Rank Pay Arrears: Draft Implementation Order Status

06 Nov 2012.
Dear Veterans,
Jai Hind.
After clearance of the Rank Pay Case by the Ministry of Law, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, has cleared the file for payment to the affected officers. MoD has asked the Services Headquarters to prepare the “Draft Implementation Order” and sent it to the Ministry of Defence.
It is reliably learnt that the Pay Cells of the tree Services had anticipated such a letter from MoD and have a draft order ready.
As already informed to you, a senior officer of the AG’s Branch Army Headquarters is/was at Pune to discuss the information that is needed by the PCDA (O), for implementation of the order. Ways and means will be found to get such information with least trouble to the affected Army Officers.
The AG’s Branch Officer now at Pune is the son of a retired Army Officer – so he very well knows all your problems.
As regards the other two Services, Navy and Air Force, their accounts offices have all the information required for implementation of the Rank Pay Case. In case of Army Officers the problem has arisen because of a major fire in the office of PCDA (O) about a decade ago. Lot of records were destroyed in that fire.
In service of Indian Military Veterans.
Chander Kamboj
SC Judgement 4th CPC
Sir,
1. It is reliably learnt that RM has cleared the file for Implementation of the Supreme Court order of 4th Sep 2012.
2. MoD has asked Service Hqs for draft implementation orders.
WBR,
President, RDOA
What the PCDA Pune webpage says
Regarding the implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 04/09/2012, it is reiterated that this office has not received orders from the Government. However PCDA(O), in order to prepare itself for immediate action on receipt of Government orders, decided to approach Retired Army Officers for the information, which might be required for calculation of arrears, but is not available with this office. We realize that there is little likelihood of availability of all this info with the Retired Army Officers. Therefore we are in touch with higher authorities for formulation of the alternate means of retrieving relevant information for calculation of arrears. This office is also awaiting decision of the Government on the matter.
CDA Form for Calculating Rank Pay Arrears

OROP: Bureaucrats mock the Military

Posted on October 12, 2012
One Rank One Pension
GOVT’S FRAUD ON EX-SERVICEMEN
By Col (Dr) PK Vasudeva (Retd)
New Delhi, Oct 12 : Ex-servicemen have reason to be angry. The Centre’s grant of Rs 2300 crore to the defence services and its claim that it has moved towards granting One Rank One Pension (OROP), as demanded has sadly proved to be a fraud. The ex-servicemen who have been agitating for OROP for over three decades had an initial sense of relief with the grandiose announcement by the Government last month that the Cabinet had approved their demand, but it was short lived.
Once the details of the decision unfolded, it came to light that the approval is nowhere close to the OROP they had been agitating for. What has been given, albeit grudgingly, does not even meet the provision of the Armed Forces Tribunal Judgements in favour of the Defence Personnel, which is effective since 01.01.2006. Till the 60s, OROP was in vogue as Military Pension, and the faujis got 65 per cent of their last pay because most had to retire in their late 40s/early 50s while civilians got 33 per cent since all served up to 58 years. The 3rd Pay Commission abolished Military Pensions, reduced it to 50 per cent, increased civil pensions to 50 per cent, and added a proviso that to earn full pension a Government servant must serve for 33 years. Thus, most military men seldom got full pension because very few could serve for 33 years, but the civil servants invariably did because they served till the age of 58, and met the criteria.
The perfidy of this rule and shabby treatment meted out to the Armed Forces is indeed unfair. The Supreme Court has already declared that pension is “delayed wages for services already rendered”. Thus, Colonel ‘A’ who retired with 24 years of service at the age of 48 years in 1989 must get the same pension as ‘B’ who retires today at the age of 50 years with 24 years of service. Why must Colonel ‘A’ need to beg when he is only seeking justice as he had to retire at a much younger age than his civilian contemporary who joined the IAS at the same time?
The civilians do not retire with only 24 years service at the age of 50 as they carry on till the age of 60. In fact, the Supreme Court recently was constrained to rebuke the Government for “treating soldiers like beggars”. Regrettably our media, which is the fourth estate and takes up issues, has not cared to highlight the military’s issues.
Indeed, the OROP story has turned out to be a cruel joke on the defence personnel by the Centre. Not for the first time, has the Union Government spread canards, to slow down the momentum of demands, and package implementation of court orders to pass off as OROP. It is a sad state of affairs when our establishment treats its people as though they belong to the other side of the border. The neglect of Armed Forces shall prove to be suicidal for the nation as the morale of the troops is low and god forbids, hostilities erupt with our neighbour. Recall that after his recent visit to J&K, Defence Minister A K Antony had apprised the Prime Minister about this low morale, following which a committee under the Cabinet Secretary was set up to address the anomalies in the defence forces pay and allowances.
However, the OROP issue that has been analysed for over seven months by members of a Committee of Parliament had an awkward situation wherein a Committee of secretaries gave evidence against its grant. Little else could be expected from it and the Prime Minister, Defence Minister and the three Chiefs were apprised of the apprehensions.
Worse, it is a great pity that the demand by three Chiefs to include members from the serving and retired defence personnel in the Committee was not accepted.
At the end, the Government not only has left 39 serious anomalies in pay & pension of defence personnel unresolved, it has also not implemented the judgements of Armed Forces Tribunal & Supreme Court given in favour of defence personnel. This apart, the recommendations of Rajya Sabha Petition Committee on OROP strongly recommending it for the defence personnel too have not been implemented.
OROP basically implies payment of uniform pension to personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement. Consequently, any enhancement in pension rates is automatically passed on to past pensioners.
Officials said the recent package had sought to “bridge the gap” between the pensioners who retired before January 1996 and those who superannuated after that date and was “expected to largely meet the demands on OROP”. However, OROP is meant to ‘remove the gap’ rather than ‘bridge the gap’. There is thus a situation where “a sepoy, Naik and Havaldar have been given an increase of only Rs 400 per month, whereas a sepoy who retired in January 2012 draws approximately Rs 4,000 more than retirees prior to 2006”.
The Supreme Court, in its latest ruling set right another anomaly of the bureaucracy where rank pay granted by the 4th Central Pay Commission was illegally deducted from the pay of the officers of the rank of Captain to Brigadier. A large number of such officers have already died and the number may be 15000 of nearly 40,000 affected. There is all likelihood that the veterans and the next of kin of the deceased officers will be able to get this benefit.
This apart, the 6th Pay Commission gave non-functional upgradation to all the Central services (51) including the paramilitary forces, whereby every officer from these services retire in the grade of additional secretary, irrespective of vacancies. Sadly, the political and bureaucratic leadership seems to have closed its eyes when it comes to the defence services.
Well, playing games with faujis all the time can’t be a coincidence and appears to be a sinister design. It is highly de-motivating factor for the military as it makes defence services a low priority career choice, and weakens the fabric of our national security.,BR> The ex-servicemen propose not to give up their fight and expect the Government to do justice. The fraternity is all set to intensify their all-India protest from December 1, 2012 but in a dignified manner. Will the Government pay heed gracefully? — INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
One Rank One Pension: GOVT’S FRAUD ON EX-SERVICEMEN

