Pay and Pain of the Armed Forces Personnel

Volume 29 - Issue 22 :: Nov. 03-16, 2012
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE from the publishers of THE HINDU
THE ARMED FORCES
Pay and pain
PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
Retired and serving defence staff feel that they have been taken for a ride in the matter of salary revision and that the government has been indifferent to their protests.
SUBHAV SHUKLA/PTI

Medals surrendered by retired soldiers at a demonstration demanding “One Rank One Pension” and other welfare measures, in New Delhi on March 14, 2010.
CAN you imagine a situation wherein a major general draws a pension lower than that of a lieutenant colonel, a position that is three ranks lower in the hierarchy? Can you imagine the embarrassment of a havildar who draws a pension less than that of a sipahi, which is a much junior rank? Can you imagine the humiliation of a lieutenant general who draws almost the same pension as a colonel or a brigadier, ranks that are lower, because he has been clubbed in the same pay band? These are not hypothetical situations but real incongruities that have been created with the implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations for armed forces personnel. On July 13, the Prime Minister constituted a committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary Ajit Seth, to look into these and other anomalies in the pay structure of defence personnel vis-a-vis their civilian counterparts after the implementation of the recommendations. Significantly, the committee was made up of bureaucrats, and the government turned down the request from the three services chiefs that they be included in the committee because military concepts and nuances of rank and grade might not be understood by civilian bureaucrats.
The committee submitted its report to the government on August 8. On the basis of its recommendations, the government, on September 24, announced a Rs.2,300-crore package that would, an official release said, help bridge the gap in the pensions of those who retired before and after 2006, the cut-off year for the Sixth CPC recommendations. Besides, the government also announced an enhancement of the family pension and approved dual family pension and the continuation of family pension to mentally and physically challenged wards of defence personnel even after their marriage. But even as the government was patting itself on the back for having met the long-pending demands of defence personnel, including of “one rank one pension” (OROP), serving personnel and ex-servicemen were left seething with rage at what they saw as a betrayal. “This is peanuts. We are aghast. It meets zero aspirations of the armed forces personnel. We were apprehensive of something like this [happening] as the government had refused to include the three services chiefs in the committee. We have been taken for a ride by the government,” said Maj. Gen. (Retd) Satbir Singh, vice-chairman of the Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (IESM).
“This country does not respect the sacrifices made by a soldier who lays down his life for the country. There is no respect for those in uniform who would not think twice before making the supreme sacrifice. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs. The government is bluffing the country and the unsuspecting soldier,” he told Frontline. According to him, the concept of “pay band”, where four or five ranks are clubbed together, is “anarchic” and should have been replaced with a rank pay concept at every level. Besides, defence personnel should be given non-functional upgradation (NFU) like their civilian counterparts (in the Indian Administrative Service), wherein if some people from a batch get promoted to the next rank, those left behind get their salary upgraded despite not being promoted.
“In the armed forces, promotions are basically about rejections as there are limited vacancies. Out of 300 colonels, only 12 become brigadiers, out of these 12, only four become major generals and only one finally makes it to the lieutenant general rank. Those left behind may be equally competent, hence should be compensated with a pay upgrade to keep them on a par with their course mates,” said Brigadiar (Retd) V.A.M. Hussain. But none of these demands was even considered by the committee though the service chiefs had put them on the agenda.
Back to the streets
To protest against the government’s “betrayal”, members of the IESM, who have taken to the streets in the past on these issues, are protesting again. On December 1, they will hold a dharna and once again return their medals. “Over 10,000 medals have been returned by the veterans in protest. The government has refused to take them back. They are still lying in our office. We will once again return these medals to the government,” Maj. Gen. (Retd) Satbir Singh said. He said that all that the government had actually done was to just nominally increase the pension of various ranks by amounts ranging from Rs.400 to Rs.1,500 a month. “The government is misleading the country by exaggerating the benefits,” he said. The IESM has written letters of protest to the Prime Minister demanding justice, with copies to the Defence Minister and the services chiefs.
The sharp reaction from the soldiers has not spurred the government into any sort of action. In fact, the blame for the mess is being shifted between the Defence Ministry and the Cabinet Secretariat. “We have nothing to do with this issue. The announcement was made by the Cabinet Secretariat, and as far as we are concerned, there is no deliberation happening at any level as of now,” a senior Defence Ministry official said. The Army’s public relations officer (PRO) confirmed that the Ministry was not in the loop on this issue as yet. “No, I have no brief on this. We are aware the announcement has caused certain serious concerns and certain issues have emerged but we are not aware whether any deliberations are taking place at any level at all,” said the Army PRO.
Apathy and indifference
Serious anomalies in the pay structure of defence personnel and problems in the implementation of pay commission recommendations have been a point of concern for armed forces personnel since the Fourth CPC was announced. Until 1973, the armed forces had a separate pay commission, and the concept of military pay was prevalent, which gave them a certain advantage over their civilian counterparts. At the time of the Fourth CPC, the armed forces pay commission was merged with the pay commission for Central government employees.
Defence personnel allege the bureaucracy manipulated the implementation of the recommendations in such a way that the status of armed forces personnel was actually degraded. In order to retain the advantage in the salary of armed forces personnel, the CPC had recommended the concept of rank pay, which is an emolument over and above basic pay and perks and which varies from Rs.200 to 1,200, depending on rank. But during implementation, instead of being increased by an amount equivalent to the rank pay, the basic salary of armed forces personnel was reduced by that amount. So even when the rank pay was added to the salary, the net result was that there was no increase in their salaries.
S. SUBRAMANIUM

AFTER GIVING UP THEIR MEDALS at the demonstration, ex-servicemen used their own blood to sign a memorandum to the President listing their demands.
Nobody seemed to have noticed the problem until Major (Retd) A.K. Dhanapalan filed and won a case in the Kerala High Court in 1996-97. As the news spread, many officers filed similar petitions across the country. On the government’s request, all the cases were shifted to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the defence personnel on March 8, 2010, and ordered the government to pay arrears with 6 per cent interest to over 20,000 retired and serving defence personnel. The government, however, sought a modification/recall of the order. In 2010-11, the case came up for hearing 10 times, but the Solicitor General failed to appear each time.
On June 7, 2012, Lt Gen. (Retd) Raj Kadyan, former Deputy Chief of the Army Staff and chairman of the IESM, met Law Minister Salman Khursheed and requested his intervention. The case was finally decided by the Supreme Court on September 4. The government pleaded inability to bear the “extra expenditure” but was reminded by the court that it was not extra expenditure but the just due of the defence personnel that had fraudulently been denied them. Then, the government requested that only litigant officers be given the arrears, which again the Supreme Court rejected, saying all affected officers should be granted the arrears. The court, however, waived the interest up to 2006. Over 20,000 officers who had inadvertently been deprived of their due benefited. “What is disturbing is that even our own organisations have failed to protect our interests,” said Major (Retd) Dhanapalan. The three services chiefs should have ensured that their personnel got their due, but that did not happen.
But what pains the defence personnel the most is that the problem the political leadership kept silent when the problems were brought to light.
“Civilian control over the armed forces is indisputable, but should the political establishment abdicate its responsibility and give the executive unbridled power?” demanded Lt Gen. (Retd) Kadyan. Lt Gen. (Retd) Kadyan and Maj. Gen. (Retd) Satbir Singh said that the strict discipline within the forces was keeping things from going out of control, but this pent-up frustration could prove risky.
The government should stop fiddling with the emotions of soldiers, said many serving armed forces personnel. The government, they warn, would do well not to mess with things like the salary, pensions and hierarchy of soldiers because for them these things are not mere fiscal matters but form an integral part of their sense of dignity. Is anybody in the government listening?
Pay and Pain of the Armed Forces Personnel

