Index of rationalisation

The index of rationalisation is the 7th CPC factor (2.57 to 2.81) that builds each pay-matrix level's entry pay. Level-by-level values, worked out and sourced.

Updated 14 September 2026

The index of rationalisation is the set of multiplication factors that the 7th Central Pay Commission applied to the 6th CPC entry pay of each grade to fix the first cell of that grade’s level in the pay matrix. The factors run from 2.57 at the lowest levels to 2.81 at the Apex Scale, so that the gap between successive pay bands widens with role, responsibility and accountability rather than staying flat. The Commission prescribed them at paragraph 5.1.19 of its report of 19 November 2015, with Table 4, and printed the resulting index for all 19 columns in Table 5.

The index is not the fitment factor, and reading one as the other is the most expensive arithmetic error made about the 7th CPC pay structure. The fitment factor of 2.57 converts a serving employee’s own basic pay under Rule 7(1)(A)(i) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. The index of rationalisation was used once, when the matrix was drawn, to set where each column starts. No employee has ever been multiplied by 2.62, 2.67, 2.72, 2.78 or 2.81, and the Department of Expenditure warned after June 2017 that a fixation done on 2.67 was contrary to the Rules and liable to recovery.

One value has changed since 2016. Level 13, the director grade carrying grade pay 8700, was built on 2.57 because paragraph 5.1.20 of the report records that its entry pay had risen disproportionately under the 6th CPC. Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 1-2/2016-IC dated 16 May 2017 raised it to 2.67, and the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Amendment) Rules, 2017, notified as G.S.R. 592(E) on 15 June 2017, substituted the corrected matrix. The Level 13 entry pay moved from Rs. 1,18,500 to Rs. 1,23,100.

This article gives the index at every level with the entry pay it was applied to, the arithmetic that turns the two into a printed cell, the two departures the Commission made, the 2017 correction, the one row that does not derive, the staff-side objection to a graded index, and the position for the 8th Central Pay Commission. For the full level and cell table, see the pay matrix; for the individual conversion method, see pay fixation.

What the index of rationalisation is

The index of rationalisation is a multiplier attached to a level, not to a person, and it was applied exactly once. Each column of the pay matrix has a first cell, the entry pay of that level. The 7th CPC took the 6th CPC entry pay of the corresponding grade, meaning the minimum of the pay band plus the grade pay for a direct recruit, multiplied it by the index assigned to that level, and rounded to the nearest Rs. 100. The product is the printed cell.

The ladder holds six values: 2.57, 2.62, 2.67, 2.72, 2.78 and 2.81. Five of them climb with the pay band. Because a senior level is built from its old entry pay multiplied by a larger factor, the same rupee of pre-revised pay reaches a higher new floor at Level 12 than it does at Level 4, which is the structural premium the Commission set out to build.

The index is a historical artefact of the 2016 revision rather than a live rule. It does not appear in the text of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 at all. What the Rules carry is the outcome: Part A of the Schedule prints the 19 columns and every cell in them, and Rule 7 prescribes the separate 2.57 multiple for moving an individual into them. The index explains where the numbers in Part A came from and is otherwise inert.

Index of rationalisation by pay level

The table gives the operative index at each level after the 2017 correction, the 6th CPC entry pay it was applied to, and the resulting first cell of the level.

Level	Former grade pay or scale	6th CPC entry pay (Rs.)	Index	Matrix first cell (Rs.)
1	GP 1800	7,000	2.57	18,000
2	GP 1900	7,730	2.57	19,900
3	GP 2000	8,460	2.57	21,700
4	GP 2400	9,910	2.57	25,500
5	GP 2800	11,360	2.57	29,200
6	GP 4200	13,500	2.62	35,400
7	GP 4600	17,140	2.62	44,900
8	GP 4800	18,150	2.62	47,600
9	GP 5400 (PB-2)	20,280	2.62	53,100
10	GP 5400 (PB-3)	21,000	2.67	56,100
11	GP 6600	25,350	2.67	67,700
12	GP 7600	29,500	2.67	78,800
13	GP 8700	46,100	2.67	1,23,100
13A	GP 8900	49,100	2.67	1,31,100
14	GP 10000	53,000	2.72	1,44,200
15	HAG	67,000	2.72	1,82,200
16	HAG+	75,500	2.72	2,05,400
17	Apex Scale (fixed)	80,000	2.81	2,25,000
18	Cabinet Secretary (fixed)	90,000	2.78	2,50,000