OROP: Chiefs presentation not once but twice is double jeopardy

Dear Friends,
We have sent the following letter to all the Chiefs for doing the needful in getting our problems solved.
I do hope that they would take appropriate action to bring home the truth to the leadership which has never been found wanting.
The anxiety of the leadership to solve our problems was obvious from the MESSIANIC manner in which our Hon'ble RM took up the matter with the Hon'ble PM and the reaction of the Hon'ble PM in promptly appointing a Committee to solve our problems. All the papers that have been sent to you earlier and given below after the letter to the Chiefs were also sent to the Chiefs.
With best wishes
Lt Col Inderjit Singh

LETTER TO CHIEFS ABOUT OUR MEETING WITH THE HON'BLE RM
I wish to apprise you about our Meeting with the Hon'ble RM on 29 Sep 2012. I am therefore attaching all the papers about the Meeting for your kind information and necessary action.
2. The entire Veterans community is shattered by what has happened and expects you the Chiefs to get us our rightful dues by projecting the truth to the benign leadership as we have tried to do. My services are available if required by you.
3. The damage was done when all our respected Chiefs went and made presentation, not once but twice, to the Committee and demanded resolution of only few of our long list of anomalies pending with the Govt. It is sad that this happened when the entire Veterans community rejected it for our non representation on it. I am sure you will agree that it showed us all in a very poor light. Your request to the Leadership after first visit, for our representation, had no meaning as the Committee had already been legitimized by your presentations.
4. Whatever has happened cannot be undone. Now it is for you to figure out how you are going to repair the damage so that we can get our rightful dues.
5. We look forward to your positive response.
With best wishes,
Lt Col Inderjit Singh

Gen Bikram Singh, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM,VSM, SM, ADC**, Chief of The Army Staff

Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, PVSM, AVSM,VM, ADC, Chief of Air Staff

Admiral D K Joshi, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, NM, VSM, ADC Chief of Naval Staff

ESM protest central pension package

Ex servicemen protest central pension package
HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times
Sangrur, Patiala September 27, 2012
Dissatisfied with the central government's pension package and decision to take steps in a phased manner towards one rank, one pension (OROP), ex-servicemen and their families from across the state held a protest rally at War Heroes stadium here on Thursday.
Addressing the gathering, Col Bhag Singh (retd) said that the announcement of Rs. 2,300-crore pension package showed that the government was not serious about considering the demands of ex-servicemen.
He said OROP was needed as these men have contributed their life for the security of the nation and were not getting the rightful pension in exchange of their services.
He added that there were many anomalies in the pension schemes of ex-servicemen that required immediate rectification for the betterment of their families.
The protestors also demanded an increase in widow pension.
Meanwhile, deputy commissioner Kumar Rahul and chief parliamentary secretary Parkash Chand Garg assured protestors that their demands would be forwarded to higher authorities.
Ex servicemen protest central pension package

Rank Pay: CDA (O) Pune Claim Application

Ref: Further to CDA (O) Pune Letter: Click here
Application to calculate Rank Pay and Pay Arrears with respect to Supreme Court Ruling

Moderator Comments
These details contained in the format be forwarded to CDA(O)Pune by concerned Officers. Along with the above details even copies of Statement of Accounts for period 1986 to 1996 in question would help in retrieving Officer Information. Till date no payment authority or instructions have been received from MOD by CDA (O) Pune. These are only advance notification for speedy tracing/ locating of information from the Archives.