OROP: SCPC anomalies partly addressed

What is One Rank One Pension?
One Rank One Pension would be clear if we look at one Army family that had two generations serving the nation at two different periods for the same length of time in the same capacity as Havaldar, and yet earning two different pensions. Rajesh Kumar, an Army man, lives just about 200 kilometre from the capital in the village of Beri. A small family of three, his father too served in the Indian Army. Havaldar Zile Singh is the veteran of two wars. He spent 16 years 27 days in the Army, retiring in 1977. Meanwhile, Havaldar Rajesh Kumar saw no wars but served in several conflict zones. He spent nearly the same time – 16 years 10 months – in the force and retired in 2009.
Roughly the same time in service, roughly the same hardships, but the father earns Rs 7,304 as pension, while Rajesh earns Rs 10,736. It’s this difference, between a pre-96 retiree and a post-2006 retiree that is at the heart of the conflict and the demand for One Rank One Pension.
The SCPC Anomalies has been partly rectified which has been announced as meeting "One Rank One Pension" goal...read the Government's twisted announcement...
One pension one rank announcement by Center
Tuesday, September, 25 2012 - 10:29
NEW DELHI: The government approved a Rs.2,300 crore per year (about $430 million) proposal to fix the anomalies in the pay and pension of 1.3-million strong defence personnel, 2 million ex-servicemen and another 400,000 military widows, in a bid to assuage their hurt over the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations implemented in 2008.
"The union cabinet has approved the recommendations of the committee headed by cabinet secretary (Ajit Seth) for benefits to ex-servicemen on four issues. The financial implications of the improvements made as per the cabinet decision on the four items are broadly estimated at Rs.2,300 crore per annum," a government official said here soon after the cabinet meeting.
"These are expected to largely meet the demands of the defence pensioners on 'one rank - one pension' (OROP)," the official said.
The approved proposals would be implemented "from a prospective date and payment made accordingly," the official added.
The committee, set up on July 13 this year on orders of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, submitted its report on Aug 8 this year.
The government had tasked the committee to look into issues of defence personnel such as common pay-scale for in-service junior commissioned officers and other ranks and initial pay-fixation of lieutenant colonels, colonels, and brigadiers of the army and their equivalents in the other two armed forces among others.
Its remit also included ex-servicemen's issues such as OROP (that all retired officers of the same rank and service tenure should get the same pension), enhancement of family pension, dual family pension, and family pension for mentally and physically challenged children of armed forces personnel on marriage.
On OROP, the demand of the defence forces and ex-servicemen associations is that uniform pension be paid to the personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension be automatically passed on to the pre-hike pensioners.
The difference in the pension in the same rank occurs on account of the number of increments earned by the defence personnel in that rank. There is also a difference between the pensioners who retired before and after Jan 1, 2006 when the sixth pay commission recommendations were made applicable retrospectively belonging to a particular rank.
The UPA government, since 2004, has on two previous occasions taken decisions to narrow the gap in pensions of personnel who retired at different points of time, particularly those belonging to the ranks of junior commissioned officers (JCOs) and soldiers (other ranks or ORs).
On the issue of OROP, the cabinet approved bridging the gap in the pension of pre- and post-Jan, 1, 2006 JCO/OR retirees by determining the pension of pre-Jan 1, 2006 retirees on the basis of notional maximum for ranks and groups across the three services as in the case of post-Jan. 1, 2006 retirees.
With regard to family pension, the pre-Jan 1, 2006 commissioned officers, honorary commissioned officers, JCOs/ORs would be hiked based on "the minimum of the fitment table" instead of the minimum of the Pay Band. It was also approved to provide 60 per cent of pension to families of retired JCOs/ORs after their death post-retirement. To retired JCO/OR families getting enhanced family pension or special family pension would be entitled for 100 per cent of the personnel's pension.
Dual family pension too would be allowed to those personnel, who had civilian service too post military service retirement.
Family pension will be continued to mentally/physically challenged children of defence personnel even after their marriage.
One pension one rank announcement by Center

Rank Pay: Mark of Honour- Maj AK Dhanapalan

ARMY PENSION: (Rank Pay)
A mark of honour By Rekha Dixit
Story Dated: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:43 hrs IST
Defence officers win an epic battle over rank pay

Major A.K. Dhana-palan (retd) at his home in Alappuzha - Photo by Jackson Arattukulam
It was 1987. General K. Sundarji was in Pune, briefing senior Southern Command officers on the Fourth Pay Commission, when a lowly captain asked an uncomfortable question. He wanted to know why his basic had actually gone down, after the rank pay was introduced. There was a buzz in the room. The chief told the captain to meet him separately, he would explain the issue.
“I didn't seek private audience later. I was too junior,” chuckles Major A.K. Dhanapalan (retd). “I actually had no business rubbing shoulders with senior officers that day, except that I was operating the computer for the conference. But I hadn't got it wrong. I was right, bang on.” The Engineers officer chanced upon the anomaly when he was asked to work on preparing the pay fixation of defence civilian setups, like Military Engineering Service, on the Fourth Pay Commission template.
“That year, the commission introduced a rank pay for defence officers between the ranks of captain to brigadier, which was Rs 200 at captain rank. But what it actually did was deduct the same amount from the basic pay and give it as rank pay. Since all emoluments are linked to basic, not only was there no net gain, we were actually losing out,” Dhanapalan explains. He redid his calculations several times till he was convinced the government had tricked the defence officers.
“I wanted to take the matter to court, but I was in Pune and the High Court in Mumbai. Then, I got posted to Udhampur, and the High Court was in Jammu. Next, I was transferred to Port Blair....” Dhanapalan finally got his opportunity on being posted to Kochi in 1995. His office was close to the Kerala High Court; it was time to make that move.
His colleagues were shocked at his daring. His advocate, too, was not convinced. The court, however, understood and ruled that the Union of India should pay the rank pay arrears and an interest of 6 per cent. The matter went on appeal and a division bench of the court upheld the judgment. The government took the matter to the Supreme Court but had to eat humble pie when, in 2006, the court rejected its plea.
He did not stop there. The arrears, while welcome, were not his goal. His aim was to alert defence personnel not to be lulled into complacency by the “you are being looked after” attitude of the establishment. So he photocopied the verdict and posted them to officers and clubs he had addresses of. “That itself cost me a bomb,” he recalls. One such letter reached Colonel B.K. Sharma.

