stuck on with the Major General = Joint Secy to GoI equivalence from the old hierarchy and simply
pasted it in the new hierarchy not realising that the old Joint Secy (with about 30 years of service) which was the Fifth Secretarial rank initially had now been redesignated and
replaced on the fifth step by the Addl Secy to GoI. In fact, many would not know that the old Dy Secy to GoI is now known as the (present) Joint Secy to GoI, both on the fourth
step of the ladder. Hence, the linkage of the rank of Maj Gen should have ideally been with the fifth step of the hierarchy and not with the mere nomenclature of the appointment.

The solution hence would be to link military ranks with functional equations and position in hierarchy of civil grades and not with nomenclature or in some cases the exaggerated
redesignated name of a post. This can only happen if there is a formulation of a committee to look into the effect on the military structure each time there is a cadre restructuring or
upgradation on the civil side. For example, if a Maj Gen was equated with the highest police rank, then irrespective of change of the name of designation on the police side, the
said rank should have remained equated with the corresponding highest police rank, whatever it may have been named, unless there was a proper redefining of roles and status by a
lawfully constituted body. If a Maj Gen was equated with the fifth step Secretarial rank under the Govt of India hierarchy earlier, then the same should have been the equation
irrespective of change in nomenclature and re-designation on the civil side. The police example has been highlighted by our regular visitor Aditya on the blog time and again and I
thought it would be interesting to roughly highlight how police ranks have compared with the Army down the ages.

Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:26 AM

PRESIDENT’S SECRETARIAT
New Delhi, the 26th July, 1979
No.33-Pres/79 -In supersession of all previous notifications issued on the subject, the following
Table, with respect to the rank and precedence of the persons named therein which has been
approved by the President, is published for general information: -
1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Prime Minister
4. Governors of States within their respective States
5. Former Presidents
5A. Deputy Prime Minister
6. Chief Justice of India
Speaker of Lok Sabha
7. Cabinet Ministers of the Union.
Chief Ministers of States within their respective States
Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission
� Former Prime Ministers
Leaders of Opposition in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha
7A. � Holders of Bharat Ratna decoration
8. Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and High Commissioners of Commonwealth
countries accredited to India
Chief Ministers of States outside their respective States
Governors of States outside their respective States)
9. Judges of Supreme Court
9A � Chairperson, Union Public Service Commission
� Chief Election Commissioner
� Comptroller & Auditor General of India
10. Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha
Deputy Chief Ministers of States
Deputy Speaker, Lok Sabha
Members of the Planning Commission
Ministers of State of the Union �{and any other Minister in the Ministry of
Defence for defence matters}.
_________________________________________________________________________________
� Added vide Amendment notification No.16-Pres/92 dated 31st Jan'1992 {12/17/90-Public}
� Added vide Amendment notification No.48-Pres/81 dated 3rd Aug'1981 {12/1/81-Public}
� Added vide Amendment notification No.147-Pres/94 dated 8th Sep'1994 {12/5/93-Public}
� Added vide Amendment notification No.63-Pres/91 dated 19th April 1991
� Added vide Amendment notification No. 160-Pres/2007 dated 13th October, 2007 {12/1/2006-Public}
Page 2 of 5
11. Attorney General of India.
Cabinet Secretary.
Lieutenant Governors within their respective Union Territories
12. Chiefs of Staff holding the rank of full General or equivalent rank.
13. Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary accredited to India.
14. Chairmen and Speakers of State Legislatures within their respective States.
Chief Justices of High Courts within their respective jurisdictions
15. Cabinet Ministers in States within their respective States
Chief Ministers of Union Territories and Chief Executive Councillor, Delhi within their
respective Union Territories
Deputy Ministers of the Union.
16. Officiating Chiefs of Staff holding the rank of Lieutenant General or equivalent rank.
17. � Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal.
Chairman, Minorities Commission.
� Chairperson, National Commission for Scheduled Castes
� Chairperson, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
Chief Justices of High Courts outside their respective jurisdictions.
Puisne Judges of High Courts within their respective jurisdictions.
18. Cabinet Ministers in States outside their respective States
Chairmen and Speakers of State Legislatures outside their respective States.
Chairman, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
Deputy Chairman and Deputy Speakers of State Legislatures within their respective States.
Legislatures within their respective States.
Ministers of State in States within their respective States.
Ministers of Union Territories and Executive Councilors, Delhi, within their respective Union
Territories.
Speakers of Legislative Assemblies in Union Territories and Chairman of Delhi Metropolitan
Council within their respective Union Territories.
19. Chief Commissioners of Union Territories not having Councils of Ministers, within their
respective Union Territories.
Deputy Ministers in States within their respective States.
Deputy Speakers of Legislative Assemblies in Union Territories and Deputy Chairman of
metropolitan Council Delhi, within their respective Union Territories.
20. Deputy Chairmen and Deputy Speakers of State Legislatures, outside their respective states.
Ministers of State in States outside their respective States.
Puisne Judges of High Courts outside their respective jurisdictions.
21. Members of Parliament.
22. Deputy Ministers in State outside their respective States.
_________________________________________________________________________________
� Added vide Amendment notification No.64-Pres/89 dated 17th July 1989 {12/3/88-Public}
� Substituted vide Amendment notification No. 160-Pres/2007 dated 13th October, 2007 {12/1/2006-
Public}
Page 3 of 5
23. Army Commanders/ Vice-Chief of the Army Staff or equivalent in other services
Chief Secretaries to State Governments within their respective States.
Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities.
Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Members, Minorities Commission.
� Members, National Commission for Scheduled Castes
� Members, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
Officers of the rank of full General or equivalent rank.
Secretaries to the Government of India (including officers holding this office ex-officio).
Secretary, Minorities Commission.
Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission.
Secretary to the President.
Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Secretary, Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha
Solicitor General.
�Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal.
24. Officers of the rank of Lieutenant General or equivalent rank.
25. Additional Secretaries to the Government of India.
Additional Solicitor General
Advocate Generals of States.
Chairman, Tariff Commission
Charge d’ Affairs and Acting High Commissioners a pied and ad interim
Chief Ministers of Union Territories and Chief Executive Councillor, Delhi, outside their
respective Union Territories.
Chief Secretaries of State Governments outside their respective States.
Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General
Deputy Speakers of Legislative Assemblies in Union Territories and Deputy Chairman,
Delhi Metropolitan Council, outside their respective Union Territories.
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
Director General, Border Security Force.
Director General, Central Reserve Police.
Director, Intelligence Bureau
Lieutenant Governors outside their respective Union Territories.
�Members, Central Administrative Tribunal.
Members, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Members, Union Public Service Commission
Ministers of Union Territories and Executive Councillors, Delhi, outside their respective
Union Territories.
Principal Staff Officers of the Armed Forces of the rank of major General or equivalent rank
Speakers of Legislative Assemblies in Union Territories and Chairman of Delhi, Metropolitan
Council, outside their respective Union Territories
26. Joint Secretaries to the Government of India and officers of equivalent rank.
Officers of the rank of Major-General or equivalent rank
_________________________________________________________________________________
� Added vide Amendment notification No.64-Pres/89 dated 17th July 1989 {12/3/88-Public}
� Substituted vide Amendment notification No. 160-Pres/2007 dated 13th October, 2007 {12/1/2006-
Public}
Page 4 of 5
NOTES
Note 1 The order in this Table of Precedence is meant for State and Ceremonial occasions and
has no application in the day-to-day business of Government.
Note 2 Persons in the Table of Precedence will take rank in order of the number of the
articles. The entries in the same article are arranged alphabetically. Those
included in the same article will take precedence inter se according to date of
entry into that article. However, where the dignitaries of different States and Union
Territories included in the same article are present at a function outside their States or
Union Territories and there is difficulty in ascertaining their dates of entry, they may
be assigned precedence inter se in the alphabetical order of the name of States and
Union Territories concerned after those whose precedence is determined according to
date of entry into that article.
Note 3 � In Article 7, former Prime Ministers will take precedence over the Cabinet
Ministers of the Union and the Leaders of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and the
Lok Sabha. The Chief Ministers of States within their respective States will take
precedence over the Cabinet Ministers of the Union in official functions held in
the respective States.
Note 4 In Article 8: –
(a) Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and High Commissioners of
Commonwealth countries accredited to India will en bloc rank above Governors of
States outside their respective States;
(b) Governors of States outside their respective States will en bloc rank above Chief
Ministers of States outside their respective States.
Note 5 The Ministry of External Affairs may assign appropriate ranks to foreign dignitaries
and Indian Ambassadors, High Commissioners and Ministers Plenipotentiary during
their visit to India.
Note 6 � Notwithstanding the procedure laid down in Note 2, the rank inter se and precedence
of the persons in Article 10 shall be assigned in the following order: -
(1) Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha.
(2) Deputy Speaker, Lok Sabha.
(3) Ministers of State of the Union and any other Minister in the Ministry of Defence
for defence matters.
(4) Deputy Chief Ministers of States.
(5) Members of Planning Commission.
However, the Deputy Chief Ministers of States outside their respective States will
always rank below all other dignitaries figuring in this article.
_________________________________________________________________________________
� Amendment vide notification No.16-Pres/92 dated 31st Jan'1992 {12/17/90-Public}
� Amendment vide notification No.63-Pres/91 dated 19th April 1991
Page 5 of 5
Note 7 The Chairmen of State Legislative Councils will rank above the Speakers of
Legislative Assemblies in cases where they were elected on the same date.
Note 8 When Members of Parliament are invited en bloc to major State functions, the
enclosures reserved for them should be next to the Chief Justice, Speaker of the Lok
Sabha, Ambassadors etc.
Note 9 Speakers of Legislative Assemblies in Union Territories and Chairman of the Delhi
Metropolitan Council, Delhi, will take precedence over Ministers and Executive
Councillors, included in the same article.
Note 10 In Article 23: -
(a) Secretaries in the Ministry of External Affairs other than the Foreign Secretary,
between themselves, will take precedence in the order of their seniority in Grade-I of
the Indian Foreign Service and both of them will take precedence after the Foreign
Secretary.
(b) Members of the Minorities Commission and the Scheduled Castes and Schedule
Tribes Commission will always take precedence over the Secretaries of these
Commissions;
(c) In official functions held at Delhi/New Delhi, Army Commanders/Vice Chief of the
Army Staff or equivalent in other Services will always rank after Secretaries to the
Government of India.
Note 11 In Article 25: -
(a) Additional Secretaries in the Ministry of External Affairs, among themselves, will
take precedence in the order of their seniority in Grade- II of the Indian Foreign
Service;
(b) Additional Solicitor General will take precedence above the Advocate General of
States;
(c) Lieutenant Governors will take precedence over the Chief Ministers and Chief
Executive Councillor, Delhi, and the latter will take precedence over Speakers of
Legislative Assemblies and Chairman, Metropolitan Council, Delhi;
(d) Deputy Speakers of Legislative Assemblies of Union Territories and Deputy
Chairman of Delhi Metropolitan Council will take precedence after Ministers of
Union Territories and Executive Councillors, Delhi.
Note 12 For the purpose of Article 26, the posts equivalent to the posts of Joint Secretaries to
the Government of India will be determined by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Sd/-
(K.C. Madappa)
Secretary to the President
Note: The above Table includes all amendments made therein so far