Vivek Rae, a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, is an erudite hero of his wounded tribe. Wounded as the service is after their contention for assumed superiority fell flat with Justice AK Mathur and economist Rathin Roy, the other two members of the VII Central Pay Commission (CPC), Rae’s version of the “varna system,” running into 3,170 words deserves a read. Not to feel angry, but to get a sense of what his tribesmen in the department of personnel and administrative reform, cabinet secretariat and Prime Minister’s Office will like to pick and choose amidst the split verdict.
Erode the edge and you court an Orwellian Nightmare, Vivek Rae warns.
neelabh 380Speed read to 7.2.20. Rae, Member, is stated to be of the view that “the financial edge for IAS and IFS is fully justified.”
His reasoning is supplied in italics with minimum editing; emphasis added to facilitate:
1.If something has been around since 1947, why change now?
The edge in terms of higher pay scale or two additional increments has been available to the IAS vis-à-vis other All India Services (AIS) and Central Group `A’ Services since the time of the I CPC (1947).
The rationale for this financial edge for IAS in the early stages of their career has been examined repeatedly by successive CPCs over the last six decades, due to demand for parity by IPS, Indian Forest Service and Central Group `A’ Services.
The III CPC (1973) examined the field functions of IAS and observed that: “It is generally recognised that for the IAS officer the post of Collector and District Magistrate is basic, and constitutes a vital stage in his career. The government has always attached importance to the holding of district charges by regular recruits so as to build up their executive ability quickly and to develop to the full all the potentialities they have. It is in this post that an IAS officer gets an unequalled opportunity of living and working among the people, participating in planning and implementation of developmental programmes, working with the Panchayati Raj institutions, coordinating the activities of government departments in the district and dealing directly with problems of law and order. In the foreseeable future, however, rapid the pace of industrialization might be, the rural and semi-urban countryside will still retain its overwhelming importance and the government will have to concern itself with the problems of this area.
We collected the latest information from the various State Governments regarding the duties and responsibilities of Collectors of districts. Our analysis shows that the job of the collector over the years has become more difficult and complex. The Collector continues to be responsible for law and order and the traditional revenue and regulatory functions, while his work on the planning and development side has increased manifold. His work on the judicial side has diminished, however, with the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The various State Governments have emphasised, in particular, the important role that Collectors play in coordinating the activities of the different government departments at the district level. Collectors continue to perform various major administrative tasks in addition, like the conduct of elections and census, civil defence, distribution of essential and controlled commodities, and the organization of relief measures in times of drought and floods. Besides natural calamities, other upheavals have their impact on the work of the District Officer. There have been large influxes of displaced persons into the border districts since Independence, the last such having occurred in 1971. Problems resulting from war and its aftermath, displaced persons, land reforms, etc. all impinge upon the work of the District Officer. The States have also informed us that the size of a Collector’s job has acquired new dimensions with the growth of democratic institutions and the Collectors have now to spend considerable time in consulting and guiding nonofficial bodies and in enlisting public cooperation and people’s participation in schemes sponsored by the government. We feel that there has been no diminution in the level of the duties and responsibilities attaching to the post of Collector. If anything, these are now more onerous and complex than at the time of the II CPC. The experience gained by a District Officer gives him an intimate knowledge of men and affairs and enables him to handle complex situations. It also gives him an insight into human problems and relations and his approach to administrative matters bearing the impress of this knowledge is likely to be more acceptable generally. “(Read: Those who serve in other services and defence forces are morons!)
The III CPC (1973) further observed that “The State Governments and the Chief Ministers of States are of the unanimous view that the pay scales for the Indian Administrative Service should continue to be higher than the pay scales prescribed for the Class 1 Central Services generally. The grounds adduced by them were more onerous responsibilities entrusted to the IAS officers in State administration particularly for inducting persons of a higher calibre into the IAS. A Chief Minister, who was previously a member of the Council of Ministers at the Centre and had, therefore, seen the work of both categories of officers, was specifically asked to comment on the issue and he was of the view that the IAS officers have to shoulder higher responsibilities than the other Services and, therefore, should be given a higher grade." With regard to the State Secretariat, the III CPC, while elaborating on the challenges of decision making at the State Secretariat level, observed that “having regard to these functions of the Secretariat which call for certain qualities of mind and mature judgement, and involve inter-departmental considerations, we are of the view that the lead under the pay scale which we are proposing for the Collector and District Magistrate would also be justified for the Secretariat appointments in the State Governments held by these officers.”(Read: Once a DM, superior for ever!)