Sharma was the first officer to do motorcycle daredevilry in the Republic Day parade in 1978. Post-retirement, he realised it was daredevilry time again, this time to take on the government for which he had once fought. He circulated copies of the judgment in canteens and clubs. Knowing there was strength in numbers, some retired officers got together and registered Retired Defence Officers' Association (RDOA) and filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in 2007. Meanwhile, across India, officers were litigating for the same demand, and all the cases were finally clubbed together before a division bench of Justices Markandey Katju and R.M. Lodha.
“We had not bargained for the level of resistance from the government. Instead of conceding gracefully, they tried repeatedly to stonewall us,” says Sharma. When in 2010, the bench ruled that it agreed with the reasoning of the Kerala High Court that rank pay be paid retrospectively, with 6 per cent interest, the government filed a transfer petition before a bench of three judges. The three service chiefs recommended to the solicitor general to withdraw the litigation and honour the judgment. The defence ministry, however, pressured the chiefs to withdraw their written communique. In a rare show of defiance, the chiefs stood their ground. The RDOA had to file an RTI to confirm the service chiefs' stance on the matter.
“They used every tactic, from pleading inability to meet the financial burden to the solicitor general not appearing in court, due to which proceedings would get postponed,” recalls Sharma. “This summer, when the court fixed the last hearing day on September 4, we actually wrote to the law ministry that so many officers had already died in the last 26 years. Delaying justice was not fair, so either they withdraw the special leave petition or ensure the solicitor general be present in court on September 4, 2012.”
The final hearing was a marathon session. The government made a last ditch plea that interest be paid only to litigants. The court refused. However, it reduced the date of calculation of interest from 1986 to 2006 at 6 per cent, ordering that it be paid within 12 weeks. “This is a big victory,” says RDOA advocate Aishwarya Bhati. “It gives a shot in the arm to all other cases that the defence personnel have been fighting.”
According to RDOA, over 45,000 officers, retired and serving, will benefit, and it will also impact pensions and widow pensions. The amounts, Sharma calculates, will range from around 06 to 01 lakh, depending on length of service and rank held. The government claims it is a burden of 01,600 crore.
“It isn't about money. We fought on principle and we have won our prestige,” says Sharma, but admits being flooded with congratulatory calls, all of them with the suffix, “Mujhe kitna milega? (How much will I get?)”
How did only Dhanapalan get wise to the anomaly? “Faujis are great at protocol, discipline and a hundred other virtues. Studying payslips isn't among those, unfortunately. They usually don't question what goes to the bank, or do the sums themselves,” says Dhanapalan.
There are many other issues with defence pay and entitlements, but defence personnel say the government is changing tactics. Instead of risking its decisions being challenged in court, it now procrastinates. The Sixth Pay Commission anomalies are an example. Last heard, a four-member committee headed by the cabinet secretary was appointed to look into the issue. Then Navy chief Nirmal Verma had expressed anguish at no defence representative being on the committee.
Meanwhile, the man who ignited the spark sits back with a smile. “The government paid arrears only till 1996. I decided not to contest it, as by then, RDOA took up the fight.” There are fears the government might give arrears only till 1996 to others, too. “My mission is accomplished. No longer will faujis take at face value what is given to them. They have learnt to read between lines, ask, and fight for their dues,” says Dhanapalan, getting ready to go to the temple.
Defence officers win an epic battle over rank pay
PVSM?
Doesn’t the defence fraternity of both the retired and the serving strongly feel that Major Dhanapalan and Col BK Sharma should be honoured with PVSM? What Major Dhanapalan has done for the rights of the defence personnel, no one else even of the rank of General has done. Both of them really performed Param Vashisht Seva i.e. the service of the highest order that too after his retirement.

Communal Twist to the Appointment of Army Chief?

With no prejudice
M.G. Devasahayam : Indian Express Sat May 19 2012, 03:36 hrs
‘Four out of the seven petitioners are from Tamil Nadu and have nothing to do with the communal conundrums of North India. And so the mud will not stick’
Shekhar Gupta’s article on the “communal twist” in the PIL filed in the Supreme Court by seven “prominent citizens” (‘With prejudice’, National Interest, IE, April 28) is far from the truth and is unfortunate. I, being one of the petitioners, owe an explanation as to the facts to put the record straight.
In this context some paragraphs from the writ petition have been quoted. These passages are mere narrations of events that were neither rebutted by the government through any counter-affidavit nor during “preliminary” arguments by the Attorney General or Solicitor General in the Supreme Court. Nowhere in the entire petition is there any “communal twist” except mentioning some names in connection with the events narrated. The petitioner’s counsel did not even raise this issue during her arguments.
Tweaking the words “orders from above” the article insinuates that “above” meant Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and he is portrayed as communal. Nothing can be more absurd. My acquaintance with Manmohan Singh dates back to the mid-1970s, when I was administrator of Chandigarh and I know him rather well to even remotely suggest that he is communal! By the way, is the PM the only person “above” Defence Minister A.K.Antony?
One wonders as to why Operation Bluestar, that had no relationship with the issues raised in the PIL, has been given such a long narration. Nevertheless, this being a sensitive matter I would share some of my own information and that obtained from sources that were part of the operation. The fact is that Operation Bluestar was neither led by the then Major General K.S. Brar nor Lt Gen R.S. Dyal. The “strike force” was a bizarre khichadi comprising of two infantry battalions (26 Madras and 10 Guards) under a nominated brigade commander (D.V. Rao) of the Madras Regiment. There were no Sikh troops in this strike force.
In total contravention of the army’s operational ethics, these battalions were taken out of their command set up and put under Brigadier Rao as an ad hoc arrangement. Major General Brar’s role was just that 10 Guards was part of 9 Inf Div of which he was GOC. What is worse, Lt Gen K. Sundarji as army commander, Western Command, took direct control of the operation by-passing the Jalandhar-based 11th Corps commanded by Lt Gen Gowri Shankar. Such blatant cannibalisation of the fighting forces and the general officer’s keenness to please Prime Minister Indira Gandhi led to utter chaos and unacceptably huge carnage and extensive damage to the sacred Amritsar Golden Temple.
Be that as it may, let us see the core reasons that prompted the petitioners to knock at the door of the Supreme Court. To start with, it was the defence ministry’s manipulations to cut short the tenure of General V.K. Singh and the premature announcement of Lt Gen Bikram Singh as the next army chief without finally resolving the date of birth issue of the former. Documents in the MS Branch prove that selection boards for the promotion of V.K. Singh to the select ranks of Brigadier (September 1996) Major General (October 25 2001 and September 18/19 2003) and Lieutenant General (September 30 2005) reflect his DoB as May 10, 1951. But ignoring all these, the issue was raked up by former COAS General J.J. Singh with an ulterior motive to cut short the present army chief’s tenure.
In its order dated February 10 2012, the Supreme Court had neither endorsed the entry in the UPSC application form (May 10 1950), nor upheld the so-called “commitment” given by V.K. Singh regarding his DoB. Also, contrary to wide publicity, the court had taken no position on the general’s DoB and left it to the “Union of India” to recognise one of the two DoBs (1950 or 1951). It had also allowed the government to withdraw the operative part (merits) of its December 30, 2011, order in which it had rejected Gen V.K. Singh’s statutory complaint seeking recognition of 1951 as his year of birth. With the merit part withdrawn, the original statutory complaint stands revived. MoD since then had not passed any legally speaking order recognising the actual DoB of General V.K. Singh before announcing his successor.
The next issue was J.J. Singh’s plan to eliminate others from amongst Lt Gen Bikram’s contemporaries from the race. The main target was Brigadier Ravi Arora, gold medalist, senior in IC number but younger in age to Bikram Singh. This has been explained in detail in the PIL. More important grounds were the grave allegations pending against the army chief designate. One is his alleged involvement in the fake-encounter death of a 70-year-old man, and thereafter branding him as a terrorist to achieve personal advantages, and this matter pending in writ petition in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court seeking a commission of inquiry. The second case related to events in the Congo Republic when in 2007-08 then Major General Bikram Singh was the Eastern Division Commander of the UN peacekeeping force. Indian troops under his command had been accused of mass sexual abuse. Sixty-eight cases, including the siring of illicit children, had been reported, and the matter is being investigated by a court of inquiry at Meerut. When P.J. Thomas was appointed as Central Vigilance Commissioner, and the Centre for Public Litigation challenged it, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar declared the CVC as India’s “integrity institution” and not only struck down the appointment but had castigated the government for its lack of respect for institutional integrity. Thomas had just one corruption case against him for which an application to seek his prosecution was pending.
The primary responsibility of the Indian Army is to preserve national interests and safeguard the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threat by deterrence or by waging war. In the event our army is as important an “integrity institution” as the Central Vigilance Commission, if not more.
The petitioners therefore contended that as there were two serious cases pending against Lt Gen Bikram Singh, it will not be prudent to appoint him as the next COAS. Drawing a parallel with the P.J. Thomas case, where the Supreme Court had overturned his appointment on the grounds that at the time of approval by the ACC an application was pending to prosecute the officer, the plea in the PIL was for applying the same yardstick in the matter of the appointment of the next COAS. Individuals and names mentioned in the PIL were only incidental.
The petitioners had hoped that the apex court will reiterate the well-reasoned verdict of its own larger bench and uphold the institutional integrity of the Army that is being ravaged by a well entrenched coterie. Instead our petition was summarily disposed off with these crisp words: “We have carefully gone through the averments made in the writ petition, the materials placed on record by the petitioners and the original file concerning appointment of the next Chief of Army Staff. We do not find any justifiable ground to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is clarified that dismissal of writ petition shall not affect the legal proceeding or matter pending in the court or any other forum.”
The dismissal is based on a clearance report given by the Intelligence Bureau. One wonders whether IB has jurisdiction to give such clearance on matters pending before a high court and a court of inquiry, particularly so when the Supreme Court has allowed these proceedings to continue. It is in this context that the perilous implication of the court order needs to be understood. These twin “Swords of Damocles” hanging over the head of the army chief severely compromise the institutional integrity of the army. Is this what our valiant army deserves? All that the petitioners wanted to do was to avoid such horrid embarrassment and restore the integrity of the institution. For this “communal” charges are being hurled at us.
As to this “communal mudslinging” it will be pertinent to point out that four out of the seven petitioners — Admiral Ramdas, N. Gopalaswamy, Sam Rajappa and myself — are from Tamil Nadu and have nothing to do with the communal conundrums of North India. And so the mud will not stick. We have done what we have to do with pride and without any prejudice.
The writer is a former bureaucrat
With no prejudice