Two rows carry qualifications taken up later on this page. The Level 13 index of 2.67 is the corrected figure; the matrix as first notified on 25 July 2016 built that column on 2.57 and started it at Rs. 1,18,500. The Level 9 entry pay of Rs. 20,280 is interpolated rather than prescribed, because the 6th CPC fixed no direct-recruit entry pay for grade pay 5400 in PB-2. Every other row in the table derives from a 6th CPC figure that an order actually prescribed.

How each entry cell was derived

The derivation is arithmetic, and it reproduces the printed Schedule at Levels 1 to 16 without exception. Multiply the grade’s 6th CPC entry pay by the index for the level and round the product to the nearest Rs. 100.

Level 6 is the clearest case. The former grade pay is Rs. 4,200 in PB-2, so the 6th CPC entry pay of a direct recruit is the PB-2 minimum of Rs. 9,300 plus the grade pay of Rs. 4,200, which is Rs. 13,500. Applying the Level 6 index of 2.62 gives Rs. 35,370, printed as Rs. 35,400. Had the flat 2.57 fitment factor been used instead, Rs. 13,500 multiplied by 2.57 is Rs. 34,695 and the level would have started at Rs. 34,700. The extra 0.05 of index is worth Rs. 700 a month at the entry cell of a single level, and the gap compounds as the index climbs.

Level 14 shows the same operation at the top of the graded range. Grade pay 10000 carried a 6th CPC entry pay of Rs. 53,000, and 2.72 gives Rs. 1,44,160, printed as Rs. 1,44,200. Level 13A gives Rs. 49,100 multiplied by 2.67, which is Rs. 1,31,097 and prints as Rs. 1,31,100.

Levels 17 and 18 do not follow the rounding rule, and the discrepancy is small but real. Rs. 80,000 multiplied by 2.81 is Rs. 2,24,800, while the printed Level 17 cell is Rs. 2,25,000. Rs. 90,000 multiplied by 2.78 is Rs. 2,50,200, while the printed Level 18 cell is Rs. 2,50,000. Both products are already exact multiples of Rs. 100, so rounding to the nearest hundred cannot account for either difference. The two apex cells were fixed as round amounts of Rs. 2.25 lakh and Rs. 2.50 lakh, and the printed indices are the implied ratios rounded to two decimals: Rs. 2,25,000 divided by Rs. 80,000 is 2.8125, and Rs. 2,50,000 divided by Rs. 90,000 is 2.7778.

Index of rationalisation against the fitment factor

The index applies to a level; the fitment factor applies to a person. That single sentence resolves the confusion, and the table sets out the rest.

	Index of rationalisation	Fitment factor
Applies to	A pay level, once	An individual employee
Value	2.57, 2.62, 2.67, 2.72, 2.78, 2.81	2.57, single and uniform
Purpose	Builds the first cell of each column	Moves existing pay into the matrix
Governing provision	7th CPC report, paragraphs 5.1.19, 5.1.20 and 5.1.25	Rule 7(1)(A), CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016
Applied on	The grade’s 6th CPC entry pay	The employee’s own basic pay on 31 December 2015
Rounding	To the nearest Rs. 100	To the nearest rupee, then to the equal or next-higher cell
Still operative	No, spent in 2016	Yes, for notional fixation and arrears cases

Paragraph 5.1.27 of the Commission’s report states the position in terms: “This fitment factor of 2.57 is being proposed to be applied uniformly for all employees.” The two numbers coincide at 2.57 for Levels 1 to 5, and that makes the confusion easy to fall into, and they diverge from Level 6 upward.

