In the Indian Armed Forces, the military nurses wear rank on their shoulders but often carry an invisible load on their hearts. Behind every life saved in a field hospital or ICU stands the Military Nursing Service — a cadre that has shown extraordinary courage, yet fought a long, unequal battle for pay, status and parity.
At the heart of this struggle is Maj Gen Usha Sikdar, former Additional Director General, Military Nursing Service (MNS), who has witnessed this journey from the ward to the war zone, and from the nursing officers mess to the pay commission tables. In this candid conversation, she traces how MNS officers went from being treated as full members of the officer cadre to being gradually pushed into a lower economic and symbolic bracket. As the 8th Pay Commission approaches, her words are both a reminder and a warning: how India chooses to treat its military nurses will reveal how much it truly values care, courage and justice in uniform.
Question: Looking back from the 3rd Pay Commission onwards, how would you describe the treatment of Military Nursing Service officers in terms of pay, status, and parity with other commissioned branches of the Armed Forces?
Gen Sikdar: From the 3rd Pay Commission onward, the treatment of Military Nursing Service (MNS) officers shows a consistent decline in parity with other commissioned branches. Until 1986, the Army itself proposed equal pay and status for MNS officers, but the 4th CPC rejected this and placed them on civilian Group-A scales. The 5th CPC again saw the Army recommend equal rank pay and matching scales up to Major General, but this too was not accepted.
The 6th CPC stated that no salary differential was justified and recommended identical pay bands and grade pay for MNS and other Services. However, discrimination continued through a lower Military Service Pay (₹4,200 vs ₹6,000) and slower career progression. By contrast, AMC doctors received higher grade pay, NPA, and far faster promotions.
The 7th CPC further widened the gap by creating a separate, lower pay matrix for the MNS, denying them even the minimum assured fitment factor of 2.57 granted to all other Central Government employees. This placed MNS officers below other male and female officers of the same titular rank, contrary to Army Regulations (para 733) and the MoD’s 2008 resolution protecting rank-based equivalence.
While the 4th, 5th, and 6th CPCs treated MNS as part of the Army officer cadre, the 7th CPC effectively separated them, leading to sustained disparities in pay, status, and rank parity despite their commissioned status and long-standing regulatory provisions for equal ranking with other branches.
Question: There is a long-standing perception that the MNS, despite being a commissioned officer cadre, has not been accorded the same recognition, status symbols, and parity as other officer branches. In your assessment, where did this inequity originate?
Gen Sikdar: The inequity originated primarily from economic decisions that gradually lowered the pay structure of the MNS relative to other commissioned branches. When the 4th CPC placed MNS officers on civilian Group-A scales and denied them the military rank-linked pay that other officers received, it created a visible pay gap. Over time, this financial divergence—reinforced by lower MSP in the 6th CPC and a separate, lower pay matrix in the 7th CPC—translated directly into a perceived lowering of status.
In the Armed Forces, pay, allowances, and rank-linked financial benefits are closely tied to institutional prestige. Once MNS officers were placed on a lower economic footing, this was interpreted by others as lower professional standing, even though they were (and remain) commissioned officers. Thus, the origin of the inequity lies in economic differentiation, which over time reshaped perceptions of status and parity within the military environment.
Question: The 6th and 7th Pay Commissions saw changes in grade pay, rank equivalence, and uniform entitlements that significantly affected MNS morale. Could you highlight which specific decisions caused the greatest sense of injustice?
Gen Sikdar: The greatest sense of injustice for MNS officers arose from a set of decisions in the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions that directly undermined their pay, rank equivalence, and visible symbols of officer status.
First, in the 6th CPC, MNS officers were given an MSP of only ₹4,200 despite being commissioned officers, while all other officers received ₹6,000. This single decision sent a strong message that MNS service was valued less.
Second, in the 7th CPC, the Commission denied MNS officers the universally assured 2.57 fitment factor given to all other Central Government employees. Creating a separate and lower pay level for the MNS—unique to them—caused deep resentment, as it reduced their relative standing even within their own titular ranks.
Third, by basing MNS pay solely on prior grade pay and not on military rank, the 7th CPC broke with the long-standing principle that all commissioned officers of the same rank are equal. This contradicted Army Regulations and directly affected their perceived authority and status.
Finally, changes that limited certain uniform distinctions and symbols—traditionally tied to commissioned officer identity—were seen as a visible downgrading of their status within the military environment.
Question: MNS officers work in intensive care units, trauma centres, field hospitals, and high-pressure operational environments — including war zones and counter-insurgency medical support — yet their risk and service hardship allowances do not always reflect this. Should the 8th Pay Commission redefine clinical and operational hazard compensation?
Gen Sikdar: Yes. Instead of creating new or separate allowances, the 8th Pay Commission should restore equity by granting MNS officers the same Military Service Pay (MSP) as all other commissioned officers. Since MSP is meant to compensate for the unique hardships, risks, and liabilities of military service, equal MSP would automatically recognise the clinical and operational hazards MNS officers face in ICUs, trauma centres, field hospitals, and operational zones.
Providing identical MSP—rather than a separate or reduced allowance—would ensure true parity, reflect the realities of their service conditions, and correct a long-standing anomaly in how their military role is valued.
Question: Promotion timelines in MNS have historically lagged behind comparable commissioned branches, leading to late-career stagnation. How should the 8th Pay Commission address structural delays in rank, timescale, and command responsibilities?
Gen Sikdar: The 8th Pay Commission should correct the long-standing promotion gaps in the MNS by enforcing parity-based timelines already recommended earlier. The 6th CPC had approved identical time-bound promotions up to Lt Col for MNS officers, and the Government notified it, but it was never implemented—creating the core stagnation.