Give all benefits to ex-short service commission officers

Give all benefits to ex-short service commission officers: Court
Pritam Pal Singh , Sep 05, 2011, 20:03 pm IST
Give all benefits to ex-short service commission officers: Court
New Delhi, In a ruling that will benefit Short Service Commission (SSC) officers in the armed forces, the Delhi High Court has said that those officers who are forced to leave before completing their tenure due to disability and poor health are eligible for all medical and insurance benefits.

The court was hearing the petition of Sagrika Singh, who joined as SSC officer in the Indian Army Feb 2, 1999, and was attached with the Army Medical Corps but was denied medical and insurance benefits on the ground that she had not completed her tenure. Her SSC stint was cut short by kidney failure.

Directing the ministry to provide all benefits to the petitioner, the court, in its 23-page order, said: “Mandamus is issued to the defence ministry to pay the sum assured to the petitioner…and needless to state the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest on the said sum (Rs.10 lakh) at the rate of eight percent per annum reckoned from a date three months after the petitioner raised a demand.”

The division bench consisting of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Rajiv Shakdher said: “The Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF) was established with the approval of the government. The main object of the fund is to cater to the socio-economic needs of the army personnel and their families by providing insurance cover.”

The court pointed out that the objective of the AGIF disability scheme was to provide financial benefits to individuals whose service was cut short due to invalidation or release on medical grounds before completion of the terms of engagement or service applicable to that rank.

“The terms of engagement of the petitioner required the petitioner to serve for 14 years subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility conditions. The only reason which resulted in the tenure of engagement being cut short was petitioner’s failure” to be in the required medical condition, said the court in its judgment Aug 29, made available to IANS Sep 3.

The petitioner said that after she joined the service she was granted extension by another five years. She became eligible to be considered for further extension in service by another four years, but prior to expiry of the period of five years, it was detected that one kidney of the petitioner was malfunctioning.

In the year 2009 upon examination by a medical board it was opined that the petitioner had a malfunctioning kidney and thus she was placed in permanent low medical category with disability assessed at 100 percent.

Since one condition of grant of extension in service was that the person ought not to be in low medical category, the petitioner was denied extension and released from service.

The bench observed: “Enrolled in the Indian Army as a SSC officer, the initial term of her engagement was of five years and the petitioner had a right to be considered for extension in service, firstly for a term of five years and thereafter for another term of four years. Petitioner’s right was to be considered for extension in service. The army authorities were thus under an obligation to consider the said right of the petitioner.”
Give all benefits to ex-short service commission officers
Related reading: SC boost for women officers in Army

CNN IBN 30 Minutes: One Rank One Pension

Saturday and Sunday, CNN-IBN ran a programme on their network which is definitely worth seeing. Those of you who have seen it know why I am saying this. If you have missed it and still would like to see it, please see it here: Click
Cdr CK Sharma (Retd)

On '30 Minutes' we look at the difference in pension between pre-1969 retire and post 2006 retire in the Army
30 Minutes: one rank one pension

Is AFT a Judicial Forum?

AFT not a truly judicial forum, rules Delhi HC
Empowers HCs to review tribunal orders by Vijay Mohan, Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, April 27
In a ruling that has wide ramifications on adjudication of service disputes pertaining to the Armed Forces personnel, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the High Courts are constitutionally empowered to review decisions by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

The Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 had stipulated that appeals against AFT orders would lie directly with the Supreme Court. “The AFT, being manned by personnel appointed by the Executive, albeit in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, cannot be said to be truly a judicial review forum as a substitute to HCs that are constitutional courts and the power of judicial review, being a basic feature of the Constitution, under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution is unaffected by the constitution of the AFT,” a division bench, comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Suresh Kait ruled yesterday.

“Further, Article 227(4) of the Constitution takes away only the administrative supervisory jurisdiction of the HCs over the AFT and does not impact their judicial supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, decisions by the AFT would be amenable to judicial review by HC under the Article 226 as also the Article 227 of the Constitution,” the bench further ruled. Tribunals can perform a “supplemental as opposed to a substitutional” role vis-a-vis the HCs, the bench held.

The AFT was set up to exercise an appellate jurisdiction with respect to orders, findings or sentences of court martial and exercises original jurisdiction with respect to service disputes. The purpose behind it was to provide a dedicated forum for quick redressal of grievances to the armed forces personnel as disposal of cases in the high court took a long time.