The consequence of getting it wrong is money. An employee whose 2016 fixation was worked out by multiplying pre-revised basic pay by 2.67 rather than 2.57 was overpaid, and the Department of Expenditure said so after the Level 13 correction of June 2017, warning that such a fixation was contrary to the Rules and liable to recovery. Anyone checking a 2016 fixation should confirm that the multiplier used was 2.57, whatever the level.

Index of rationalisation against the annual increment

The index fixes where a column starts; the annual increment moves an employee down it. The increment is 3% of the cell currently held, rounded to the nearest multiple of Rs. 100, so two consecutive cells in any level stand in a ratio of about 1.03. The index has no ratio to consecutive cells at all, because it never operated within a column.

The two are sometimes conflated because both are multipliers printed alongside the matrix. They act on different axes. A Level 7 employee at Rs. 44,900 moves to Rs. 46,200 on the annual increment, a rise of Rs. 1,300 or 2.90% rather than a flat 3% because the computed Rs. 46,247 rounded down to the printed cell. Nothing in that step involves 2.62, the index that set Rs. 44,900 in the first place.

Successive entry cells across levels rise by about 1.16 on average. That figure is not the index either. It is the compound result of two things moving at once: the 6th CPC entry pay rising from grade to grade, and the index rising at five boundaries.

Why the 7th CPC replaced running pay bands with a graded index

The graded index exists to undo an overlap the 6th CPC structure created. Under the 6th Central Pay Commission, pay ran on four running pay bands, PB-1 to PB-4, with a grade pay attached to each post. A band was a wide continuous range shared by several grades, so the differential between adjacent grades compressed and pay drawn in one grade could exceed pay drawn in the grade above it. A senior employee near the top of a band could out-earn a junior colleague just promoted into the next grade.

The 7th CPC replaced the bands with the 18-level matrix and used the index of rationalisation to rebuild a defined vertical progression: a fixed, non-overlapping entry pay for each level, with the gap between levels deliberately widened at the higher pay bands. Its stated justification is that the role, responsibility and accountability of a post increases at each step in the hierarchy, the same principle earlier commissions applied when they gave senior officers separate scales.

A flat multiplier would not have achieved that. Applying 2.57 to every grade would have preserved the 6th CPC relativities exactly, overlap included, and simply rescaled them by a constant. The index is the instrument that changed the shape of the structure rather than its size.

The two departures at grade pay 8700 and grade pay 10000

Paragraph 5.1.20 of the 7th CPC report records two deliberate departures from a smooth ladder, and both are needed to read the index table correctly.

At grade pay 8700, the Commission found that the existing entry pay had risen disproportionately under the 6th CPC and moderated the proposed increase, applying 2.57 rather than the 2.67 used at grade pay 6600 and 7600 immediately below. Level 13 was therefore the only PB-4 grade built on the lowest factor in the ladder, and its entry pay of Rs. 1,18,500 sat closer to the Level 12 figure of Rs. 78,800 than the hierarchy implied.

At grade pay 10000, described in the report as representing the Senior Administrative Grade and carrying a significantly higher degree of responsibility and accountability, the entry pay was enhanced by a multiple of 2.72, and the same factor was extended to HAG and HAG+. That is why Levels 14, 15 and 16 share a single index while the grades beneath them do not.

The commonly quoted set “2.57, 2.62, 2.67, 2.72, 2.81” is incomplete on both counts. It omits the 2.78 at Level 18 and the original 2.57 at Level 13, and it presents as a monotonic ladder something that was neither monotonic as recommended nor monotonic as first notified.

