Celebrities conferred honorary ranks absent from annual parades

Navy decides not to confer honorary ranks henceforth
Dehradun: In a significant move, the Indian Navy, after sensing the apathy of the honorary-rank holder celebrities towards armed forces, has decided to not to confer anyone with these prestigious ranks henceforth.
Navy has concluded that the celebrities previously conferred with such ranks have remained apathetic towards the armed forces. Chief of Navy staff, Admiral DK Joshi said that the Indian Navy is now not in favour of conferring prestigious titles to the civilians.
Recently, following the footstep of cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, Indian cricket team captain MS Dhoni, who also holds the honorary rank of Lt-Colonel in the Territorial Army, had chosen to give a miss to the Army’s annual parade ceremony. Last year, Dhoni was conferred with the honorary rank of Lt-Colonel in the Territorial Army amid much fanfare.
Tendulkar was inducted into the Air Force as an Honorary Group Captain in September 2010.
The absence of Dhoni and Tendulkar from their respective organisational events had sparked off a debate on whether the celebrities should be conferred such titles or not. The Ministry of Defence had started conferring such titles to the celebrities in a bid to attract the youths for opting defence as their career. But the non-participation and non-commitment of these celebrities towards their duties have caused disappointment which has culminated into the fresh decision of Indian Navy to stop honouring any celebrity with these titles. JPN/Bureau
Navy decides not to confer honorary ranks henceforth MS Dhoni skips Territorial Army Day parade
Comment: Absent from parade means they should be discharged from service.

Babudom holds back pay scale upgrade for armed forces

Babudom holds back pay scale upgrade for armed forces
Ajay Banerjee/TNS
New Delhi, March 28
Away from the media spotlight, the three armed forces — the Army, the Navy and the IAF — are fighting a tough “battle” to get their personnel’s status and pay structure restored that were wrongly lowered in 2008.
The paramilitary forces and civilian officers were pegged at a higher perch than armed forces’ men. This, in government parlance, translates into lower status for the armed forces, lower allowances and a direct impact on the hierarchy with other services.
The “battle” to correct the status for the entire officer cadre, around 70,000 in the three forces, is being “fought” in files amidst mountains of paperwork that moves back and forth between the Finance Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the Cabinet Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). There have been no tangible results over the past three years.
The Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), who is the senior-most among the three Chiefs, has been sporadically reminding the government how the Prime Minister had, in December 2008, approved that the matter needed to be addressed by setting up a high-powered committee. No committee has been set up so far. The three Chiefs, who jointly command more than 15 lakh troops and officers, have been reduced to sending “reminders” to the government. The latest reminder was sent by Admiral Nirmal Verma on February 21 “requesting intervention” of Cabinet Secretary Ajit Seth.
Documents accessed by The Tribune show how it all started when the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations were out in October 2008. The sequence panned out this way: The IAS in the post of Joint Secretary (JS) to the Government of India was made eligible for a grade pay of Rs 10,000 a month on completing 22 years of service. The same was extended to IPS and the Indian Foreign Services.
There was a protest from other group “A” services - paramilitary and other civilian services. The government said it could not have so many posts of Joint Secretary but allowed “non-functional scale upgradation” and placed the protesters on same scale as a Joint Secretary, but after 24 years of service. The grade pay is crucial when matters of status are to be decided. Apart from the money, it sets the status of an officer in the government.
Strangely, the Armed forces are neither classified as group “A” services nor are they termed as “central services” like the IAS or the IPS. In case of the armed forces, Colonels languish at Rs 8,700 grade pay and Brigadiers at Rs 8,900. Only Major-Generals or their equivalent in the IAF and the Navy get the grade pay of Rs 10,000. Only 3 per cent of officers reach that rank and that too after 33-34 years of service.
Status and pay structure were ‘wrongly’ lowered in 2008

In Dec 2008, the PM wanted a high-powered committee to consider the case, but nothing has happened so far.

Forces say it was affecting the morale of their personnel

Files keep on shuttling between one ministry to the other

Services chiefs reduced to sending reminders, seeking justice for their officers
Babudom holds back pay scale upgrade for armed forces

A Matter of Honour

Avoidable row over Army Chief’s date of birth
by Lt-Gen Vijay Oberoi (retd)
The Tribune – 10-01-2012
TRUST the government in general and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in particular to disparage the armed forces’ image at the slightest pretext. In the last few years, this seems to have become a norm. The latest is the way a simple issue like the age of Gen V.K. Singh, the current Army Chief, has been made a highly controversial issue. It has been extensively debated in the media for nearly the entire tenure of the Chief, when it could easily have been sorted out as a matter of routine. Now, there is a sudden urgency to the issue as the MoD has peremptorily rejected the plea of the Chief, as requested by him through the medium of a statutory complaint and there is speculation that the Chief may take the issue to the Supreme Court.