Even though these views were recorded by the III CPC in the 1970s, they remain, equally, if not more, relevant today. At the field level, IAS officers also increasingly play a key role in meeting the challenges of urbanization in their capacity as Municipal Commissioners and Chief Executives of Urban Development Authorities, and Water Supply, Power and Transport utilities. The diversity, complexity and challenge of their responsibilities continues to remain unmatched and provides unparalleled opportunities to develop multiple skill sets relating to execution, coordination, leadership, crisis management, and policy making across a wide variety of domains.
With regard to the IPS, the III CPC observed: “The main demand of the Indian Police Service (Central) Association is that the IPS should be equated rank-for-rank with the IAS. According to the scheme proposed by them, they would like the Superintendent of Police to be equated to the District Magistrate, the DIG of Police to a Divisional Commissioner and the IG of Police to the Chief Secretary. The Association has also highlighted the special working conditions and liabilities attaching to a career in the Indian Police Service, viz., the high degree of personal risk and professional hazards, arduous nature of duties and the sense of uncertainty arising from political situation.
The Association has emphasised the poor promotion prospects in the Service as compared to the IAS and Class 1 Central Services generally…….. Although several witnesses suggested an improvement in the IPS pay scales, the majority of the witnesses, including a retired senior police officer, expressed the view that the range of responsibilities of the Collector and District Magistrate was wider than that of the Superintendent of Police and as such some differential should be maintained between the pay scales prescribed for the two. The State Governments have also suggested improvements in the IPS pay scales, but they are not in favour of parity with the IAS.”
“In all these jobs entrusted to an IPS officer, he has to display qualities of leadership, alertness, integrity, self-confidence and tact and a knowledge of human character and social problems…We, however, feel that it would not be appropriate to provide a long senior scale like that of the IAS because the range of jobs held by IAS officers in the senior scale is much wider including as it does such jobs as those of District Magistrates, heads of departments and senior positions in the Secretariat.” (NB: The said IPS officer and the CM above haven’t been identified).
Broadly similar observations were made by the III CPC about Indian Forest Service whose pay scales were lower than IPS till IV CPC, but have been on par with IPS since the V CPC. While considering the matter, the IV CPC (1986) observed: “We have heard the views expressed by some of the Chief Ministers and all of them have spoken from their experience and recognised the important role played by officers belonging to IAS in the State administration. They have expressed views about parity in the pay scales among the all India services. While most of them were in favour of maintaining the existing relativities, some of them felt that disparities could be narrowed down to some extent. We have kept these observations in view while recommending the pay scales given in Chapter 8.”(Unanswered: What of IAS officers who serve the Union government in a job similar to a non-IAS? Is Rae’s assumption therefore that the IAS does a better job and need to be paid higher? )
While considering the matter, the V CPC (1996-2005) observed as follows: “We now come to the difficult area of relations between the IAS and the other services. Most of the Associations of the IPS and Central Services have spent a lot of time and effort in trying to explain as to why there should be absolute parity between the IAS and these services, in terms of pay scales, career progression and Central deputation. It would be useful to examine their arguments and see how far these are tenable. The chief argument is that all recruits to IAS and Central Services are inducted through the same examination. There may be a difference of only one mark between the last man in the IAS and the first man in the Central Services. That single mark should not make such a difference as to change their entire career patterns. This line of argument is not convincing. It is not correct to compare the last man of the IAS with the first man of the Central Services. If the first of each Service is looked at, the difference in marks obtained would be considerable. Besides, Group `B’ services are also recruited through the same examination. If the 1-mark argument is conceded as between the IAS and Group `A’ Central Services, the same should then result in parity between Group`A’ Central Services and Group `B’ Central Services.”
The matter regarding parity between various civil services flowing from a common recruitment exam was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohan Kumar Singhania and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. and judgement delivered on 13 September, 1991, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “The selections for IAS, IFS and IPS, Group A services and Group `B’ services are made by a combined competitive examination and viva voce test. There cannot be any dispute that each service is a distinct and separate cadre, having its separate field of operation, with different status, prospects, pay scales, the nature of duties, the responsibilities to the post and conditions of service etc. Therefore, once a candidate is selected and appointed to a particular cadre, he cannot be allowed to say that he is at par with the others on the ground that all of them appeared and were selected by a combined competitive examination and viva voce test and that the qualifications prescribed are comparable. In our considered view, the classification of the present case is not based on artificial inequalities but is hedged within the salient features and truly founded on substantial differences. Judged from this point of view, it seems to us impossible to accept the submission that the classification rests on an unreal and unreasonable basis and that it is arbitrary or absurd.”