OROP: Connect with Congress

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Subject: Feedback to Congress Party
This is what I sent to the Congress media, Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr Rahul Gandhi.
Regards,
Brigadier V Mahalingam
The Government has played a cruel joke on the Veterans community by correcting a 6th Pay Commission anomaly and calling it a One Rank One Pension (OROP). Individuals and businessmen speak falsehood and mislead people but I have been brought up in a family where everyone believed that what the Government says and does will be nothing but the truth and correct. The present Government has betrayed this family belief and faith.
OROP is a method of compensating a solder for his early retirement due to which a Jawan losses over sixty lakhs and an officer over a crore of Rupees. If soldiers were not retired early at a time when their salary and their commitments were at its peak and allowed to serve as long as his civilian counterparts, this would have been unnecessary. Since the children of a soldier are very young at the time of his retirement he spends all is post retirement financial benefits on the education and marriage of his children with very little left for him and his wife for the later years. OROP only ensures that a soldier gets his pension revised after every pay commission to the level of his brethren serving officers and thus lives an honorable life at his old age and at a time when he has practically no means to earn a livelihood.
It is sad the Government running under your stewardship doesn’t think it necessary to provide an honorable living to a soldier after his retirement and consider him a spent force.
Veteran V Mahalingam
Connect With Congress: Tell them what you feel- click here

OROP demand diluted: Sugar Coated Ruse?

Edits: The Statesman
26 September 2012
SUGAR-COATED RUSE
To dilute OROP demand
NOT for the first time has the central government, and this criticism is not UPA-specific, hypocritically and sinisterly come up with a seemingly attractive package of pension benefits for ex-servicemen ~ that is actually intended to dilute the demand for a one-rank one-pension regime (OROP). Terms like “close to”, “approximating with” or “bridging the gap” have been used by the establishment to camouflage the reality that the promise of reworking the principle on which defence pensions are calculated has been broken. While initially on Monday evening TV channels flashed misleading reports that OROP had been cleared by the Cabinet they subsequently modified their line: without admitting to have erred when raising the hopes of an anxious pensioners’ community. Once the gift-wrapping of the Rs 2,300-crore package was discarded, distinct dismay and frustration spread through the community that concluded that AK Antony, Manmohan Singh and P Chidambaram had emulated their predecessors in a bid to “sweeten them” via a one-time handout. The reaction from veterans’ association has been scathing: a retired lieutenant-general accused the government of “deceit”, another said “it is a joke, they have cheated.” Some of their calculations point to anomalies persisting, and insisted the “disillusionment continued”. So should we expect a return to the disheartening scenes of veterans protesting in the streets, returning medals they had once cherished, even more drastic measures that could influence elections? Or that the sustained unhappiness impacts recruitment in regions where “serving the colours” has been a matter of family honour? And that the complications created by different scales render the pension disbursing agency hamstrung. The courts and tribunals are replete with horror stories about people spending years (and their limited funds) seeking “justice”.
Arguments against OROP (some do have validity) ought to have ceased after all major political parties promised it in their election manifestos, and a parliamentary committee averred that non-implementation was “not tenable”. So the allegation of political double-speak “sticks” ~ across party lines. The implied alibi (bureaucratically-inspired?) that other sections of government workers will make similar demands is cowardly: most soldiers retire in their early 40s, their pension-dependence is unique. The short-point is that if the government does not accept the OROP principle it should have the guts to say so. Perhaps the only “political” reason for the latest rejection of OROP is that granting it would appear to be buckling under pressure mounted by the previous army chief when taking a reckless exit route to build himself a “constituency”.
SUGAR-COATED RUSE To dilute OROP demand

OROP Joke: Government attempts to Mollify the ESM

Taking steps for one-rank, one-pension demand: Govt
TNN | Sep 27, 2012, 02.02AM IST
NEW DELHI: Stung by trenchant criticism of ex-servicemen who have called the Rs 2,300 crore pension package announced for them "a joke and mere eyewash", the government on Wednesday said it was taking "steps in phases" towards meeting the eventual aim of one-rank, one-pension (OROP).
"The journey towards the OROP goal is a continuous process. Despite the country's critical financial position, the government came out on Monday with the Rs 2,300 crore package for ex-servicemen," a senior official said.
"This is the third time that the government has increased the pensions of ex-servicemen after the 6th Pay Commission. On implementation of the latest package, the pensions of officers will go up from 10% to 28% (Rs 565 to Rs 3,741 per month), while that of other ranks will increase by 9.7% to 13% (Rs 500 to Rs 800 per month). Dearness relief would be payable in addition," he added.
Ex-servicemen, however, are furious with the government for trying to project the Rs 2,300 crore pension package as the fulfillment of their long-pending OROP demand, which basically means payment of uniform pension to personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement.
"The OROP story has turned out to be a government joke. The government has just rectified anomalies created by bureaucrats in earlier pay commissions. They in any case would have been enforced through court orders," said a retired major-general.
The government, on its part, said family pensioners have also been given the benefit of enhanced pensions, ranging from an increase of Rs 242 to Rs 2,500 depending upon their existing pensions.
"Moreover, defence and family pensioners will also benefit from dual family pension and family pension to mentally/physically challenged children even after marriage," the official said.
Taking steps for one-rank, one-pension demand: Govt
Related Reading
Ex-Armymen cry foul over ‘misleading’ pension plan