A simple case of when a person was born has been unnecessarily dragged into the public gaze because there are vested interests wanting to bring the high office of the Army Chief to such absurd levels where the issue of when the current incumbent was born has become a subject of speculation by the media and various self-appointed analysts, do-gooders and those wanting to please the leadership to meet their personal ends. Some loyalists of the government have even opined that the Chief should resign! Why should he when the MoD, including the person who presides over it, is to blame for this state of affairs? If any resignation is needed, it should be the persons who have brought this simple issue to this sorry impasse!

The facts are simple and straightforward. There is ample documentary evidence that General Singh, the current Army Chief, was born on May 10, 1951. This includes his birth certificate issued by a military hospital; the date in his school leaving certificate; the date in the records of the UPSC; the records of the military academies from where he passed out — the NDA and the IMA — the records maintained by the personnel branch of the Army, Adjutant-General’s (AG’s) Branch; the records with the battalion to which he reported on commissioning; personal record entries in the numerous annual confidential reports (ACR’s) initiated every year and many more documents.

However, the MoD, for reasons best known to it, persists in ignoring all this evidence and thrusting a date one year earlier — May 10, 1950 — as the date of the birth of the Army Chief. Why? Many have commented that this is being done because the powers that be are more concerned with who the next Chief should be in their reckoning and not the facts of the case. This consistent, albeit moronic, stance of the MoD is not only wrong but is also designed to denigrate the image of the General and show him as a self-seeking individual who wants to remain in office for a few months more!

In this perverted milieu, neither the political leadership nor the bureaucrats of the MoD seem to be concerned with the highly adverse repercussions this whole episode is having on the honour, morale and wellbeing of an institution that continues to be the only one in the country that enjoys the continuing respect and confidence of the populace. It is also the only institution that is the ultimate guarantor of the security of the nation. Consequently, its honour and image need to be preserved at all costs, lest the country suffers on account of acts of omission and commission by a few individuals who seem to be more concerned about their personal interests and not the interests of the nation.

The question of the present Chief’s successor should never have been part of the correctness or otherwise of the case — the date of birth — as it is extraneous to the issue under consideration. The rules relating to the selection of a new Chief are very clear. A panel is drawn up of the four or five seniormost Army commanders or equivalent and the government then selects one. Of course, in the past, the government has been selecting the seniormost Army commander, but that is because the government chooses to adopt the easy and non-controversial option of seniority and not the one of merit, although in the past there have been at least two cases where the seniormost was not selected. Be that as it may, it should never have been the reason for ignoring the mass of documentary evidence that confirms the Chief’s date of birth as May 10, 1951. The government can, in any case, select whoever it wants as the next Chief from the panel. If there is a fear that the seniormost will then retire in the normal course, even this can be pre-empted by giving him an extension as was done in the case of General Bewoor a few decades back.

Many right-thinking persons in the country are wondering why the MoD has created this unseemly controversy when the documentary evidence is clear and incontrovertible. Having served for over 40 years in the Army and having held many appointments at Army Headquarters where dealing with the MoD was a frequent affair, I can venture to outline a few reasons. The foremost is that the MoD and, indeed, the hierarchy of the government want either pliable officers or yes-men to head the services or those who can be pressurised to do their bidding on account of extraneous reasons. Any elaboration is neither needed nor desirable.

An independent-thinking chief of a service, who is likely to take a firm stand when he disagrees with what the government wants, as in his military perception it will harm the military and/or the nation, is a big “no-no” for them. At the heart of such thinking are three aspects.

Firstly, the government has psyched itself to think that there is an ever-present danger of the military, especially the Army, as has happened in many neighbouring and Third World countries. This is despite the fact that no chief or any other officer of any service at any time since our Independence has shown even an inkling of such thinking. Such irrational thinking on the part of the government is not based on any facts or indicators, except the fear in the minds of the political leadership, which is periodically stoked by their so-called advisers for their own personal and obviously limited ends.

Secondly, the hierarchy is happy with the status quo and has little time for a dynamic person who points out faults/inconsistencies and, in bureaucratic parlance, “rocks the boat”! While many civilian officials demonstrate their loyalty by being yes-men/women, irrespective of the merits of each issue, as long as their own backs are covered and personal requirements, dubious or otherwise, are met, the training and make-up of military personnel preclude them from acting in this manner. On a number of issues the present Chief has asserted his independent views and hence the hierarchy perhaps feels that the sooner he disappears from the scene, the better for them! They seem to be least concerned with what is correct, what is legal and what is good for the nation and the Army.

