IESM: Fast for Justice Rally twenty sixth day

Date: Sunday, 11 January, 2009, 10:09 PM
Dear Colleagues,
The battlefront remains under the charge of the Punjab ESM, who are there in good number. The visitors continue to come and give them encouragement. The IESM is grateful to Brig PC Uppal for his contribution of Rs 2,000.00 to the Movement.

The GOI letter of 11 Dec 2008 on pensions gives less pension to Maj Generals and Lt Generals than Colonels. In this connection a letter to RM, that is being despatched on 12 Jan 2009, is attached below for information.

Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM

Copy of LETTER TO RM
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
IESM/OROP/RM/2009 dated 11 January 2009

Dear Hon’ble Raksha Mantri,
I write to you regarding the provision of pension for pre-1.1.2006 armed forces personnel/family pensioners. In this connection, a copy of letter No. 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) dated 11 December 2008 issued by the Ministry of Defence is attached.

In the Table-1 attached with the ibid letter, in the lower most column opposite qualifying service ‘30 years & above’ the pension for Colonels, Maj Generals and Lt Generals is indicated as under:

Colonel (S) and Colonel (TS)- Rs 26,050

Maj General- Rs 23,477

Lt General- Rs 24,700

It is unambiguously tabulated that a Colonel gets higher pension than a Maj General and a Lt General. The Table is foot noted and Note 1 says, “In case the pension of a senior rank happens to be less than the revised pension of a lower rank, which may happen in rare cases, such cases may be referred to the Pension Sanctioning Authorities concerned.”

We are greatly intrigued and are at a loss to conclude which of the following is correct:
1. A letter initiated by the Government of India has a calculation oversight.
2. The letter has a typo, which went unnoticed by all the levels of checking as well as by the signatory.
3. The GOI is unaware that without exception all Maj Generals and all Lt Generals are senior to all Colonels.
4. The insertion in the Note is deliberate. If this is indeed the case, then the possible motive could be:

To ensure that the Generals go cringing to the ‘Pension Sanctioning Authorities concerned’. The latter then equate the Generals’ pension to that of the Colonels and the Generals come away feeling a great favour has been done to them.

Alternatively, gather documentary evidence (the Pension Sanctioning Authorities when contacted in some cases have asked for a written request) to the effect that all that the Generals were demanding was an equation with the Colonels and, that done, convey the inference that the veterans are happy with the new pension order.

Whatever the interpretation, the letter is not addressed to individual pensioners and there is no way for them to know whether they are getting their correct entitlement. They will simply go by what the bank gives, which would be incorrect. Keeping in mind the sensibilities of the senior veterans, and to remove even the slightest possiblity of someone attributing unscupulous motives to the issuing office, may I request that the above letter is cancelled and a revised and appropriate letter issued.

With best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan

Shri AK Antony,
Hon’ble Minister of Defence
104, South Block
New Delhi – 110 011
Copy to:
Shri SM Acharya, IAS
Secretary Department of Ex Servicemen Welfare
Ministry of Defence
198-B, South Block
New Delhi – 110 011