The bench held that the right to file an appeal before the SC created as mentioned in the Act meant that the right to appeal to the Supreme Court is not a matter of right, but a matter of discretion to be exercised by the AFT. Further, the discretion of the AFT is limited only to a point of law of general public importance and not every point of law that may have arisen during proceedings.

The HC’s order has also kicked up a debate in legal circles. Some lawyers say that it would be easier for litigants to file appeals against the AFT orders, as it was procedurally, psychologically, financially and physically easier and faster to approach a HC than the SC. Others are of the opinion that if appeals against the AFT orders lie with the HC, then the very purpose of setting up the Tribunal is negated as the HC would again be burdened with additional cases, besides further lengthening the judicial process and disposal time.
AFT not a truly judicial forum, rules Delhi HC

Appeal for Grant of Approved Pension for Majors and Equivalents

From: Lt Cdr(Retd) Avtar Singh
To: Her Excellency, Smt Pratibha Patil, The President of India
SUB: Please give us what sixth CPC has recommended and what Government has approved
Your Excellency,
1. For a moment I drop the just demand of ex servicemen regarding One Rank One pension
2. I am also willing to swallow the unjust difference of Rs 12000 in six cpc as against Rs 2000 per month in fifth cpc between the rank of major and Lt Col.
3. All that I am projecting to you is that I should be paid what six cpc has recommended and what the government has approved under a resolution.
4. The sixth cpc has recommended that under the modified parity agreed to by the government the pension of a retired individual should not be less than 50% of the minimum of pay in pay band corresponding to the rank that an individual had retired provided the individual has served for 33 yrs
5. As per above the pension of an officer of the rank of Major/equivalent should not be less than Rs 18205 provided he has completed 33 yrs of service.
6. As against above my pension has been fixed Rs 14464 (Rs 3741 pm less)
7. Your Excellency, in this case:
(a) The six cpc is not at fault and also
(b) The government has done its job but
(c) The Bureaucrats at the helm of the affairs have become a road block
8. Aggrieved and Cases Instituted
(a) About 200 officers
(b) Under sixteen petitions
(c) At Principal Bench of AFT Delhi and two benches at Chandigarh have petitioned against the injustice meted out to them.
(d) All the above petitions have been heard and admitted under three different judgments.
(e) None of the petition has been disallowed and
(f) As against three months given to the government six months have past and yet
(g) The orders have not been implemented
9. I humbly request your honour to direct the concerned official to see reasons and implement the decision without further delay
10. Finally I wish to state that I am 78 yrs old and number of my colleagues older than me are awaiting justice in their fag end of life
11. I am enclosing list of litigants along with this submission
Yours truly,
AVTAR SINGH
LT CDR (RETD)

The Armed Forces Tribunal throws up its hands

Please read the below trail mail. (Regarding The Hindu news of 02 Feb 11)
So, what does one do? Earlier in Nov 2010, Justice Mathur of the Principal Bench AFT, Delhi (de-facto boss of all AFTs) had said at a seminar that of 4000 cases filed by veterans since the inception of AFTs a year ago, in 3600 cases judgements issued have been favourable to the veterans and against the Govt but, sadly, the Govt has not acted upon even one of the judgements. He had felt that the AFTs would serve no purpose unless it is given more teeth - power to get its judgements implemented. It is a sad story, every way.
Brig VA Subramanyam (Retd)

The Hindu 02 Feb, 2011 New Delhi by J. Venkatesan
New Delhi: The Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi, has expressed its anguish over lack of powers to get its orders executed. Many a time it has found itself helpless as its orders are not being implemented by authorities, said the Tribunal.In a brief order, the Tribunal, comprising Chairperson Justice A.K. Mathur and M.L. Naidu, said it had issued notice to all authorities including the Defence Secretary but to no avail. “The orders are at the mercy of the authorities; if they wish, they can execute and if they do not wish, they may not. This is a serious thing which has already been taken up with the government, but without any result.” No provision in Act

The Tribunal said: “We feel that we are handicapped because we do not have powers to issue civil contempt to get the orders of the Tribunal executed. It is sad that the power of civil contempt has not been given in the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. It may be an error or omission or may be deliberate… We feel helpless in the matters.”The only power to prosecute a person for criminal contempt had been given under Section 19.

“It is a very strange state of affairs and we are sorry to say that we cannot help the petitioner [in this case in which the order passed on January 25, 2010 has not been implemented so far].”

The Tribunal had ordered the Army to reinstate Fayaz Khan, after quashing a summary court martial that dismissed him from service as a religious teacher in 25 Rajput Regiment on charges of having links with Islamic terror groups.

Pointing out that the lack of civil contempt power was greatly hampering its functioning, the Tribunal said a recommendation had been sent to the government for making an amendment in the Act. The Tribunal granted leave to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court, which could give proper directions to make it functional and effective.
Armed Forces Tribunal throws up its hands

Maj Navdeep Singh clarifies...
AFT has powers of contempt and can take coercive action in case of non-implementation of its orders: Kerala High Court

Pension of Majors Stonewalled?

Dear Brigadier Kamboj,
Please promulgate the folowing in RMS Blog
The AFT principal Bench Delhi in open court on 14 Sep 2010 passed judgement on our petition OA 24/2010.
The honourable Tribunal was pleased to admit our petition and had directed to the respondent to pay us a minimum of Rs 18205 per month as pension. The honourable court has also stated that this exercise should be completed in as far as possible in three months.
The period of three months has passed and the government has not issued order till date,
I propose to wait till end December 2010 and shall then start my further action.
I shall keep you all in loop.
Feel free if you have suggession to guide me.
Regards,
Avtar Singh

OROP issue: IESM to deposit medals to Prez

Respected Sir/Madam,
The following report -- released by the United News of India news agency on November 24, 2010 -- is for your kind perusal. I request you to further publicise the issue.
With regards
Abhi

OROP issue: IESM to deposit medals to Prez By Abhijit C Chandra
Bhopal, Nov 24 (UNI)
There was a time when the proud mantle of defending the nation adorned their able shoulders but today they are fighting for their due against their own country's government.
A delegation of ex-servicemen (ESM) under the banner of the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) will go to Rashtrapati Bhavan on Sunday to deposit medals and submit a memorandum inked in blood to the Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces Pratibha Devisingh Patil.
This will be preceded by a ESM rally at Jantar Mantar from 1000 to 1400 hrs. IESM Chairman Lieutenant-General (Retd) Raj Kadyan led a similar delegation on August 22 but the President did not receive the delegation, which returned with the medals.
"It is pertinent to mention that the all-party Standing Committee on Defence's firm recommendations to grant One Rank One Pension have not been accepted by the Centre," said IESM Vice-Chairman Major-General (Retd) Satbir Singh.
The latest rejection is of a set of recommendations by 31 members of Parliament headed by Congress MP Satpal Maharaj on May 7 and repeated on August 27 whereas Defence Minister A K Antony recently quoted -- in Parliament -- the recommendations of July 2009 by a bureaucrats' committee.
"The larger question here is the civilian control of the Armed Forces, which actually means control by elected representatives and not bureaucrats. It is common knowledge that ESM have been forced to launch a movement to express anguish as a result of injustice heaped on them," the veteran claimed.
The bureaucracy has all along been treating the military unfairly, he alleged while adding that resentment is increasing each passing day. Downgrading of status and an "unfair" compensation package of emoluments by the Sixth Central Pay Commission further intensified resentment.
"We have also decided to enlist support of other social segments, all political parties, MPs, chief ministers and legislators and have written to them regarding demands and sought their help to raise these issues in Parliament to press the Centre for early acceptance," Maj-Gen Singh explained.
The Supreme Court has taken the historic step of constituting the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission that includes General (Retd) Ved Prakash Malik -- of Operation Vijay fame -- and former Vice-Chief of Army Staff Lieutenant-Gen Vijay Oberoi.
"However, the Commission is only a recommendatory body and not an adjudicator body. Hence, it is open to the Centre to accept or not to accept its recommendations," Maj-Gen Singh pointed out.
The Armed Forces Tribunal decided in ESM's favour in 90 per cent of 4,000 cases that came up since last year but the Centre has not implemented even one judgement, he added.