Thirdly, such a hiatus is in consonance with the past actions of the government, where downgrading the military at every opportunity has now become a norm. This is apparently sought to be justified as strengthening “civil control”, but actually the concept seems to be least understood by our political leadership, irrespective of the party affiliations of the government in power at any particular time.

Despite the technicalities advanced by the government, it is obvious that there has been little application of mind on this issue. This happens when bureaucratese supplants thinking and common sense! It is still not too late for the MoD to make amends so that faith in the correctness of the system is restored, at least to some degree.
The writer is a former Vice-Chief of Army Staff.
A Matter of Honour

Armed Forces Tribunal: Legal Headwind

THE JUDICIARY AND MILITARY LAW
The Armed Forces Tribunal, which came into being in August 2009, provides for adjudication of disputes and complaints about service related matters covering all three branches of the military, including hearing appeals arising out of orders, findings and sentences of courts martial. The AFT has original jurisdiction in service matters and appellate jurisdiction in court martial matters. All cases pending before the High Courts were transferred to the AFT. Its each bench comprises a judicial member, who should have served as a judge of the high court and an administrative member who should have served at a position of major general or equivalent or above. This allows the bench to draw upon legal as well as service expertise.

The biggest drawbacks in the AFT Act is that it the Tribunal does not have the powers of initiating civil contempt, implying that it has no means of ensuring that its orders are implemented by the party or organisation concerned. Further, a recent order by the Delhi High Court that appeals against AFT orders would lie with the High Court and not the Supreme Court as mentioned in the Act, has kicked-up a legal debate. Some say that the purpose of the AFT was to reduce the burden of the High Courts and ensure speedy disposal of cases. Some are of the opinion that if the cases go back to the high court, the purpose of the AFT is negated and things would be back to square one. — TNS
Click here to read more

एक शब्द है कि 'कलियुग का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है PBOR '

आदरणीय दिग्गजों,
PBOR: हां! एक अज्ञात, अभी तक, ऐसा नहीं अज्ञात मूल के साथ एक संक्षिप्त नाम. संक्षिप्त यहाँ से अटारी यह मतलब है:
अधिकारी रैंक से नीचे कार्मिक (DoD यूएस)- Personnel Below Officer Rank (US DoD)
अधिकारों के मरीजों विधेयक Patients Bill of Rights
निर्देशयोग्य ब्राउन आउट रीसेट (हार्डवेयर) Programmable Brown Out Reset (hardware)

PBOR अधिकारी रैंक से नीचे व्यक्तिगत के लिए खड़ा है. एक परिचित करा कि `भारतीय सैन्य बिरादरी में कलियुग का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है. एक शब्द है जो गर्व की कुछ बुद्धिमान विनाशकारी दिमाग के लिए मामला है. और जबकि अधिकांश सैनिकों को भी schemers के इन क्षुद्र योजनाओं समझ अनुभवहीन हैं, हम में से कुछ करते हैं.

एक विभाजन बनाया जा रहा है, और उद्देश्य पर अधिकारियों और जेसीओ, एन सी ओ और अन्य रैंकों के बीच. यदि हम अपने सैन्य इतिहास में आजादी से पहले भी और यह दोनों सेवारत और सेवानिवृत्त सैनिकों के रूप में अधिकारियों, जे सी ओ एन सी ओ और अन्य रैंकों को भेजा गया है के बाद, देखो. अचानक एक नया शब्द गढ़ा है. एक राक्षस पैदा हुआ है. नहीं, एक व्यक्ति, बस एक छोटे से संक्षिप्त नाम - PBOR.

मैं स्पष्ट रूप से, जे सी ओ एन सी ओ और अखिल भारतीय दिग्गजों मिलने पर सभी हथियारों IESM 30 सितम्बर 2009 को आयोजित द्वारा आयोजित के समकक्ष रैंक के अवमूल्यन के संबंध में अग्रभूमि करने के लिए इस बिंदु लाने के लिए याद है. हम तथ्य यह है कि जे सी ओ भारत के राष्ट्रपति द्वारा कमीशन हैं और यह एक द्वितीय श्रेणी के राजपत्रित पद है कि सब जानते हैं. PBOR - यह अब एक शब्द के इस दैत्य द्वारा प्रतिस्थापित किया गया है. मैं अतीत में यह सवाल पूछा है और मैं फिर से पूछ रहा हूँ, जहाँ इस शब्द से आया? कैसे यह है कि सेना प्रमुखों है तो आसानी से इसे स्वीकार कर लिया? एक ही बिंदु भी सार्जेंट द्वारा किया गया है कि पहले उठाया. प्रभजोत सिंह (सेवानिवृत्त) पीआईएस, राष्ट्रपति, भारतीय पूर्व सेवाएं लीग, पंजाब और चंडीगढ़ और अन्य ईएसएम भी. लेकिन कोई किसी के द्वारा जमीन पर की गई कार्रवाई की गई है.

