In 2017, the government announced a sharp increase in the Siachen allowance: ₹42,500 per month for officers and ₹30,000 for junior commissioned officers and other ranks. It was a long-overdue recognition of one of the most inhospitable battlefields in the world. Yet beyond such headline gestures, a closer look at allowances across the Armed Forces, the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), and the civil services reveals a troubling pattern.
It is not simply about numbers in a pay slip. Allowances are symbols of recognition. When soldiers see their sacrifices valued differently—or, in some cases, less generously—than those of their civilian peers, the impact goes beyond rupees. It becomes a question of dignity.
The Risk and Hardship Matrix
The Seventh Central Pay Commission sought to rationalise the allowance system by introducing a Risk and Hardship (R&H) matrix. The idea was to assign levels of risk and hardship to various duties and environments, and compensate personnel accordingly.
For the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defence issued detailed orders in 2017, setting out allowance slabs under the R&H framework. The Ministry of Home Affairs followed with its own orders for CAPFs and Assam Rifles. On paper, the principle was the same. In practice, disparities emerged.
Comparing Like with Unlike
CAPF personnel deployed in counter-insurgency or border roles are entitled to allowances under the R&H matrix comparable in some bands to those given to the Armed Forces. Yet, crucially, Armed Forces officers and soldiers in areas of objectively higher risk—such as high-altitude deployments—do not always see proportionately higher recognition.
For instance, the enhanced Siachen allowance set a benchmark for extreme hardship. But in other sectors, Armed Forces allowances under the R&H system remain misaligned with the severity of the service environment. Meanwhile, CAPFs posted in less arduous conditions may still receive higher relative benefit within their allowance categories.
This inconsistency is at the heart of the grievance. If the principle of the R&H matrix is equity based on hardship, then recognition should follow consistently across all uniformed services.
Parliamentary and Judicial Concerns
Parliamentary Standing Committees have noted the morale impact of such disparities, warning that allowances are not merely fiscal tools but also signals of respect for service conditions. The Seventh CPC itself flagged that the Armed Forces, with their unique liability and early retirement profiles, must not be disadvantaged.
Courts too have highlighted that disputes over allowances often add to the flood of litigation. The Supreme Court, in July 2025, urged the government to stop “dragging security personnel into unnecessary battles” over benefits. While the comment was made in a broader context, it applies squarely to disputes over allowances.
More than Money
The government’s 2017 decision on Siachen allowance showed that recognition matters. It was applauded not only for the quantum but for the principle: that extreme hardship deserves commensurate acknowledgement. The same logic must extend consistently across all postings, whether for a soldier on the icy heights of Ladakh or a CAPF officer in a border outpost.
Allowances are about morale as much as money. When they diverge from the reality of service conditions, they send unintended messages: that one form of service is valued more than another. For the Armed Forces, whose officers already see themselves excluded from NFU and other financial parity mechanisms, the allowance disparities deepen a sense of neglect.
The Path Ahead
The Eighth Pay Commission offers a chance to revisit the R&H framework and correct distortions. If parity is the principle, then it must be applied with fairness. Soldiers do not seek privilege over CAPFs or civil services. They ask only for recognition proportional to the risks they bear.
In the end, this debate is not about balancing budgets. It is about dignity. For the men and women who stand on the nation’s frontiers, allowances are not perks. They are signals of respect from the state they serve. Ensuring fairness in that recognition is not just a fiscal adjustment—it is a national obligation.