In discussions around pay commissions, rank parity and the service conditions of Indian Police personnel, few voices carry as much clarity and credibility as that of J.K. Khanna, Secretary, Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) – a non-political, non-governmental society of retired Indian Police Service officers. An illustrious Indian Police Service (IPS) officer of the 1974 batch (Bihar Cadre), he retired as Director General of Police (DGP) and was awarded the Indian Police Medal for Meritorious Service. In this interview, he reflects on the structural issues that have shaped pay parity, career progression, and institutional hierarchy within the All-India Services. While he avoids unnecessary controversy and acknowledges the distinct roles of the IAS and IPS, he also highlights how colonial-era frameworks and asymmetrical decision-making processes have gradually institutionalised imbalances. From risk compensation in conflict theatres to empanelment for apex-level responsibilities, pension anomalies, and the techno-strategic evolution of policing, he outlines why the 8th Pay Commission must adopt a more equitable, consultative, and role-responsive approach. His views underline a central message: fairness in service structures is not merely an administrative issue—it is foundational to morale, internal security capacity, and national stability.
Over the decades, how have Pay Commissions shaped the relative status and career progression of the IPS vis-à-vis the IAS? Could you outline the broad trajectory and where imbalances began to emerge?
I would prefer not to comment in detail on this issue to avoid any controversy. The IAS and IPS are distinct services with clearly defined mandates, both contributing in their own spheres to governance, public order, and national development. They have their own responsibilities, each playing a vital role in governance and public welfare. It is ultimately for the Government to determine the relative structures and service conditions of the All-India Services in keeping with their functional and institutional requirements.
There is a widely acknowledged perception that successive Pay Commissions have protected the primacy of the IAS in matters of pay, promotion timelines, and empanelment, often to the disadvantage of the IPS. In your assessment, how did this structural hierarchy get institutionalised?
It remains a vestige of our colonial past that continues to influence us even today. This legacy of the colonial era still shapes certain aspects of our system, though it should have been left behind long ago. This perception has evolved over time, largely due to the way Pay Commissions have relied on inputs predominantly from the administrative ministries historically staffed by the IAS. Gradually, this led to a structural bias being built into the system, particularly in matters of career progression, pay scales, and empanelment norms. What began as a coordination advantage eventually translated into an institutionalised hierarchy. The need of the hour is for a more balanced, consultative approach that recognises the equal constitutional status and complementary roles of all the All-India Services.
One of the most contentious issues has been empanelment for central deputation, where IAS officers reach apex levels faster, leading to skewed representation in national security and home affairs decision-making. How should the 8th Pay Commission address the linkage between career progression and pay parity?
The 8th Pay Commission should recognise that pay parity and career progression are closely interlinked. When one service consistently reaches apex levels faster, it naturally distorts the representational balance in key policy domains, including internal security and home affairs. The Commission must, therefore, adopt an approach that ensures equitable progression opportunities across all All-India Services, aligning pay scales with functional responsibilities rather than with a single service’s career pattern. This would help restore balance, morale, and institutional fairness at the national level.
IPS officers often serve in extremely high-risk internal security environments — from Maoist belts to insurgency zones and counter-terror theatres — yet the allowance and risk compensation framework does not reflect this adequately. Should the 8th Pay Commission redefine risk-weighted pay?
Absolutely. The 8th Pay Commission must take a fresh look at the concept of risk-weighted pay. IPS officers routinely serve in high-threat environments – from counterinsurgency and counter-terror operations to Left Wing Extremism and law-and-order crises – often at great personal risk. The existing allowance framework does not adequately reflect these realities. A rational, graded system of risk compensation, linked to the nature and intensity of duty conditions, would be both fair and morale-sustaining.
The 6th and 7th Pay Commissions witnessed grade pay compression and delays in Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) benefits to the IPS. How has the absence or delayed application of NFFU impacted morale, especially among mid-career officers?
The Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) scheme was introduced to ensure parity in career progression across the All-India Services. However, its delayed and uneven implementation for the IPS, as compared to the IAS, has affected morale – particularly among mid-career officers handling the most demanding field assignments. Timely and uniform application of NFFU is essential to preserve parity, motivation, and confidence in the system.
There is an argument that the IAS controls the administrative process of approving pay and cadre decisions, which may create a conflict of interest. Should the 8th Pay Commission introduce independent oversight or multi-service consultation mechanisms to ensure fairness?