आज सैनिक स्तर पर बलों को नवागंतुकों अधिक साक्षर और पहले से जानते हैं. इस वृद्धि की जागरूकता और हर किसी को जानकारी की उपलब्धता का परिणाम है. सौभाग्य से, "बॉस हमेशा सही 'के नारे अब पुरानी हो चुकी है. आज सही सही है और गलत गलत है, और आश्चर्यजनक रूप से कई के लिए, यह अच्छी तरह से हमारे सैनिकों से पहचाना जा सकता है. इस बार फिर उजागर करने का वैसे, मैं विनम्रतापूर्वक जागृत करने के लिए हमारी थलसेनाध्यक्ष, अन्य सेवा प्रमुखों और शीर्ष अधिकारियों के बाकी अनुरोध इन तत्वों को और इस तरह के क्षुद्र रणनीति का उपयोग करने के लिए, जे सी ओ एन सी ओ और अन्य रैंक अवमूल्यन करना छोड़ दिया. इन तत्वों के लिए आदेश में सेना में सम्मान और अनुशासन बनाए रखने के लिए बंद कर दिया जाना चाहिए. शिक्षित दिमाग, नहीं करने के लिए मजबूर हो जाते हैं मजबूर विद्रोही चाहिए.

जेसीओ हमेशा सेना की पीठ की हड्डी है बुलाया गया है. हालांकि हाल के घटनाक्रम के सुझाव है कि वे एक बोझ, एक महत्वहीन, अनावश्यक सेना के हिस्सा हैं. यदि यह मामला है, यह सबसे अच्छा होना करने के लिए बस इन बजाय उन्हें अपमानजनक है और इस तरह की ताकतों को कमजोर रैंकों को समाप्त करता हूं. हाल ही में, कुछ अन्य अप्रत्यक्ष अपमानजनक कार्रवाई मनाया गया है. ऐसा ही एक उदाहरण देना बैंड 3 से मानद रैंक का है जूनियर कमीशन अफसर बैंड करने के लिए स्थान है. यह ज्ञात है कि मानद पद महज एक नियमित वरिष्ठता के आधार पर पदोन्नति नहीं है, लेकिन एक अतिरिक्त साधारण पूरे सैन्य कैरियर के दौरान एक अनुकरणीय प्रदर्शन के आधार पर पदोन्नति है. यह भारत के राष्ट्रपति द्वारा दो प्रतिष्ठित राष्ट्रीय दिन पर ही दी जाती है 15 अगस्त और 26 जनवरी को हर साल यानी और "आयोग के अध्यक्ष" कहा जाता है. IESM अध्यक्ष और कुछ अन्य ईएसएम संगठन है कि थलसेनाध्यक्ष और QMG Br और इस क्रम के साथ इस मुद्दे को गंभीरता से उठाया के लिए धन्यवाद रद्द किया गया. हम सब CAOS जो इस स्थिति के गंभीर रुख अपनाया है और रद्द QMG Br द्वारा जारी आदेश के आभारी हैं.

इस राक्षस 'PBOR' अक्सर कैंटीन सीएसडी, महाराष्ट्र, ई सी एच एस और अन्य समान स्थानों जैसी जगहों पर साइनबोर्ड पर दिख रहा है. यह आगे हमारे सैनिकों के प्रति भेदभावपूर्ण रवैये को दर्शाता है. मेरा दिल डूब गया, जब मैं एक यूनिट दिल्ली कैंटीन में चला सीएसडी कैंटीन में एक 'PBOR' बोर्ड को देखा. वही तो कई अन्य कैंटीन की कहानी है कि मैं दौरा नहीं किया है किया जाना चाहिए. यह इस तरह के बड़े पैमाने पर अपमान देखना चौंकाने वाला है और यह इतना व्यवस्था में गहरी पैठ बना दिया है कि. और भी अधिक परेशान बात यह है कि कोई भी प्रतिक्रिया चुनता है! अच्छा है कि, sirs, बंद करो और इसे रोकना होगा है. एक ही रास्ता या कोई अन्य. पानी काफी लंबे समय और प्रेशर कुकर बम विस्फोटों उबाल लें. हम सभी जानते हैं कि और इसके बहुत सुखद नहीं बात एक होने के लिए.