Earlier in the same judgement, while commenting on the Rule 8 of the CSE rules (precluding and IAS and an Indian Foreign Service Officer from reappearing in the exam-Ed.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “The purpose for incorporating this uncompromising and stringent provision is that the candidates appointed to the IAS and IFS are required to man the key positions both in the Central and State Services wherein the appointees have to combine their intellectual capacity and the requisite traits of personality and also to exhibit higher intellectual proficiency and leadership. Thus Rule 8 keeps up and maintains the phenomenon of the upper civil service, run under our constitution with all enduring features and facets of the said service on All India basis.”
Rule 8 precluded candidates who had been appointed to the IAS and IFS from sitting in the ensuing civil service exam while in service. No such prohibition was stipulated in respect of candidates appointed to IPS, and other Group `A’ central services. This rule position remains unchanged. The UPSC notification for the 2015 Civil Service Exam stipulates that “A candidate who is appointed to the IAS and IFS on the results of an earlier examination and continues to be a member of that service will not be eligible to compete at this examination. In case such a candidate is appointed to the IAS/IFS after the Preliminary Examination of Civil Services Examination, 2015 is over and he/she continues to be a member of that service, he/she shall not be eligible to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2015 notwithstanding his/her having qualified in the Preliminary Examination, 2015. Also provided that if such a candidate is appointed to IAS/IFS after the commencement of the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2015 but before the result thereof and continues to be a member of that service, he/she shall not be considered for appointment to any service/post on the basis of the result of this examination viz., Civil Services Examination, 2015.” This rule position clearly indicates that the primacy accorded by GoI to IAS and IFS over other Civil Services is a matter of policy and not a matter of individual preferences. (Read: If you can’t take an exam again, that makes you superior!)
From the above, it is clear, that the matter regarding the edge for the IAS over the other AIS and Group `A’ Services has been deliberated at length by CPCs over the last six decades and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and there has been repeated endorsement about the IAS being the premier civil service in the country, flowing from its unique role and responsibilities. There cannot be an iota of doubt in this matter. No new factors have emerged for the Seventh CPC to conclude that the edge enjoyed by the IAS should be removed and the IPS and Indian Forest Service brought on par with the IAS. The objective reality in fact points in the opposite direction.
It may be noted that the financial edge enjoyed by the IAS over the IPS and Indian Forest Service is essentially at the State and field level and State Chief Ministers are key stakeholders who need to be consulted for taking a well-considered view in the matter. No such consultations have been held by the Seventh CPC with the political leadership at the State level.
Weak implementation and unsatisfactory delivery of public services is recognized as the bane of public administration in India. While there are many complex factors responsible for this outcome, fragmentation of authority and dilution of command and control are important proximate causes. The issue regarding the edge for the IAS needs to be considered in this larger context and not just in terms of service rivalries and inter service equations. Removal of the financial edge for the IAS, will only further weaken command and control mechanisms at the field level, when the need of the hour is to move in the reverse direction.
IAS officers occupy the commanding heights of the civil service structure not through patronage, but through a highly competitive and transparent selection process. The outcome of this process cannot be questioned on grounds of denial of opportunity or unfair treatment. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed, there cannot be any dispute that each service is a distinct and separate cadre, having its separate field of operation, with different status, prospects, pay scales, nature of duties, responsibilities of the post and conditions of service. In the considered view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the classification of civil services is not based on artificial inequalities but is truly founded on substantial differences. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has found it impossible to accept the proposition that the classification rests on an unreal and unreasonable basis and that it is arbitrary or absurd. The Hon’ble Supreme Court could not have stated its views in stronger and clearer language. To make a case for parity on grounds of fairness or legitimate expectations is, therefore, not tenable. The principle of equality of opportunity cannot be stretched to mean “equality of outcomes.” The quest for equality of outcomes undermines basic incentive structures and rapidly degenerates into Utopian and Orwellian nightmares. In view of the position explained above, no case is made out for placing the IPS and Indian Forest Service (or any other Civil Service) on par with the IAS in respect of career prospects and conditions of service. There is no doubt that the IPS, Indian Forest Service and other civil services are manned by highly competent, public spirited and well-motivated individuals. That, however, does not mean that they should be brought on par with the IAS in terms of the financial edge or anything else. The undersigned, therefore, does not agree with the proposal of Chairman, Seventh CPC in para 7.2.19 to provide two advance increments to IPS and Indian Forest Service on par with IAS till NFSG level, since the recommendation is based on untenable notions of parity. The financial edge for Indian Foreign Service should also continue for reasons elaborated in Para 7.2.20(n) above.”
(Sd-Vivek Rae)
(The writer has reported on the 4th, 5th, 6th central pay commissions, he works for RIL, tweets @therohitbansal, views are personal.)