It is true that the existing system vests significant control of cadre management and pay-related processes in the administrative framework largely manned by the IAS, which can give rise to a perception of conflict of interest. The 8th Pay Commission would do well to consider a more transparent and consultative mechanism – one that includes representation from all All-India Services and independent experts. Such an approach would not only ensure fairness and objectivity but also strengthen inter-service harmony and institutional credibility.
We frequently hear that “the IAS is a generalist while the IPS is a specialist in national and internal security.” Should this functional specialisation reflect more clearly in pay, cadre progression, and apex-level representation?
The IPS is indeed a specialist service with direct responsibility for internal security, counterterrorism, and law and order – functions central to national stability. This specialised role, however, has not been adequately reflected in pay structures, career progression, or apex-level representation. The 8th Pay Commission should recognise this functional distinction and ensure that such critical responsibilities are appropriately valued and rewarded, while maintaining overall harmony among the All-India Services.
Retired IPS officers have raised concerns about pension fixation, stagnation at top levels, and inequities in post-retirement benefits. Which specific pension-related anomalies require urgent attention in the 8th Pay Commission?
The 7th Central Pay Commission created several imbalances in the pay and pension structures which merit rectification by the 8th Central Pay Commission. A summary of key anomalies and suggested corrective measures is:
Pension Disparities: Seniors Receiving Less Than Juniors.
Issue: Due to overlapping pay scales, some seniors are drawing lower pensions than their juniors.
Recommended Fix:
Ensure that the pay scales of juniors do not overshoot those of their seniors.
If such overlap is unavoidable, provide that the senior’s pension shall not be less than the highest pension of juniors in the feeder rank.
(B) Opaque Concordance Tables and Notional Pay Formula.
Issue: The existing Concordance Tables and the Notional Pay fixation formula result in the forfeiture of earned increments, contrary to settled law.
Recommended Fix: Ensure full weightages for all past increments while revising pensions, as envisaged by the 7th CPC.
(C) Anomalies in the DGP’s Pay Scale.
Issues:
The 7th CPC downgraded the DGP’s Pay Scale to an inferior HAG+ level, thereby creating two categories of DGPs, one in the apex scale and the other in the running HAG+ scale.
Acting DGPs (HOPF), i.e. DGs holding additional charge as DGP (Head of Police Force), are deprived of the Apex Pay Scale.
Recommended Fix: Ensure uniformity in the DGP rank by granting all DGPs the Apex Pay Scale, irrespective of designation or cadre.
(D) Liberalisation of Enhanced Pension for Senior Pensioners.
Issue: Enhanced pension presently begins at the age of 80, whereas India’s average life expectancy is only 70.82 years, rendering this benefit inaccessible to most pensioners.
Recommended Fix:
Option 1: Instead of a 20% increase after 20 years, provide an annual increment of 1% per year from the date of retirement, over a span of 20 years. Thereafter, for age slabs above 80 years, distribute the additional benefit proportionately within each 5-year slab.
Option 2: Introduce the enhanced pension slabs from 65 years of age instead of 80, granting a 5% increase in each 5-year slab.
The IPS today leads India’s response to cybercrime, counterterrorism, urban policing, and intelligence fusion. Should the Pay Commission explicitly factor in the skill-based and techno-strategic demands of the modern IPS role?
Absolutely. The role of the IPS has evolved far beyond traditional policing to encompass complex, technology-driven domains such as cybercrime investigation, counterterrorism, intelligence fusion, and urban security management. These responsibilities demand high levels of technical expertise, strategic acumen, and continuous upskilling. The 8th Pay Commission should therefore explicitly recognise these techno-strategic competencies and factor them into pay structures and career progression frameworks, aligning remuneration with the specialised nature of modern policing leadership.
Finally, what is the primary message the IPS fraternity would like to communicate to the 8th Pay Commission — not just as a service seeking parity, but as the frontline institution safeguarding internal security and the rule of law?
The IPS fraternity urges the 8th Pay Commission to look beyond numerical parity and acknowledge the exceptional responsibilities the Service shoulders in maintaining national security and public order. IPS officers serve in the most challenging and high-risk environments, often at great personal cost. The Commission must therefore ensure a pay and pension structure that genuinely reflects this responsibility, restores equity, and reinforces the morale and prestige essential for an effective internal security apparatus.
