Armed Forces Redressal Commission- Platter for Bureaucrats to Splatter

Adjudicatory powers are essential
The proposed armed forces redressal commission is a positive step that not only underscores the recognition of the soldier’s problems, but also gives it an unlimited canvas to make recommendations beyond the confines of existing rules. The panel, however, has powers to make only recommendations that would eventually land up on the table of a bureaucrat. Earlier experience with the bureaucracy does little to inspire the confidence of veterans.
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan (Retd)

The bulk of grievances and litigation concerning armed forces personnel in India pertains to pensionary matters and disability benefits.

A decision on the issue of “one rank--one pension” (OROP) has been pending with the government for nearly three decades. OROP implies equal pension for those retiring from the same rank and after the same length of service. In other words, equal remuneration for equal work. Prima facie, law of equity should dictate so. But successive governments have been rejecting it. Strangely.

When everything else failed, ex servicemen as a last resort were compelled to go public with their demand. This was not a step the veterans took happily or even willingly. It is unusual in India that starting in April 2008, hordes of retired soldiers have had to periodically descend on that protesters’ Mecca, Jantar Mantar. They have also been surrendering their medals before their Supreme Commander. A soldier wins his medals at great risk to his life and limb. For him these are not mere pieces of metal. He develops deep attachment to his medals. His decision to return these reflects the depth of his disenchantment with the government’s apathy to his legitimate and genuine demand.

The government has taken some placatory steps. By enhancing the pension in March 2010, it has tried to narrow the gap between the old and new pensioners. However, the demand is for total removal of and not mere reduction in this gap. Ex-servicemen are fighting for equity and justice and not merely for more money. The justice will come only when all pensioners get equitable pension. Halfway measures won’t do.

The government’s attitude on the issue is difficult to comprehend. In the recent pension enhancement, they left out widow pensioners. When this discrimination was pointed out in a letter to the Prime Minister, the reply from the government was rather bizarre. It said that service widows were left out because enhancement in their case was not recommended by the Cabinet Secretary’s Committee. The government’s helplessness in being bound by the recommendations of a subordinate committee that the government itself had constituted was as strange as it was unbelievable. In the past, the government has been repeatedly rejecting the recommendations of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence vis-à-vis OROP. Undeniably, this committee of some two dozen MPs drawn from different political parties is weightier than the committee composed of only bureaucrats. It is hard not to infer that the government is accepting the committees’ recommendations selectively.

The government’s stated reasons for rejecting OROP are legal, financial and administrative. If one goes by the recent castigating remarks of the apex court against the government’s treatment of soldiers and ex-servicemen, the “legal” ground seems to fall short of conviction. On the financial score, in today’s booming national economy, the relatively small sum involved in giving soldiers their legitimate due could not be considered an overbearing burden on the exchequer. The “administrative” ground is too vague and obscure to lend itself to objective comment. In sum, it leaves little doubt that the government’s announced reasons are a thin veil to conceal their obduracy on the issue.

The soldiers’ struggle has brought the OROP issue center stage. It has figured in the media, the Parliament and the courts. The general public is seized of the issue and is fully supportive. Apparently the government is boxed-in and isolated. While hearing a related case on November 15, 2010, the apex court asked the government to constitute an Armed Forcers Grievance Redressal Commission (AFGRC) within two months. It also named its composition; two prominent retired judges, an ex-army chief and a retired army commander. Provided the government does implement the court’s instructions, the AFGRC would have certain positives. First, it underscores the recognition of the soldiers’ problems at the highest level of our legal system. Secondly, inclusion of two retired senior defence officers in the proposed commission – perhaps for the first time – will lead to realistic portrayal of a soldier’s problems. Additionally, the proposed terms do not limit the commission to making recommendations only within the confines of existing rules. It has an infinite canvas. The main drawback, however, is that the commission does not have adjudicatory powers. It can only make recommendations to the government. This would lead to the commission’s findings landing on the table of a bureaucrat for taking a final call. While it is nobody’s case that every bureaucrat is negative, the experience with respect to OROP does little to inspire confidence of ex -servicemen in the bureaucracy.

Setting up the proposed commission is undeniably a positive step and the uniformed men owe gratitude to the Apex Court. However, being only a recommendatory body, it does not go far enough for ex-servicemen to ease up on their ongoing struggle. Nor can they take back their 22,000 medals as has been suggested by some.
The writer is a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff
Adjudicatory powers are essential