The Level 13 correction of 2017

Level 13 is the only civil column whose index has ever been changed. The matrix as first notified with the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 (G.S.R. 721(E), 25 July 2016) built the director grade on 2.57, so Rs. 46,100 multiplied by 2.57 is Rs. 1,18,477 and printed as Rs. 1,18,500. Against the 2.67 applied at Levels 10 to 12 just below, the Level 13 entry pay compressed, and officer associations and the Staff Side pressed the point through 2016 and into 2017.

Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 1-2/2016-IC dated 16 May 2017 took the decision. It raised the index of Level 13 of the civil pay matrix from 2.57 to 2.67, and in the same instrument raised Levels 12A and 13 of the defence matrix. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Amendment) Rules, 2017, notified as G.S.R. 592(E) by the Department of Expenditure on 15 June 2017 with effect from 1 January 2016, then substituted the revised matrix in Part A of the Schedule. Rs. 46,100 multiplied by 2.67 is Rs. 1,23,087, printed as Rs. 1,23,100, and the column was shortened from 21 stages to 20.

Any table still showing Rs. 1,18,500 for Level 13 predates the amendment. The correction also generated its own administrative tail, since every Level 13 fixation done in 2016 had to be revised, which produced wrong multipliers, recoveries and waivers running through 2017.

The correction narrowed the anomaly without removing it. Level 13 now shares 2.67 with the three levels below it, while Level 14 above it uses 2.72, so the step into the Senior Administrative Grade remains the widest proportional jump in the upper matrix.

Where the index changes and where it does not

On the operative matrix the index changes at exactly five boundaries: Level 5 to 6 (2.57 to 2.62), Level 9 to 10 (2.62 to 2.67), Level 13A to 14 (2.67 to 2.72), Level 16 to 17 (2.72 to 2.81), and Level 17 to 18, where it falls from 2.81 to 2.78. Everywhere else the factor is unchanged from the level below. On the matrix as first notified there were two further changes, at Level 12 to 13 where it dropped from 2.67 to 2.57 and at Level 13 to 13A where it rose back to 2.67.

That matters because large steps in the matrix are routinely attributed to the index when the index did not move. The Level 6 to Level 7 step of Rs. 9,500, from Rs. 35,400 to Rs. 44,900, is 26.84% and is the largest step below Level 12, and it is often described as caused by a change of factor. Levels 6, 7, 8 and 9 all carry 2.62. The step is inherited straight from the 6th CPC entry pays of Rs. 13,500 for grade pay 4200 and Rs. 17,140 for grade pay 4600, both multiplied by the same number.

The largest discontinuity in the structure is elsewhere. Level 12 to Level 13 runs from Rs. 78,800 to Rs. 1,23,100, a rise of Rs. 44,300 or 56.22%, and that one is genuinely a compound of a jump in 6th CPC entry pay, from Rs. 29,500 to Rs. 46,100, with an unchanged index of 2.67 after the 2017 correction.

The Level 9 entry pay that does not derive

One row of the index table rests on an interpolation rather than an order. Level 9 corresponds to grade pay 5400 in PB-2, and the 6th CPC prescribed no direct-recruit entry pay for that grade, because the grade was reached by promotion rather than by direct recruitment. The Commission took Rs. 20,280 from the fitment table issued after the 6th CPC and applied 2.62 to it, giving Rs. 53,134 and a printed cell of Rs. 53,100.

The consequence is that the Level 9 figure cannot be verified against a 6th CPC notification the way every other row can. Grade pay 5400 in PB-3, which becomes Level 10, does have a prescribed entry pay of Rs. 21,000, and the two grades sharing the same grade pay across two different pay bands is itself an inheritance from the 6th CPC that the matrix preserved as two separate levels with two different indices.

The interpolated entry pay is one of the four standing objections to the matrix raised before the National Anomaly Committee, alongside the Level 13 depression, the bunching restriction in paragraph 8(iv) of the Office Memorandum of 3 August 2017 on bunching of pay, and the graded index itself.