Armed Forces Tribunal Toothless

Forces tribunal toothless, says bench head
Ajay Sura, TNN, Nov 21, 2010, 07.15am IST
CHANDIGARH: The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) is a toothless body. And none other than head of its principal bench, Justice (retd) AK Mathur, says it.

Justice Mathur, who was in Chandigarh on Saturday on the occasion of completion of one year of the Chandigarh bench of AFT, said that they are striving for execution of orders passed by them against army authorities after deciding the petitions of aggrieved defence personnel.

He also informed that in last one year the tribunal has decided around 4000 cases of the armed forced personnel and orders in 90 per cent of these cases were against the authorities, but they, specially army, is not bothering to comply with the tribunal's orders.

The revelation of the head of country's highest military tribunal are startling in view of the recent orders of the Supreme court for constituting Forces Grievances Redressal Commission with powers 'recommendatory in nature'. The revelations of Justice Mathur put a question mark over the fate of the upcoming commission.

While delivering lecture on the occasion, Justice Mathur stated that he had written to the Union government for empowering the tribunal with execution powers and to hear summary court martial proceedings so that the real purpose of constituting AFT can be served. He said, "we want powers to make pressure on the authorities to redress the grievances of the soldiers and to remove the arbitrariness in the authority's decisions".

Justice Mathur also informed that despite tribunal orders widows are struggling to get family pension, but the army brass is biggest hindrance in granting execution powers for the AFT.

"Attitude of the army has to change, as the 'generals' should understand that tomorrow they may have to knock the AFT door for their grievances," Mathur added.

Justice Mathur also recounted various instances where he had to face difficulties to get a portion of building from the defence authorities for setting up of the regional benches of the tribunal.
Forces tribunal toothless, says bench head - The Times of India
Comments

Singhal (Ghaziabad) 21 hrs ago (08:08 PM)
Why will the generals be comfortable with AFT ? The Generals think that they are feudal lords and they have god given mandate to do whatever with their fiefs and serfs. That apart, it will be worthwhile to collect data showing how many verdicts of AFT went against actions of uniformed officers and how many against actions/ decisions of civilian officers e.g. CDA or MOD. Only that will tell us the extent of the problem.

Adil (Delhi) 5 hrs ago (12:23 PM)
India is in a mess. The bureaucracy has buggered everything, and controls everything. We need to urgently flush the IAS/IPS/IRS/IDAS/etc etc down the toilet before they utterly ruin this nation. Really, they are nothing more than the STEAL frame of the nation!

Who will negate the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission?

To fight against injustice is to WORSHIP GOD.
So kindly be there at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, on 28 Nov 10, from 10.00 AM to 3.00 PM
To fight against Injustice being done to Defence Services of India.

From: Carl Gomes
Sent: 20 November 2010 18:01
Subject: Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission
Do please note that nothing will change as long as the present Cabinet Secretary (Chandrasekhar) and Expenditure Secretary (Sushma Nath) are still around.
They are the ones responsible for our present predicament and will block every move we make. They are responsible for every counter petition filed by the Govt.
The CS has got a second extension (till 30 June 2011) and the ES is also there till May 2011.
On the issue of inclusion of other officers in the AFGRC, I suggest knowledgeable officers should be included. Alan O'Leary, who was fighting all cases (often against the COSC) as Chairman of the inter-services pay commission cell has recently retired and settled in Bangalore. In fact if there is anyone who should be credited for getting Lt Cols into PB4, it is Alan - but these are guys who work behind the scenes and do not come into the limelight - hence their efforts are unsung.
He could be roped in or consulted as he is fully au fait with all nuances of the 6CPC..
Kind Regards
Carl H Gomes

Commission for the Armed Forces: Readers Responses

Ref: SC wants commission for armed forces personnel
16 Nov 2010,
Dear Col Sharma ,
I am thrilled at the success that your efforts have resulted in , in bringing into being the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission with even the first members having been nominated .
As a very senior veteran , Born 18 Sep 1919 ,commissioned on 5 Oct 1942 , retired on 17 oct 1968, I take the liberty of sending you and the members of your team , my blessings for continued success in all your laudable endeavours . I congratulate you and the members of your team as well my friend Brig Kamboj , for having given your success story the publicity it deserves
Yours sincerely ,
Col M S Krishnamoorthy (Retd) (Member IESM, One of the Founder Members of IESL)
Dear Chander,
Constitution of a commission is a good development, but it is just the first step.
The more important is the projection of services case before the Commission. A lot of facts and figures will have to be worked out, considering issues of early retirement, extremely limited promotions ( as a service imperative ) and the X factor.
All these will have to be translated into monetary terms and compensated. I presume a committee will be formed by the IESM, which must take help from all those who have been dealing with this issue.
I am presently in the U.S. and will return only in Feb, 2011 and as such can be of little assistance.
Anyway there is enough talent and skill available for the task.
With regards and best wishes.
Harwant. (Lt Gen Harwant Singh, Former DCOAS)

Dear Colonel Sharma,
As I see it, what you, RDOA and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have achieved by legal means is something revolutionary. By ordering a Commission to be formed (with threat of 'suo moto' formation, if the Executive remains unheeding), the Supreme Court has not only indicted the present Government for mis-governance and incompetence in Veteran affairs, but in a way, taken over governance .
Heartiest congratulations and our admiration for your achievement. This is what our various ESM organizations have long been trying so hard for. It should be interesting as a citizen, to see how "The Empire Strikes Back", as try they will ! Regrettably, our polity has a surplus of expediency, but a deficit of a sense of justice and a complete lack of grace.
With best wishes and regards to you and RDOA and good luck in your further endeavours.
Sincerely,
Rajendra Prakash,
Maj Gen (Retd).