यह दुखद है कि उनके लिए देश की सीमाओं की रक्षा और उनके मातहत के हितों की रक्षा दिमाग का उपयोग करने के बजाय, वरिष्ठ पदों पर कुछ अधिकारियों ने अपने समय और ऊर्जा इस देश के बहादुर सैनिकों के बीच दरार पैदा करने का उपयोग.

मैं यहाँ एक उल्लेखनीय नौसेना अधिकारी की तर्ज बोली की तरह, "मैं होगा के रूप में छठे वेतन आयोग के अपने अनुभवों को नीचे कलम, मैं दिल्ली में शक्तियों के साथ काफी के लिए स्पष्ट रूप से सांठगांठ के लिए नकाब को सर्वोच्च echelons में लोगों के लिए मेरी अवमानना की कोशिश करेंगे व्यक्तिगत लाभ. " और यह स्पष्ट रूप से दिखाता है कि कैसे सत्ता है कुछ लोगों द्वारा दुरुपयोग किया.

राष्ट्र की, जे सी ओ एन सी ओ और सभी हथियारों के अन्य रैंकों की ओर से, हित में इसलिए, मैं एक बार फिर सब ईएसएम संगठनों ने लेने के लिए संबंधित अधिकारियों के साथ उपरोक्त आपत्ति है और उन्हें पूरी तरह से आग्रह करता हूं और व्यापक अवधि समाप्त अनुरोध " PBOR "से सेना का शब्दकोश. मैं अग्रिम में राष्ट्र के लिए इस सेवा के लिए आप सभी को धन्यवाद.
जय हिंद जय भारत
गर्म का संबंध है,
कामेश्वर पांडेय
उप / मेजर मानद लेफ्टिनेंट (दिग्गज)
शरीर सदस्य शासी
भारतीय ईएसएम आंदोलन

नियमित नायब Subedars की मानद नायब Subedars को पेंशन की सुप्रीम कोर्ट की पुष्टि की अनुदान जो 2006 से पहले सेवानिवृत्तजैसा

सोमवार, 20 दिसंबर, 2010
कि पहले बताया गया 6 केंद्रीय वेतन आयोग की सिफारिशों के आधार पर, सरकार ने एक भुगतान नियमित नायब सूबेदार की Havildars तक के पैमाने पर आधारित पेंशन देने अधिसूचना जारी किया था नायब सूबेदार की मानद रैंक दी गई. हालांकि कहा अधिसूचना केवल एक शर्त है कि यह प्रभाव (वित्तीय) के साथ लागू 2006/01/01 से होगा निहित, यह कहीं नहीं कहा कि यह केवल जो 2006/01/01 के बाद सेवानिवृत्त जो पहले सेवानिवृत्त नहीं है और को लागू नहीं होगी इस कट ऑफ तारीख. यह अभी भी नकारात्मक था, लेकिन संबंधित अधिकारियों है कि यह केवल पोस्ट करने के लिए 2006 के सेवानिवृत्त लागू किया गया था से व्याख्या की जा रही है. सशस्त्र बल न्यायाधिकरण (पीछे) के चंडीगढ़ खंडपीठ Feb 2010 में तथापि नीचे काल्पनिक कट ऑफ तारीख के इस प्रतिबंधात्मक व्याख्या मारा था और फैसला सुनाया कि लाभ सभी मानद नायब Subedars के लिए उपलब्ध सेवानिवृत्ति की तारीख से प्रभावित हुए बिना किया जाएगा.

रक्षा मंत्रालय ने चुनौती दी थी कहा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय में जिस तरह से एक विशेष के आदेश याचिका (SLP) छोड़ो. SLP पिछले जिससे पीछे का आदेश कायम रखने सप्ताह बर्खास्त कर दिया गया.

दिलचस्प है, सेना मुख्यालय, पहले भी कहा अधिसूचना के जारी करने, बाहर रक्षा मंत्रालय, एक तथ्य है जो रिकार्ड पर है कि वहाँ स्पष्ट आदेश दोनों से पहले और बाद 2006 से सेवानिवृत्त लोगों के लिए किया जाना चाहिए की ओर इशारा किया था. लेकिन पुनश्च निदेशालय की बहुत उचित अनुरोध ऐसा लगता बहरा जिससे विषय पर अनावश्यक मुकदमेबाजी के लिए अग्रणी कानों पर गिर गया.Navdeep द्वारा पोस्ट / 4:39 पर मेजर Navdeep सिंह AM
पढ़ें मूल लिंक