Growing discontent among armed forces on pay parity

Antony to PM: Growing discontent among armed forces on pay parity
New Delhi: Observing there was “growing discontent” among armed forces personnel over anomalies in pay-related matters, Defence Minister A K Antony has written a letter to the Prime Minister saying if “corrective action” is not taken, the issue might take a “bad turn”.
After the letter was sent, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh constituted a high level-committee under the Cabinet Secretary to address issues such as One Rank One Pension (OROP) and elevation of all Lt Gen-rank officers into a higher pay scale.
Defence Minister A K Antony has written a letter to the Prime Minister saying if “corrective action” is not taken, the issue might take a “bad turn”. Reuters In the letter written on 25 June, sources said the Defence Minister has written that “there is growing discontentment among the services personnel due to the anomalies in fixation of payment and salaries.”
Pushing the case for accepting the demands of serving and retired soldiers, Antony pointed out that the service personnel, ex servicemen and family pensioners are “equally agitated” over the anomalies in their salaries.
He told the Prime Minister that “unless we take corrective action, things may take a bad turn.”
On 13 July, the Prime Minister formed a six-member committee under Cabinet Secretary Ajit Seth, which has been asked by the government to finalise its recommendations and submit its report to Manmohan Singh by 8 August.
(Incidently this Committee has disobeyed the PM's directive- the report has not been submitted till today- 11 Sep 2012- even after a month. It is likely to be buried or outcome filled with follies and more anomalies)
For serving defence personnel, the committee will look into the issues of having a common pay scale for serving Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs), placing all Lt Gen-rank officers under the higher pay scale grade of Higher Administrative Group Plus (HAG+).
For the large community of ex servicemen, the government has tasked the committee to consider the issue of One-Rank-One-Pension which has been the main demand of the services personnel and has seen a lot of them returning their service and gallantry medals to the President in the last few years as a mark of protest.
Antony to PM: Growing discontent among armed forces on pay parity
Related Reading
Three services chiefs discuss pay, pension issues with panel
What is Mr Antony doing to reign in the MOD Bureaucrats who call the shots? THE VISION/ MISSION National Litigation Policy- MOD spurns its own Government Policy:
The National Litigation Policy is based on the recognition that Government and its various agencies are the pre-dominant litigants in courts and Tribunals in the country. Its aim is to transform Government into an Efficient and Responsible litigant. This policy is also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of citizens, to respect fundamental rights and those in charge of the conduct of Government litigation should never forget this basic principle.
click here for the complete double speak
Comment: The mindless MOD and spineless AHQ together are working in tandem against the welfare of serving and retired troops. Farewell to Welfare is the motto. This refrain says it all:
"Cheating" has grown to be so much the fashion
I believe cheating runs the whole nation
The cabinet committees reinforce this caption

Rank Pay liable since the Pay Commission came into force in 1986

Pay rank pay liable since ’86 to armed forces: SC to Govt
TUESDAY, 04 SEPTEMBER 2012 23:22 PIONEER NEWS SERVICE | NEW DELHI
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre to re-fix the pay of defence personnel retrospectively from January 1, 1986 including the component of rank pay that was wrongly denied to them since the Fourth Pay Commission.
A three-judge bench of Justices RM Lodha, TS Thakur and AR Dave directed the Centre to pay the rank pay liable since the Pay Commission came into force in 1986. In abiding by the court order, the exchequer could face a financial liability of close to `1,500 crore as the court even asked the Centre to award annual interest of six per cent to be calculated from January 1, 2006. This order would apply to roughly 20,000 officers of the Army, Navy or Air Force, both serving and retired, irrespective of whether they filed petition in court or the Armed Forces Tribunal. The court even fixed a time-period of 12 weeks for the Centre to comply with its order.
The order is sure to boost the morale of the defence forces, who were denied the rank pay despite being entitled for it since 1986. The matter was first raised by Major AK Dhanpalan before the Kerala High Court, which detected the anomaly and found no justification with the Centre’s decision to deduct the rank pay. The rank pay, as the name suggested, was a sum fixed for each rank beginning from Captain to Brigadier, and the corresponding ranks in the Navy and Air Force. For Captain, an additional amount of `200 would get added to his monthly income as rank pay, it followed an ascending order as per the ascension in rank. For instance, Major rank officer was to get `600, Lt Col and Colonel to get `800 and Brigadier to get `1200 per month.
With Dhanpalan’s case serving as the basis, several officers approached the High Court, causing the matter to come up till the Supreme Court which too decided in favour of the defence forces through its order of March 8, 2010. The court not only directed re-fixation of pay from January 1, 1986 but burdened the Centre with six per cent interest from that date onwards. For this reason, the Centre moved an application seeking recall of the order.
Solicitor General RF Nariman impressed upon the bench that granting rank pay with interest would cause a huge financial burden on the Government. But the court went by the purpose behind the rank pay provision that was to encourage persons to join the Armed Forces and provide parity in their salaries with their civilian counterparts. The denial of the same was seen by the court and by the defence officers as ill-treatment of armed forces by bureaucrats.
The Retired Defence Service officers, who were represented by senior advocate Mahabir Singh, Aishwarya Bhati and BB Trikha, informed the court that the Defence Ministry had pursued the application to modify the March 8, 2010 order despite opposition from the Chiefs of Staff Committee and the three Service chiefs.
Pay rank pay liable since ’86 to armed forces: SC to Govt

Defence Service Officers Subjected to Functional Degradation

Discrimination & Agony of Defence Service Officers Continues
ISSUE OF NFU (NON FUNCTIONAL UPGRADATION) NEEDS URGENT ATTENTION
1. All Defence Offrs, please be informed that Offrs of other services with whom you interact on functional basis, like MES Civ Offrs, GREF Civ Offrs, Offrs of BSF, CRPF ,ITBP, Def Accts(IDAS), Test Audit(IA&AS), Ord Factory Bd etc, will now get the salary and grade pay of Joint Secretary/ Maj Gen (GP Rs 10000/-) in 19 yrs of service, and will draw the pay of Addl Secretary to Govt of India which is equal to a Lt Gen(GP Rs 12000/-) in 32 yrs of service by virtue of their service being Organised Gp A Service.