ARMED FORCES GRIEVANCE COMMISSION.
Dear General Kadyan,
I think that ordering the formation of the Armed Forces Grievance Commission almost 'suo moto', could not have occurred, if particular segments of our polity had not been sensitised to OROP and other Veterans' issues. Mr Justice Katju even quotes Chanakya (favourite of General Satbir Singh) and the NDTV show, apart from medals-return and burning artificial limbs. This should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that it is the 'doings' of IESM alone, which have brought about this landmark (almost revolutionary) occurrence, with the judiciary virtually divesting (albeit for a good cause) the executive of its basic function of governance - all these years past, no one else has been able to move the Establishment one wee bit !
The credit for this must go to you and the IESM team - formulation of a practical strategy, its dogged implementation and the results achieved speak for themselves. (Some of us ' fossils' have not favoured your pro-active measures, but then times change and proof of the pudding is in eating !). Congratulations on what has been achieved in a short time of two years by IESM - everyone who should, now knows of OROP, of course with the invaluable and devoted contributions of Brigadier Kamboj and his "Report my Signal".
We have to see how "The Empire Strikes Back", which they surely will try to do. So does IESM continue the present form of OROP struggle, or divert all effort to achieve this through the Supreme Court mandated Commission ? The Commission, at least initially, should be effective, with Generals Malik and Oberoi there for first two years. By itself, the Establishment would never concede OROP; with their well-honed 'evasion & escape' tactics, they will still have a try-on. So some weighty considerations for IESM to ponder over soon!
With good wishes and best of luck,
Rajendra Prakash,
Dehradun.

This is a land mark judgement in favour of ESM. My congratulations to
Col Sharma and other ESM of RDOA who spared no efforts in successfully marshaling this case in Supreme Court.
S.Murugan

Services Commission Setup By The SC
Congratulations.
A great achievement by you all. You have done wonders by putting across your case so convincingly that the SC had no option but to order the setting up of this Commission to look into the long outstanding problems faced by ESM. It is more like a Blue Ribbon Commission usually setup in the US I feel that we should not squander this opportunity by overloading the Commission with divergent view points.
Now is the time for all ESM orgs to close ranks and put up a paper to it. Views which are peculiar to a service may be put up separately. Lets forge a common sword to cut thru decades of neglect of our problems by the Govt .
Congratulations once again.
Lt Gen SK Bahri (Retd) (1st JSW Course)

Dear Brig Kamboj,
Please refer to the mail below regarding the Honourable Supreme Court Directions for forming Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission.
The mere fact that Commission can only make recommendations, I am sceptical. Even in drafting this order a whole lot of inspiring sentences have been framed, giving a feeling to the reader that some thing good will finally happen, but when one reaches the stage of Charter, scepticism is bound to creep in the way the Government of India has treated the Defence Forces till now.
My apologies for blunt comments. It is called Grievances Redressal Commission but its mandate is only to make recommendations!!!!!!. What authority do they have to redress the grievances? How will the redressal be actually given fast and in good time?
With warmest regards,
Major General Balbir K Kataria (Veteran), VSM

Supreme Court Directive
Dear Colonel Sharma,
I wish to express my profound gratitude to you and your colleagues for having fought the issue for redressing of the grievances of serving and retired community of Armed Forces Officers before to highest judicial forum and for having precipitated a landmark judgement.
Really there are no words to thank you and your colleagues. you really have done a great service to our Services community.
Very warm regards,
Brig J L Kaul ( Veteran

Dear Colonel sahib,
Congratulations on your success in forcing the govt. to form a separate commission to look into the grievances of veterans, in a matter where the Babus have been shown their place by not making the body predominantly Babucentric, for the first time. By this you have made history and shown that Babus can be fought and floored too. We all appreciate your selfless efforts on behalf of the entire veteran community.
It is good to know that the SC refused to reconsider the Rank Pay case, yet the Babus have succeeded in playing dirty again by making the SC refer the Rank Pay case to another bench, which will delay the decision further and make your task more difficult.
May God give you and your organisation more and more strength for performing such selfless work.
Shashank Bendre
Wg.Cdr. (Retd)

Dear Sirs:
This is one of the best news pertaining to the Defence fraternity heard in years. Our profound thanks and gratitude to Lt Col BK Sharma, President Retired Defence Officers Association and his team of dedicated colleagues for this crowning victory worthy of soldiers. They all deserve a standing ovation. A wonderful performance, Lt Col Sharma--you have done more than your bit!
There is a lesson here... let's remain united and focused. Also that no one is too small--or too big--for undertaking a noble cause in the service of the nation. What indeed is needed is the spirit/craze/obsession/even mania, call it what you will---" ... that man is freed from servile bands/Of hope to rise or fear to fall ... "
THREE RESOUNDING CHEERS FOR LT COL SHARMA AND HIS ASSOCIATES!!!
Warm regards--and thank you all.
Wg Cdr SC Kapoor, Veteran

Defence Veterans Vision – 2025 Their Role in Nation Building and National Security

Seminar on “Defence Veterans Vision – 2025 Their Role in Nation Building and National Security”
Dear all,
1. Further to our email dt 25 Oct 2010.
2. We are happy to inform you that the Bust of Late Field Marshal K M Cariappa OBE was installed in the premises of the IESL HQs on 22nd Oct 2010. It was unveiled by Hon’ble Raksha Rajya Mantri, Dr. M M Pallam Raju in the presence of Senior Veterans from all the three Services.
3. Following the inauguration, a Seminar on “Defence Veterans Vision – 2025 Their Role in Nation Building and National Security” was conducted in the presence of RRM. Some of the critical concerns of Defence Veterans community was included in his welcome address by Brig R K S Gulia, President, IESL.
4. Col H N Handa gave a presentation on “Issues pertaining to Disabled Soldiers (including Long & Short term). “Problems pertaining to Family Pension” was also covered during the Seminar. This was followed by a Presentation by Lt Gen B S Pawar, PVSM, AVSM on “Role of Military Veterans in Nation Building”.
5. After the Presentations, an interactive session was held with Hon’ble Raksha Rajya Mantri, where the following important points were discussed:-

Insensitivity/ unresponsiveness of Deptt. on projection by ESM.

Regional President of IESL should be member of KSB, with State/UT League Presidents as RSBs, ZSBs.

Periodical structured meeting not being held.

Deptt. be staffed by ESM/Servicemen.

Till date no consolidated compendium on pension policy matters has been complied.

MOD compulsive litigant in ESM cases-tendency be avoided.

Pension matters of Widows, reservists and disparity.

ESM not being given enhanced pension by banks.

Pension of Majors and Maj Gens.

Coastal line security to Ex-Servicemen- other Maritime duties connected with EEZs.

Employment in Border Road Projects.
6. In his concluding remarks, the RRM congratulated IESL for the meaningful discussions on critical concerns affecting the Defence Veterans and promised to get the above points analysed on priority. He emphasized that Defence Veterans are considered as valuable assets of the Nation and are treated with respect. He advised Defence Veterans community to maintain dignity as ex-soldiers and maintain ethos. Their concerns will always be addressed on high priority by all functionaries.
With regards!
Col Akhil Sharma
Gen Secy

Suggestion: The veteran vision for 2025 and its mission needs to be broadcast to the nation at large.

Letter to TOI Editor on Supreme Court Ruling

The Editor The Times of India New Delhi
Sir,
Even as thanking you for the one-column news "Defence Secy must spend 10 days in high altitude" (The Times of India, October 19, p. 13) on the anguish expressed by the Supreme Court regarding the apathy on the part of the Government towards the sufferings undergone and injustices heaped on the Armed Forces personnel, one cannot help pointing out that you have not only played down the news by the type of the heading and the space provided but also omitted, inter alia, the following very significant observations made by the Supreme Court Bench:
(1) "... Your bureaucrats are not bothered ... people in the army are returning medals in thousands and some have even burnt their artificial limbs in protest. They get a feeling now that these bureaucrats do not hear them ..."
(2) "If this was a proposal for the bureaucrats, it would soon be implemented. We do don't expect the bureaucrats to support this proposal... We need to deal with them (armed forces) separately as a distinct class."