Why Level 17 carries a higher index than Level 18

The index falls at the last step of the ladder, from 2.81 at Level 17 to 2.78 at Level 18, and the reason is that both apex cells were fixed as round amounts rather than computed from a multiplier. Level 17 replaces the 6th CPC Apex Scale of Rs. 80,000 and prints Rs. 2,25,000. Level 18 replaces the fixed 6th CPC Cabinet Secretary pay of Rs. 90,000 and prints Rs. 2,50,000.

Dividing each printed cell by its 6th CPC figure gives 2.8125 and 2.7778, which print in the report as 2.81 and 2.78. The ordering is an artefact of choosing two round lakh figures Rs. 25,000 apart at the top of a structure whose 6th CPC base figures were Rs. 10,000 apart. Applying 2.81 to Rs. 90,000 would have given Rs. 2,52,900, and applying 2.78 to Rs. 80,000 would have given Rs. 2,22,400. Neither appears in the matrix.

The narrow apex spread has a practical effect. The Rs. 25,000 gap between the Apex Scale and the Cabinet Secretary is proportionally tighter than the gaps below it, so the top of the civil hierarchy is compressed relative to the widening the index produces elsewhere. Neither Level 17 nor Level 18 carries a column of increments, both being single fixed cells.

The index in the defence pay matrix

The defence pay matrix uses the same six index values and a different amendment history, which is the source of several claims wrongly transferred to the civil matrix. It is prescribed by the Army Officers Pay Rules, 2017, the Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017 and the Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017, notified by S.R.O. 12(E) dated 3 May 2017 with effect from 1 January 2016.

The government changed the defence index twice. The Resolution of 25 July 2016 raised the index for defence Level 13A, the Brigadier level, from 2.57 to 2.67, and added three stages each at Levels 12A and 13 and two at 13A. Resolution No. 1-2/2016-IC dated 16 May 2017 then raised Level 12A, the Lieutenant Colonel level, and Level 13, the Colonel level, from 2.57 to 2.67, moving their entry cells from Rs. 1,16,700 to Rs. 1,21,200 and from Rs. 1,25,700 to Rs. 1,30,600, and extended the defence matrix from 24 stages to 40.

Civil Level 13A was not created or altered by either instrument. It appears in Table 5 of the report of 19 November 2015 and in Part A of the Schedule as notified on 25 July 2016, carrying 2.67 throughout. Personnel of the central armed police forces sit in the civil matrix and take the civil index values, and they draw no military service pay.

The staff-side objection to a graded index

The graded index was contested from the outset and remains a live staff-side demand. The Staff Side of the Joint Consultative Machinery argued before the National Anomaly Committee that varying the multiplication factor by level disturbs vertical relativity between grades, on the ground that no new responsibilities were added to any grade between 2006 and 2016 to justify a differential increase, and that a rising factor widens the ratio of minimum pay to maximum pay.

The Staff Side proposed applying the highest factor, 2.81, uniformly to every level. That would have set the minimum pay near Rs. 19,670 rather than Rs. 18,000, since Rs. 7,000 multiplied by 2.81 is Rs. 19,670, and would have lifted every entry cell in the matrix by between 3.5% and 9.3% depending on the level. The government did not accept the proposal, and the graded index stands.

The counter-argument the Commission made, at paragraph 5.1.20 and in the surrounding text, is that the widening is the point rather than a side effect: a structure meant to express hierarchy has to widen with it, and the 6th CPC running bands failed precisely because they did not. Neither position has been displaced by a subsequent order.

What the index of rationalisation does not decide

The index has no operative role in any calculation an employee performs today. It set the first cell of each column in 2016 and was spent at that moment.

Promotion fixation runs on Rule 13 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016: one increment in the existing level, then placement at the equal or next-higher cell in the higher level. Pay fixation on promotion never involves an index value, and neither does non-functional upgradation or the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme. Dearness allowance is a percentage of basic pay, so it is indifferent to how the basic pay was originally derived.