2. The above condition has been brought about consequent to acceptance of 6 CPC recom on NFU by GoI, wherein it recommended that whenever any IAS officer of the state or joint cadre is posted at the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in Pay Bands PB-3 or PB-4,the officers belonging to batches of Organised Group A services that are senior by two years or more and have not been promoted so far to that particular grade would be granted the same grade on a non functional basis from the date of posting of the IAS officers in that grade at the centre. Hence if an IAS officer becomes Joint Secretary in 17 years of service the offrs of Org Gp A Service(like the ones mentioned in Para 1) will start drawing the salary of Joint Secretary in maximum of 19 years of service and similarly that of Addl Secretary / Lt Gen in 30 and 32 yrs resp.

3. Why is it not applicable to Def Offrs: Because as per Govt of India Defence Officers are NOT part of Organic Gp A Services and the above recommendation is applicable to only to the latter.

4. If Def Offrs are not part of Org Gp A service then what are they: They are just ‘Commissioned Officers’.

5. If all the above is correct then who all form part of Org Gp A Services and then how come Defence Officers are bracketted as Class 1 offrs: Central Civil Services mainly include AIS (All India Services, namely, IAS, IPS and Indian Forest Service) and Org Gp A service. There are a total of 58 services forming part of Org Gp A service. Defence Officers are not part of Civil Services but have been broadly kept at par with Gp A Offrs of Civil Services(erstwhile known as Class 1 offrs) by various Pay Commissions. The reference to same since independence.

6. Background to recommendation of NFU for Org Gp A Service as per 6 CPC:
(a) The Sixth CPC observed that there is a conventional edge of two years between IAS and other AIS/ Central Group A services and stated that though the Fifth CPC had taken the view that the edge need not be disturbed, in practice, however, the gap of two years (for posting to various grades in the Centre in form of empanelment of IAS officers and promotion for other Group A officers), has increased in respect of many organised Group A services.
(b) The sixth CPC felt that this is not justified as Organised Group A services have to be given their due which justifiably should mean that the disparity, as far as appointment to various grades in Centre are concerned, should not exceed two years between IAS and organised Central Group A services. It recommended that the Government should, accordingly, consider batch-wise parity while empanelling and/or posting at Centre between respective batches of IAS and other organised Group A services with the gap being restricted to two years.
(c) Therefore whenever any IAS officer of the state or joint cadre is posted at the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in Pay Bands PB-3 or PB-4, the officers belonging to batches of Organised Group A services that are senior by two years or more and have not been promoted so far to that particular grade would be granted the same grade on a non functional basis from the date of posting of the IAS officers in that grade at the centre.
(d) The higher non-functional grade so given to the officers of organised Group A services will be personal to them and will not depend on the number of vacancies in that grade.
(e) These officers will continue in their existing posts and will get substantial posting in the higher grade that they are holding on non functional basis only after vacancies arise in that grade. This will not only ensure some sort of modified parity between IAS and other Central Group A services but will also alleviate the present grade of disparity existing between promotional avenues available to different organised Group A services.
(f) The Government accepted the recommendations of Sixth CPC and granted the NFU to Organized GP A Services .

7. Why should the def offrs get NFU: Because for the following reasons:

None of the Org Gp A service faces as much stagnation as the Armed Forces officers because of its pyramidal structure. In fact, on the contrary, most of the Gp A service offrs, as it is, reach the level equal to Addl Secretary due to cylindrical structure of promotion of their service. Only issue for them is,’ in how many years’. In comparison, 97% defence officers retire at the levels below Joint Secretary/ Maj Gen. Hence, if the logic of giving NFU to Org Gp A offrs is stagnation, then, no one deserves it more than the Armed Forces Offrs.

Traditionally, since independence, there has been a broad parity between the Class 1 / Gp A offrs of Civil Services and the Defence Services Officers which has been acknowledged by different Pay Commissions in their reports. In such a case, the differential behaviour of 6 CPC not only disturbs the financial parity, it pushes down the defence services in status as even directly recruited officers of Gp B services attain a better pay and promotional avenue and manage to reach the level of Joint Secretary/ Maj Gen before retiring. In fact, now Sub Inspectors of CRPF/ BSF/ ITBP too can beat Defence Services Officers when they too will retire with the salary of Addl Secretary/ Lt Gen, if they get promoted as Asstt Comdt/ DSP in 8 yrs. All this will only fuel frustration, disgruntlement and will have a demoralising effect on the Armed Forces Offrs.

Since Def Offrs will have to work alongside some of the Organised Gp A Services mentioned, a disparity of this magnitude will lead to functional problems .In some stations, it is already being heard that Civ Offrs have started projecting themselves as senior to top military offr like Stn Cdr. In a specific case a Civ Chief Engineer of MES has started considering himself senior to a COS due to NFU and started saying so all around. Such problems will only increase in future. Moreover, this issue must not be allowed to linger till 7th CPC for resolution. If our top brass stands up united on this issue, the Government will have to accept it. Service HQs are aware of this issue and had sent a proposal to MoD, but it has been rejected. However, the issue needs a more forceful pleading duly backed by Service Officers unanimously.