This of course is just one instance among an unending list of acts of omission and commission on the part of The Times of India (TOI) under your stewardship with regard to the material carried in the newspaper on matters of national/ Armed Forces importance.

Yet, there is no dearth of news on wags and windbags, wannabes and wasps, wimps and wenches. How impressive! What an array of achievements on the part of a "National" paper!

Why do you do such things, Dear Mr. Editor? What indeed is the compulsion to repeatedly ignore/ twist/ garble news and events pertaining to the Armed Forces of India? Surely not the space.

Please pull up your socks, Sir--and do it fast. Before you manage to make your newspaper too famous for your comfort!!

TAILPIECE: With reference to the write-up "Kashmir bargain--Should India trade the Valley for a permanent UN Security Council seat?" by one Mr. Jug Suraiya (TOI, October 20), a friend here has asked: "Should TOI trade Jug Suraiya for someone who is more sensitive and responsive to the interests and aspirations of this country and its people?" I do not really know.

Warm regards. And, please do have a nice productive working week ahead, Sir, in the discharge of the job you have set your heart on.
Sincerely,
SC Kapoor
Wing Commander (Retd)

Ex-servicemen submit memo to President on One Rank, One Pension

Ex-Servicemen protesting against the non acceptance of their demands in New Delhi on Sunday. The protesters deposited their medals to be returned to President Pratibha Patil demanding better pension. Photo: Rajeev Bhatt
THE HINDU, NEW DELHI, August 22, 2010
Ex-servicemen submit memo to President on One Rank, One Pension
‘Grant of unequal pay in the same rank is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution'
Highlighting the plight of ex-servicemen, especially wives of deceased personnel, several hundreds former soldiers and officers on Sunday collected medals and submitted a memorandum to the President seeking ‘One Rank, One Pension (OROP)'.
Under the Chairmanship of Lt. Gen. (retd.) Raj Kadyan of Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM), former soldiers and over 300 women assembled at Jantar Mantar here in support of the demand.
“Some 6,000 medals have been collected to be returned to the President of India, the supreme commander of the Armed Forces, and we submitted a memorandum containing 1.25 lakh signatures in blood at the Rashtrapati Bhavan on Sunday,” IESM vice-chairman Major General (retd.) Satbir Singh told The Hindu.
Plight of women
Expressing anguish over the plight of wives of deceased jawans who have not got the benefits of an earlier raise given by the government, he asked how a woman can take care of the needs of a family with a pension of Rs.3,500.
He said the IESM Chairman had sought personal audience from the President to meet a delegation on Sunday; but since that did not happen, it was decided to hand over the memorandum at the Rashtrapati Bhavan and not the boxes of medals.
Gen. Satbir Singh said the ex-servicemen are also hurt that despite the recommendation by the Parliamentary Defence Standing Committee in May 2010, asking the government to consider afresh the OROP issue, nothing has been done.
On the other hand, he said, reports suggest the government is considering raising further the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament in the light of recommendations of a Joint Parliamentary Committee, all in a matter of few days.
Congress MP from Punjab Pratap Singh Bajwa told The Hindu that he had raised the issue in the Lok Sabha last week stating that unequal pension exists even after the “so-called parity” in pension to Personnel Below Officers Rank.
Inequality
He said a soldier who retired before December 31, 2005, with parity in pension with effect from January 1, 2006 gets Rs.5,523 a month while a solider who retired after January 1, 2006 with same length of service gets Rs.8,700 a month.
Citing the Babu Ram Dhiman versus Union of India case, he said the Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal ruled that the grant of unequal pay in the same rank was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and that the State cannot lay down different criteria for grant of pension for same rank of officers on the basis of the cut-off date of retirement.
He urged the Defence Minister to reconsider the OROP issue and not compare them to civilian counterparts since their terms of service and risk the armed forces personnel face, in discharge of their duties with pride and honour, are different.
Ex-servicemen submit memo to President on One Rank, One Pension

Maj Gen Pension Victory deflated by GOI

Hello every one,
Our SC case came up for hearing yesterday & Naresh & myself were present in the Court. Our Senior Counsel Nidhesh Gupta got up to argue the case
& the Govt Chart that they had given us .But the Govt lady counsel immediately got up & said it was not possible to discuss the case off hand & we must file a counter affidavit .

Justice Altamas Kabir agreed with her & the case is adjourned to 9th Sep & before that we have to give them our affidavit 10 days in Advance.
Thus another day was wasted & the never ending saga goes on & on . But I suppose one has to bear with system , I can however, assure you that it is NO joke to attend the hearing in this heat. !

All the same we have taken the responsibility so there is NO problem at all.

Please inform all your friends who are affected.
Warm regards
Satish
Maj Gen SC Suri (Retd)

How Rank Pay was denied to the Military?

Lt Gen SK Sinha, who had served in Army Headquarters in every rank, authored the Fourth Pay Commission and knew every bureaucratic trick of the trade, was superseded as COAS as the Government thought he would be a difficult customer. Gen Sinha resigned. The Government notification for part of the Fifth Pay Commission award was signed by Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar even as COAS Gen Ved Malik had put his objections in writing. The same drama was witnessed last year when the three Service Chiefs collectively refused to accept the piecemeal award of the Sixth Pay Commission, insisting the anomalies be addressed first. One newspaper editor called it “unprecedented military dissent” but conveniently omitted the word ‘legitimate’.
Give military autonomy by Ashok K Mehta

IESM: Unite to fight injustice

EX-SERVICEMEN UNITY: IESM
Dear Veterans,
1. You will be glad to know that IESM is spreading its wings across the country by the day. The aim is to go down to the level of each village throughout the country. We are getting tremendous response from every where. ESM in large mumbers are volunteering to be part of various committees to work for the welfare of Defence Personnel both serving and retired and for getting them their due Justice. The Govt, ill advised by the bureaucracy is continuing to demonstrate negative attitude while dealing with Defence Personnel. This attitude of the Govt is also clearly reflected in their not adhering to the various recent judgements of Supreme Court, High Courts and Armed Forces Tribunals (AFTs) which have gone in favour of the Defence Personnel. Two months have passed since. The All Party Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in written report on 07 May 2010 had strongly recommended the grant of OROP. The Govt by now should have been judicious enough to accept the recommendation of the Committee. The same has not been done so far.
2. I appeal to all ESM organizations throughout the country to associate themselves with the Indian Ex Servicemen Movement. Let us work out Common Minimum Programme (CMP) and action plan to get Justice to the Defence Forces. Let us give a strong push forward to Our Movement to make the Govt see reasons.
3. All state, district, city, tehsil, block convener are requested to constitute IESM committees and forward the details to the IESM HQ.
click here for more details
With Kind Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
No matter how different we may seem, veterans have much more to unite us than to divide us.
Related Post
Injustice to ESM by IESM Chairman Veteran Raj Kadyan