Pension reaches the index only at one remove. Central government pension is 50% of last drawn basic pay or of average emoluments over the last ten months, whichever is more favourable, and for pre-2016 pensioners the notional-pay route runs through the Concordance Tables issued on 6 July 2017 rather than through any index. Where the index shows up is in the cell values those calculations start from, which is a permanent effect rather than a continuing operation.

Checking the index for a level

The index for any level can be verified from published figures in one division, without access to the report. Divide the level’s first cell in Part A of the Schedule to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 by the grade’s 6th CPC entry pay, and round the quotient to two decimals.

Level 11 gives Rs. 67,700 divided by Rs. 25,350, which is 2.6706 and prints as 2.67. Level 8 gives Rs. 47,600 divided by Rs. 18,150, which is 2.6226 and prints as 2.62. Level 15 gives Rs. 1,82,200 divided by Rs. 67,000, which is 2.7194 and prints as 2.72. The quotient will not land exactly on the published figure, because the printed cell was rounded to the nearest Rs. 100 after the multiplication and the division reverses a rounded number.

Two checks fail by design. Levels 17 and 18 return 2.8125 and 2.7778 against printed values of 2.81 and 2.78, because those cells were fixed rather than computed. A pre-2017 copy of the Schedule returns 2.57 at Level 13, which is the superseded value and a useful way to date an undated table. Cell figures for any level are set out at salary by pay level, and the current gross for a level can be worked out on the 7th CPC salary calculator.

The index of rationalisation and the 8th CPC

No index of rationalisation exists for the 8th Central Pay Commission, and none can until the Commission reports. It was constituted by Department of Expenditure Resolution F. No. 01-01/2025-E.III(A) dated 3 November 2025 under the chairpersonship of Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, and it has submitted neither a report nor an interim report.

The index is a feature of the 7th CPC structure rather than a permanent fixture of central pay. The 5th CPC used running scales and no index of this kind; the 6th Central Pay Commission used pay bands and grade pay and no index of this kind. The 8th CPC may retain a rationalisation index, revise its values, or abandon the method along with the matrix, and it will separately set its own fitment factor for converting existing pay. Comparisons between the two cycles are set out at 7th vs 8th Pay Commission.

Any figure circulating as an 8th CPC index of rationalisation is a projection. Until the Commission reports and revised rules are notified, the 7th CPC matrix built on the values in the table above remains the operative pay structure for central government employees.

Common errors about the index

The index of rationalisation and the fitment factor are different instruments. The 2.57 fitment factor converts a person’s existing basic pay under Rule 7; the index built a level’s entry cell in 2016. They share the number 2.57 only at Levels 1 to 5.
The index was never applied to an individual. Nobody was multiplied by 2.62 or 2.72, and a fixation done on 2.67 is liable to recovery.
The index is not the annual increment. The increment is the 3% vertical step within a level; the index fixed the horizontal starting cell of the level.
The index multiplies each grade’s old entry pay, not the matrix pay of the level below. Consecutive cells within a level stand in a ratio of 1.03, and successive entry cells across levels rise by about 1.16 on average. Neither figure is the index.
The Level 13 entry pay is Rs. 1,23,100, corrected by G.S.R. 592(E) of 15 June 2017, not the Rs. 1,18,500 in the original 2016 Schedule.
Level 13A was not created in 2017. It is in Table 5 of the report of 19 November 2015 and in the Schedule as first notified.
The ladder is not monotonic. It falls from 2.81 at Level 17 to 2.78 at Level 18.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the index of rationalisation?

It is the set of multiplication factors, from 2.57 to 2.81, that the 7th Central Pay Commission applied to each grade’s 6th CPC entry pay to fix the first cell of that grade’s level in the pay matrix. The factor rises with the pay band so the gap between levels widens with responsibility. It is prescribed at paragraph 5.1.19 of the Commission’s report of 19 November 2015, with Table 4.

What are the index of rationalisation values by level?