8. Benefits of NFU: It will not only benefit the officers facing stagnation at the level of Lt Col, Col, and Brig, but will also benefit senior offrs like Maj Gen and Lt Gen who otherwise pick up their ranks in 29 yrs and 35 yrs respectively, as they will too start drawing the pay of Maj Gen in 19 yrs of service and that of Lt Gen in 32 yrs of service.

9. What can you do: Don’t accept ‘fait accompli’, Spread awareness, as knowledge is power. Apprise more and more officers about this discrimination. Raise it in appropriate forums to escalate its level and let the top brass take it up as seriously as PB-4 issue with the govt for IT IS, AS SERIOUS AN ISSUE. It not only affects pay, it also affects status. So please do your bit, at least ask for it from your seniors. If you have anything more to add to this article, which is relevant and factually correct, please go ahead and add on for the benefit of all, and circulate this in your yahoo/ google/ any other groups of various courses/ batches on the internet.
CAN ANYONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
Defence Officers Discriminated in Non Functional Upgradation by CPC

CAT bridges pension gap of pre and post 2006 civilian retirees

Thursday, November 3, 2011
Congratulations to pre-2006 civil pensioners on Full Bench Judgement of CAT in their favour
The Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has finally allowed the petition by pre-2006 pensioners seeking modified parity with post-2006 retirees. The CAT has inter alia held that the term ‘minimum of pay in the pay band’ would mean minimum of pay within the pay band corresponding to the scale held at the time of retirement and not minimum of the pay band itself as interpreted and implemented by the government through a clarification.

However, it is the following extract which specially merits mention on this blog being a subject much discussed by us here:
“On the basis of the recommendations made by VI CPC, which stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it has been argued that principle for determining the pension has been completely altered under the garb of clarification. According to the learned counsel for the applicants on the basis of the aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Applicants in para-11 of the Additional-Affidavit have explained how the Note prepared by a junior functionary (at the level of an Under Secretary) in the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare in regard to para-4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 has been given a go-by to the resolution dated 29/08/2008.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh
click here to read more

Lt Gen Kochhar is new Signal Officer-in-chief

Zee News Friday, September 02, 2011
New Delhi: Lieutenant General S P Kochhar Thursday took over as the Signal Officer-in-Chief of the Indian Army following the retirement of Lt Gen P Mohapatra on August 31 here. Lt General Kochhar has held several important posts in his 38-year career.
As an Additional Director General (ADG) of Personnel Services at Army Headquarters, he also headed the Tri-Services Anomalies Resolution Committee to address anomalies of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
The General Officer holds two M.Phil degrees and is an M.Tech from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and has undergone several in-service professional courses including the National Defence College (NDC) Course and the Army’s Higher Command Course (HCC).
He is a recipient of with the Ati-Vishisht Seva Medal (AVSM), Sena Medal (SM) and the Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM). PTI
Lt Gen Kochhar is new Signal Officer-in-chief

Major's Pension Anomaly- Will it ever be addressed?

Dear All,
Please find the attached letter addressed to President- click here
Rgds
Sqn Ldr YS NIJJAR (Retd)

Tribunal OKs Petition Ensuring Raised Pension for Majors
Removing anomalies of the Sixth Pay Commission, the Armed Forces Tribunal has allowed a petition which will benefit all the army Majors and officers in the same rank in the three services who had retired before 2006 and entitle them to enhanced monetary benefits.

"We direct that the pension of pre (2006) retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of the pay in the pay band that is Rs 23,810 with all other benefits and shall be given to them," the Tribunal Bench headed by Justice A K Mathur said in its verdict.

The Tribunal has asked the Defence Ministry to complete the whole exercise within next three months.

Pointing to an earlier pay commission policy that said that the pension of all pensioners shall not be less than 50 per cent, the Bench said, "then naturally 50 per cent of this will have to be treated as a basic pension and rest of it will be added to it as grade pay and other benefits which are given to the persons of that rank".

Over 150 Major and officers of equivalent rank had filed the petition in the Tribunal to do away with the anomalies, which had resulted in the pre-2006 retirees getting lesser pension than post-2006 retired honorary captains, their Counsel Commodore Sukhjinder Singh told PTI here.

"But even after this, there will be difference between pension of pre and post 2006 retired majors and equivalents. Pension of officers retiring after 2006 would be calculated by taking 50 per cent of the highest pay scale into account whereas ours will be the same proportion of the lowest pay-scale," he added.

After this verdict, more than 5000 similarly placed retired officers will get the additional monetary benefit, which will be to the tune of Rs 5000.

The gap in pensions had increased after the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission, which came into effect from January 1, 2006.

After the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission, pension of majors was fixed at Rs 14,100 per month.

The petitioners had contended that the existing basic pay, inclusive of grade pay and military service pay, worked out to be Rs 36,410, hence their pension at the stipulated 50 per cent of basic worked out to be Rs 18,205 per month, to which they were entitled.