To restore fairness, the 8th CPC should recommend a few specific measures. First, it should provide time-scale promotion to Colonel at 26 years of service. Just as applicable in other officer cadres, MNS officers should receive Colonel (TS) at 26 years. This would prevent the widespread stagnation currently seen at the Lt Col level.
Second, Colonel should be treated as the first selection-grade rank, with promotional selection boards considering MNS officers for substantive Colonel only after the time-scale benchmark, mirroring the structure followed elsewhere in the Army.
Third, there must be mandatory enforcement of time-bound promotions up to Lt Col. Since this was already approved under the 6th CPC, the 8th CPC must ensure its actual implementation.
Finally, there should be a unified, parity-based promotion framework. Promotion rules for the MNS should follow the same timelines and principles applied to all other commissioned branches—time in service, merit, and functional responsibility—without cadre-specific restrictions. These steps would eliminate structural delays, restore parity, and ensure that MNS officers progress through ranks on a fair and predictable timeline.
Question: For post-retirement life, pension fixation, medical benefits, and access to veteran support networks have often been inconsistent for MNS officers compared to other armed forces personnel. Which specific pension-related anomalies need priority correction?
Gen Sikdar: The highest priority correction is to grant MNS officers the same rank-based OROP formula that applies to all other commissioned officers (other than the AMC’s distinct structure). At present, MNS pensions are depressed because earlier CPC anomalies placed them on lower pay levels, which then carried forward into OROP calculations. Aligning MNS officers with the standard General List officer OROP table would immediately restore parity.
In addition to this, the 8th Pay Commission must also correct several related pension distortions. Pensions should be refixed using the same pay levels as other officers of identical rank, rather than the separate, downgraded MNS matrix created by the 7th CPC. Military Service Pay (MSP) should be equalised for pension purposes, since the reduced MSP granted earlier continues to lower post-retirement benefits. The same fitment factor used for all defence personnel should be applied, removing the 7th CPC’s discriminatory calculations.
Finally, there must be full and consistent access to defence-veteran facilities, without any administrative differentiation from other retired commissioned officers. By granting rank-based OROP parity and correcting the linked anomalies, MNS veterans would finally receive pensions and post-retirement recognition fully aligned with their commissioned status.
Question: Some policy frameworks have tended to view MNS as “support” rather than “commissioned leadership” despite the leadership, crisis-management, and life-saving skills required in military medical environments. Should the Pay Commission and MoD re-examine the core identity and role definition of MNS?
Gen Sikdar: Yes. The Pay Commission and MoD should formally recognise the MNS as an integral part of the regular Army, and its officers as regular commissioned officers with full professional parity. Their roles, responsibilities, and service conditions already mirror those of other branches in operational medical environments, and this must be reflected in policy.
To align status with reality, MNS officers should also be eligible for key professional military education, including staff courses such as the Defence Services Staff College, Wellington, Higher Command courses, and other leadership-development institutions that prepare officers for senior responsibilities. Doctors and dentists—who also do not undergo SSB at entry—are routinely sent for these courses; extending the same to the MNS is both logical and necessary.
Recognising MNS as regular Army officers and enabling them to attend staff courses would affirm their commissioned-officer identity, prepare them for higher leadership and command roles within the medical services, bring Indian practice in line with international military standards, and strengthen the overall capability of Armed Forces Medical Services. Such reforms would eliminate outdated distinctions and fully integrate the MNS into the Army’s professional leadership framework.
Question: Do you believe that MNS representation has historically been limited in policy-making bodies related to pay, allowances, promotions, and organizational restructuring? Should the 8th Pay Commission mandate formal MNS representation in its consultations?
Gen Sikdar: Formal representation of MNS officers in the 8th Pay Commission is not necessary if they are granted the same pay and allowances as General List officers. Currently, AMC officers receive higher pay due to faster promotions, Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA), and other entitlements, reaching parity with Army Commanders (around ₹2,25,000) by around 21 years of service. This AMC-specific advantage should be explicitly highlighted by the 8th CPC to avoid any future justification for reducing MNS pay scales.
By clarifying this distinction, the Commission can ensure MNS officers receive full parity with General List officers, while maintaining the AMC’s legitimate higher pay, thus preventing historical inequities from recurring.
Question: With rising battlefield medical complexity—combat trauma, aerospace medicine, psychological rehabilitation, cyber and cognitive warfare stress injury—do you believe the future role of MNS officers requires higher professional recognition and specialized pay scales?
Gen Sikdar: Yes. The evolving responsibilities of MNS officers in combat trauma, aerospace medicine, and operational stress care require full professional recognition. This can be achieved by granting MNS officers pay and allowances equal to General List officers, while allowing AMC officers to continue enjoying their existing pay advantages—faster promotions, NPA, and other benefits—over all other officer cadres.
This approach provides MNS officers with formal recognition and parity with General List officers, preserves AMC-specific advantages to prevent future grievances, and aligns compensation with responsibilities without creating separate or specialized pay scales. In essence, pay parity with General List officers is sufficient recognition for MNS officers, while AMC pay privileges remain protected.
Question: Finally, what message would you like to convey to policymakers and the wider defence community about the contributions of MNS officers — not only as caregivers, but as commissioned leaders and integral members of the military profession?
Gen Sikdar: MNS officers should be formally recognized as commissioned officers of the regular Army. The demand is not for parity with doctors, but for acknowledgment that their status is equal to other women officers in the General List cadre.
This recognition affirms their historical contributions, frontline leadership, and professional responsibilities, ensuring that MNS officers are treated as full-fledged commissioned officers, with rank, pay, and promotion timelines aligned with their General List peers. It is a matter of fairness, professional respect, and institutional integrity, rather than special privilege.