2.57 for Levels 1 to 5, 2.62 for Levels 6 to 9, 2.67 for Levels 10 to 12 and for Level 13A, 2.67 for Level 13 (raised from 2.57 in 2017), 2.72 for Levels 14, 15 and 16, 2.81 for Level 17 (Apex Scale) and 2.78 for Level 18 (Cabinet Secretary). Table 5 of the 7th CPC report prints the index for all 19 columns.

How is the index of rationalisation different from the fitment factor?

The 2.57 fitment factor converts an individual employee’s own existing basic pay under Rule 7(1)(A)(i) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. The index of rationalisation is a structural constant used once, when the matrix was drawn, to build each level’s entry pay. They share the number 2.57 only at Levels 1 to 5; above that the index rises and the fitment factor does not.

Was any employee's pay ever fixed using 2.62, 2.67 or 2.72?

No. Paragraph 5.1.27 of the 7th CPC report states that the fitment factor of 2.57 is applied uniformly for all employees, and Rule 7(1)(A)(i) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 prescribes that single multiple. After the Level 13 correction of June 2017 the Department of Expenditure warned that a fixation done by multiplying existing basic pay by 2.67 was contrary to the Rules and liable to recovery.

Why did the 7th CPC use a rising index of rationalisation?

The 6th CPC running pay bands let pay overlap across grades and compressed the differential between them. A rising index rebuilds a defined vertical progression, widening the jump between pay bands at senior levels. The Commission’s stated ground is that role, responsibility and accountability increase at each step in the hierarchy.

Did the index of rationalisation change after 2016?

Yes, once. Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 1-2/2016-IC dated 16 May 2017 raised the Level 13 index from 2.57 to 2.67, and the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Amendment) Rules, 2017, notified as G.S.R. 592(E) on 15 June 2017 with effect from 1 January 2016, substituted the revised matrix in Part A of the Schedule. The Level 13 entry pay moved from Rs. 1,18,500 to Rs. 1,23,100.

Why was Level 13 originally built on 2.57 rather than 2.67?

Paragraph 5.1.20 of the 7th CPC report records that the entry pay at grade pay 8700 had risen disproportionately under the 6th CPC, so the Commission moderated the proposed increase and applied 2.57 to that grade alone. The result was that Level 13 started below the progression implied by Levels 10 to 12, which is the anomaly the 2017 correction addressed.

How is a level's entry cell derived from the index?

Multiply the grade’s 6th CPC entry pay, meaning the pay band minimum plus the grade pay for a direct recruit, by the index for that level, then round to the nearest Rs. 100. Level 6 is Rs. 13,500 multiplied by 2.62, which is Rs. 35,370 and prints as Rs. 35,400. The rule reproduces the printed Schedule at Levels 1 to 16.

Why does Level 17 carry a higher index than Level 18?

Because the two apex figures were fixed as round amounts and the index describes the ratio each implies. Level 17 is Rs. 2,25,000 against the 6th CPC Apex Scale of Rs. 80,000, a ratio of 2.8125 printed as 2.81. Level 18 is Rs. 2,50,000 against the Cabinet Secretary figure of Rs. 90,000, a ratio of 2.7778 printed as 2.78. The ladder therefore falls at its last step.

Is the Level 6 to Level 7 jump caused by the index of rationalisation?

No. Levels 6, 7, 8 and 9 all carry 2.62. The step from Rs. 35,400 to Rs. 44,900, which is Rs. 9,500 or 26.84%, is inherited from the 6th CPC entry pays of Rs. 13,500 for grade pay 4200 and Rs. 17,140 for grade pay 4600, both multiplied by the same index.

Why is the Level 9 entry pay of Rs. 20,280 different from the other rows?

It is the only row that does not trace to a 6th CPC order. The 6th CPC prescribed no direct-recruit entry pay for grade pay 5400 in PB-2, so the Commission interpolated Rs. 20,280 from the fitment table issued after the 6th CPC. Every other row derives from a prescribed entry pay multiplied by the index.