The pension of lieutenant colonel is fixed at Rs 25,700 whereas that of majors who retired before 2006 is Rs 14,100, creating a huge difference of Rs 11,600, the petitioners claimed. Prior to the Sixth Pay Commission, the difference was just Rs 950.
Tribunal OKs Petition Ensuring Raised Pension for Majors
PTI | New Delhi | Sep 22, 2010
Majors Pension Anomaly under RM's Radar!- RM's Reply
IESL confirms- Widows and Major's Pension Anomalies remain grounded

News from IESL

Dear Veterans,
1. On 29th March 2011 a Veterans Seminar was held in Manekhsaw Centre. Due to last minute changes the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri could not be present, however, COAS with all the PSOs gave detailed briefing to the Veterans during the interaction session. All the question asked by the Veterans were replied exhaustively. From IESL the President along with State President Rajasthan and Punjab Leagues attended the Seminar. The points raised by IESL Team and their replies given by COAS are given below:
Point Anomaly in Pension of Majors.
Response Case is with Anomaly Committee under active consideration.
Point No increase in pension of pre 06 widows of Ex-Servicemen post Sixth CPC
Response Under consideration of the Govt.
Point Widows of deceased Ex-servicemen not getting both pension of their late husband.
Response COAS agreed with case and the same is being pursued with the Govt strongly.
Point MOD is going in appeal against each of decisions of Courts/ AFT going in favour of Ex-servicemen. This is giving a perceived feeling that the Service HQ and Govt is against the Military Veterans and their widows.
Response COAS stressed that there is no disconnect between the veterans and Service HQs and all the issues concerning Veterans and their kins are being supported by the Services.
Point Rank Pay Case decision (Maj Dhanapalan) given by Supreme Court not being implemented.
Response Service HQs are supporting the case for early resolution.
Point Serious anomaly in pensions of pre 06 retired officers be addressed.
Response This point is also under active consideration of Anomaly Committee.
2. It was a very fruitful Interaction Seminar where Chief of Army Staff expressed his absolute support for the welfare of Military Veterans and their widows. In fact this year has been declared by COAS as Disabled Military Veterans Year and various welfare schemes had been launched by Army HQ.
Regards!
Col Akhil Sharma
Gen Secy IESL
Veteran Cell at AG's Branch
It was informed that a Veterans Cell has been established in the AG's Branch as a single point contact for all Veterans with regard to any issue and is functional in Kashmir House. Contact details- 153, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 110011.
EMail: armyveteranscell@gmail.com or armyveterans-cell@nic.in
Toll Free number: 1800 11 6644.
Anyone can get in touch on any issue, with them.

Rank Pay anomaly meandering in the Court

Next date of hearing
Dear Sir,
Further to our mail on the status of rank pay case.
The next date of hearing will be 13 Apr 2011. Kindly put on RMS for info of all.
Thanking you
Secy RDOA
Visit Us At: RDOA and RDOA Blog

Degradation in rank status upto rank of Brigs vis a vis civilians
The earlier pay equation till the rank of Brig:
I. Lt/JTS
II. Capt/STS
III. Maj/JAG
IV. Lt Col/NFSG
V. DIG
VI. Col
VII. Brig
This has been changed by the 6th CPC and approved by the Cabinet
I. Lt (0) /JTS (0)
II. Capt (2)
III. Maj (6) / STS (4)
IV. Lt Col (13) / JAG (9)
V. Col (20) / NFSG (13)
VI. Brig (28) / DIG (14)

(JTS – Junior Time Scale, STS – Senior Time Scale, JAG – Junior Administrative Grade, NFSG – Non-Functional Selection Grade. The numbers in brackets are the requisite years of service to reach the rank)

How Military got cheated by MOD in connivance with Sycophants
Let us educate ourselves on the issue of Rank Pay, it is not given for the hardships faced by the armed forces, but for providing an edge to officers of armed forces over other civilian counterpart. As per govt of India letter, rank pay is an integral part of basic pay on which we get DA & pension also. Hence the justification of reflecting rank pay as integral to our pay. The court is resolving the 4th Pay Commission anomaly of reducing our Basic Pay to the extent of Rank Pay to be at par with civilians!... read more click here

One Rank One Pension

Click on each of the three images for reading...

Courtesy: Peoples Post January 31, 2011

Rank Pay Anomaly of Fourth Pay Commission being fixed by Supreme Court

Dear Friends,
Jai Hind.
Reference email received from Retired Defence Officers Association, appended below.
The remarks of Justice MK Katju need careful examination.

I feel that Justice Katju wants to use the Rank Pay case as a lever and push the Government to order a separate Pay Commission for Defence Services at the earliest. Even if the Rank Pay case is delayed a little and a separate Pay Commission is ordered at an early date – it will be good for all the Defence Personnel, serving and retired.

Let us hope and pray that the Supreme Court succeeds in their mission to help the Defence Services.

Kindly help in giving wide publicity to the contents of the email of Retired Defence Officers Association appended below.
In service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj.

From: RDOA India
Sent: 18 October 2010 19:21
To: "REPORT MY SIGNAL" (CS Kamboj
Subject: Rank Pay Anomaly Case: Latest Update

Dear Sir,
AS ON 18 OCT 2010
The case was heard on 18 Oct 2010 in the court of Justice MK Katju & Justice Thakur.
As of date Justice MK Katju was not inclined to recall /review his order on the petition filed by the UOI. On the contrary Justice MK Katju admonished the Solicitor General on seeking unnecessary extension of time limit and attitude shown by the Govt in resolving anomalies pertaining to pay & allces of the armed forces personnel. He wanted definite inputs from the Govt on the formation of separate pay commission for the armed forces to be headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court with members from the serving as well as the veterans so that issues/anomalies could be resolved expeditiously.

The Judge has given time limit to the UOI till 08 Nov 10 which has been fixed as the next date of hearing. In all probability the case would be disposed off on that day.