Was Level 13A created by the 2017 amendment?

No. Level 13A, corresponding to grade pay 8900, is printed in Table 5 of the 7th CPC report of 19 November 2015 and in Part A of the Schedule to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 as first notified on 25 July 2016. It has carried an index of 2.67 throughout. The belief that it was inserted in 2017 comes from the defence matrix, where Level 13A was changed.

What is the index of rationalisation in the defence pay matrix?

The defence matrix uses the same ladder with a different amendment history. The Resolution of 25 July 2016 raised the index for defence Level 13A, the Brigadier level, from 2.57 to 2.67. Resolution No. 1-2/2016-IC dated 16 May 2017 then raised Level 12A (Lieutenant Colonel) and Level 13 (Colonel) from 2.57 to 2.67, moving their entry cells from Rs. 1,16,700 to Rs. 1,21,200 and from Rs. 1,25,700 to Rs. 1,30,600.

Does the index of rationalisation affect pension, promotion or MACP?

Not directly. The index fixed the entry cell of each level in 2016 and has no operative role since. Pension is 50% of last drawn basic pay or average emoluments, promotion fixation runs on Rule 13 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 at one increment plus placement in the higher level, and the annual increment is 3%. The index reaches all three only through the cell values it helped set.

How can the index of rationalisation for a level be checked?

Divide the level’s first cell in Part A of the Schedule by the grade’s 6th CPC entry pay. Level 11 is Rs. 67,700 divided by Rs. 25,350, which is 2.6706 and prints as 2.67. The check reproduces the printed index at every level except 17 and 18, where the apex figures were fixed as round amounts.

Will the 8th Central Pay Commission use an index of rationalisation?

No decision exists. The 8th Central Pay Commission was constituted by Department of Expenditure Resolution F. No. 01-01/2025-E.III(A) dated 3 November 2025 and has submitted no report. It may keep a rationalisation index, revise the values or replace the method. Any index figure circulating for the 8th CPC is a projection, not an order.

External references

References

Report of the Seventh Central Pay Commission (submitted 19 November 2015), Chapter 5.1: paragraph 5.1.19 with Table 4 (the index of rationalisation applied to each grade’s entry pay), paragraph 5.1.20 (the moderation at grade pay 8700 and the enhancement at grade pay 10000, HAG and HAG+), paragraph 5.1.25 with Table 5 (the index printed for all 19 columns), and paragraph 5.1.27 (the uniform fitment factor of 2.57).
Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, gazette notification G.S.R. 721(E), Department of Expenditure, dated 25 July 2016: Rule 7(1)(A)(i) and Part A of the Schedule (the pay matrix as first notified, with Level 13 at Rs. 1,18,500).
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Resolution No. 1-2/2016-IC dated 25 July 2016 (acceptance of the recommendations, with the modification raising the index for defence Level 13A from 2.57 to 2.67).
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Resolution No. 1-2/2016-IC dated 16 May 2017, raising the index of rationalisation of Level 13 of the civil pay matrix from 2.57 to 2.67, and of Levels 12A and 13 of the defence pay matrix.
Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Amendment) Rules, 2017, gazette notification G.S.R. 592(E), Department of Expenditure, dated 15 June 2017, effective 1 January 2016 (revised matrix substituted in Part A of the Schedule; Level 13 entry pay Rs. 1,23,100; column shortened from 21 stages to 20).
Sixth Central Pay Commission entry-pay tables for direct recruits by grade pay, as carried in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 Schedule, used to derive each level’s entry pay.
National Anomaly Committee agenda (Joint Consultative Machinery, Staff Side, 2017) on the pay-matrix anomalies arising from the index of rationalisation and the interpolated Level 9 entry pay.
Department of Expenditure Resolution F. No. 01-01/2025-E.III(A) dated 3 November 2025, constituting the 8th Central Pay Commission.