It is requested that the update be put on RMS for info of all concerned.
Thanking you
Secy RDOA

IESM: Same Rank and Same Service are the main criteria for Pension Parity

Dear Colleagues,
There have been a large number of emails from the members giving differing perceptions almost on each subject. These are all useful inputs to arrive at balanced decisions.
I would like to reiterate the following points:

There seems some doubt on grant of OROP. It is clarified for the information of all that other than the Service Chiefs and Army Commanders/equivalents, no one from a Sepoy to Lt Gen is in receipt of OROP.

There are quite a few emails giving different versions of the definition of OROP. These are all justified. However, let us keep in mind that these points are essentially officer-centric. For JCOs, NCOs and Sepoys that form the vast majority of ESM, rank and total service can be applied without difficulty. It may be prudent on our part to avoid creating an impression that we are concerned about the officer corps only.

Some ESM have expressed an apprehension that we must clearly specify what we mean or imply by OROP, or else the officialdom will shoot us down because of this perceived lack of clarity. I suggest let us first focus on OROP as a concept. Once we get the government to agree, details will follow and we have enough experts to work out the nitty-gritty in a manner that the majority benefits. We continue with ‘same rank and same length of service’ as the twin criteria for OROP.
It is empirically known that depositing of medals has been one of the most effective methods of pressing our OROP demand. This is evident from the repeated hints by the government through their representatives that we must not return medals. (The latest such advice from the government came to Shri Satpal Maharaj, MP who had headed the recent Parliamentary Committee on Defence that had recommended grant of OROP). We need to reinforce this success and motivate more of our colleagues to volunteer to collect and deposit their medals. Our next visit to the Rashtrapati Bhawan for this purpose is scheduled on Sunday, 28 November 2010 when the Parliament will be in session.
I had written a letter to the Defence Minister on 03 April 2010. One of the points made by me was:
“Since the Government has already accepted constitution of a separate pay commission for the Defence Services – which has a bearing on the pensions – you may kindly consider constituting such a pay commission right now instead of waiting another six years for the 7th Pay Commission.”
The MoD has replied the letter on 22 Sep 2010. Their response is:
“Constitution of Separate Pay Commission
Sir,
“I am directed to refer your letter dated 03rd April 2010 on the above subject and to state that it is too early to consider setting up of another Pay Commission for Armed Forces because of the fact that 6th PC recommendations have been implemented recently.
Yours faithfully,
(Naveen Kumar)
Director (AG)”

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

Majors Pension Enhanced: AFT

Maj Navdeep Singh is a serving Territorial Army Officer.
He is a devoted soldier and takes very keen interest in the rules and regulations concerning the Defence Services, which are applicable to serving and retired Defence Personnel. He is a Lawyer in the Haryana and Punjab High Court at Chandigarh.
In service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj.

From: Navdeep Singh
Sent: 14 September 2010 08:58
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Pension shall not be less than 50% of minimum of pay within the pay- band corresponding to the pre-revised scale of a retiree : AFT
As most of you would be aware, the 6th CPC had recommended that the revised pension shall not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the pay band + the grade pay (+MSP in case of defence personnel) thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The minimum of pay within the pay band was notified by way of a fitment formula of Old Scale X 1.86 on the basis of which fitment tables were published by the govt. For example, in case of a Major, the pay band applicable was Pay Band-3, that is, Rs 15600 – 39100 and the minimum of pay within the pay band was Rs 12,800 (minimum of old scale) X 1.86 which came to Rs 23,810. Hence the pension fixation could not be less than 50% of Rs 23,810 + Rs 6600 (Grade Pay) + Rs 6000 (MSP), that is, 50% of 36410 = Rs 18,205.

The above formula was accepted by the government through a gazette notification. However, later a clarification was issued in which it was stated that it is not the minimum of pay in the pay band that shall be taken into consideration but the minimum of the pay band itself irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay. Meaning thereby that the pension of all the three ranks - Lieutenants, Captains and Majors, was to be fixed by taking the minimum of Rs 15600 which happened to be the lowest point of the Pay Band itself and essentially the starting pay of a Lieutenant. This meant that the minimum possible pension of a Major was to be fixed at Rs 14,100 rather than Rs 18,205.

To be fair to the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare, they tried their best to reason out with the Department of Expenditure that their (DOE's) interpretation of pension fixation for pre-2006 retirees was not right and that it needed to be corrected and the clarification revised. But despite the fact that the Ministers (MoS) of both the Finance and the Personnel Ministries were in favour of the correction in the right spirit of the 6th CPC recommendations, it was ensured by the lower level babus at the Ministry of Finance that it did not happen. The case was taken up time and again by the DoP&PW but was always rejected by the DoE.

The first correction now comes from the Hon’ble Principal Bench of the AFT which has rightly interpreted the term ‘minimum of pay’ as being the minimum of pay within the pay band and not the minimum of pay band itself. Hopefully the DoE shall see reason and ensure that the dockets of Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals are not burdened with unnecessary litigation on the same point and also see that pre-2006 retirees, both civilian and defence, are ensured equity.

The havoc that the incorrect interpretation had led to can be fathomed by the fact that while the difference between the minimum possible pension of a Captain and a Major was Rs 875 till the 5th CPC, it went down to Rs 250 after the 6th CPC rather than escalating with the increased scales. While on the other hand, the difference of pension between a Major and a Time Scale Lt Col was only Rs 950 till the 5th CPC era and today it has gone up to Rs 11,600 after the 6th CPC. And this my friends had been termed as ‘parity’ by the mandarins at the Finance Ministry !
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:09 PM