IESM
1. This office has received numerous queries and petition regarding additional gratuity for pre 96 retirees based on DoPT Office Memorandum No 45/86/97-P & PW (A) dated 04 Dec 04. It is for information to all concerned that this is fake and according clarification was issued by DoPT vide letter No 38/42/2005 – P & PW (F) and the same is pasted below for reference.
2. Hence, It is hereby clarified that there no additional gratuity is being awarded to pre-96 retirees.
Cdr CK Sharma (Retd)
Treasurer, IESM
Additional Gratuity for Pre-1996 Retirees
In pursuance of the Supreme Court Judgement, the Deptt of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Govt of India, vide their O.M. No 45/86/97-P&PW(A) Pt I, dated 4.12.2004, the Pre-1996 Retirees have been made eligible for receiving additional Gratuity. All those pensioners who are eligible for this benefit may please apply to their respective departments, giving details eg. PPO No, date of retirement, bank details etc.
The Deptt of Pension & Pensioners Welfare O.M. referred above is reproduced below.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
No 45/86/97-P&PW(A) Pt I, dated 4.12.2004.
Subject: Implementation of Govt decision on recommendation of the Vth CPC revision of provisions regulating pension.
1. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s O.M. even number dt 27th Oct 1997 on the above subject and to state that para Nos 4.3 & 6 of the above may please be substituted as under:
“Emoluments
Para 4.3. In case of all types of gratuity under Rules 49 and 50 of the CCS (pension) Rules, DA admissible on the date of Retirement/ death shall be treated as emoluments alongwith The Emoluments as defined in paragraph 4.1 above, accordingly Rule 50(5) of the Pension Rules shall stand modified to the effect that the emoluments for the purpose of gratuity admissible under this Rule shall be reckoned in accordance with Rule 33 and in addition D.A. admissible on the date of retirement/ death of the government employee shall be treated as emoluments.
Retirement/ Death gratuity Para 6. The maximum limits for all kinds of gratuity under Rule 50 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, shall be Rs 3.5 lakh. Accordingly the first proviso of Rule 50(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, shall stand modified to effect that the amount of retirement/ death gratuity payable under this Rule shall in no case exceed Rs 3.5 lakh.”
Except for the above, the provisions of O.M. dt 27.10.97 stand.
2. These orders issue with the approval of Ministry of Finance Dept of Expenditure vide their U.O. No 648/E.V/2001 dt 29.10.2001.
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF ADDITIONAL GRATUITY TO PRE-1996 RETIREES
1. No and Name of Pensioner
2. No and Name of deceased in case
of family pension
3. Rank of pensioner
4. Date of retirement
5. Record office (or CDA)
6. Original PPO Number
7. Latest Corrigendum PPO if any
8. Previous reference of correspondence if any
9. Postal address, email ID and tele number
10. Bankers through which pension is being received
At the time of my retirement I have been paid Gratuity only based on Basic Pay. Additional Gratuity may please be paid to me for the DA being drawn by me at the time of my retirement, as admissible vide Government of India Letter No 45/86/97 – P&PW(A) dated 04 Dec 2004.
signatures
name
date
posted by CPC Nath
Notes on some important information for the military personnel both serving and retired
Showing posts with label Rank Based Pension. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rank Based Pension. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Monday, November 29, 2010
Pension Anomaly removed but Lt Col Family Pension remains Jinxed
As per the current stipulation in vogue, the minimum guaranteed pension of personnel of some junior ranks was more than pension of senior ranks with the same length of service. This happened since the admissible weightage of junior ranks at places was more than senior ranks.
The said anomaly has been addressed and the MoD has issued a new letter rectifying the problem. Consequently, fresh amended annexures (i.e, Annexures II, IIA and III) replacing the ones appended with the earlier issued MoD letter dated 11 Nov 2008, have been promulgated for officers as well as JCOs and OR.
The said letter, alongwith another letter on medical boards, may be accessed by clicking here. It may however be noted that the family pension of a Lt Col has been mentioned incorrectly in the fresh letter as Rs 8760 per month in this letter whereas it actually is Rs 15420 (30% of minimum of Pay Band-4 + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay). The MoD has by mistake printed the family pension for the rank of Lt Col as per the old (Pay Band-3) scale.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:08 AM
More pension to juniors than seniors : Anomaly redressed
The said anomaly has been addressed and the MoD has issued a new letter rectifying the problem. Consequently, fresh amended annexures (i.e, Annexures II, IIA and III) replacing the ones appended with the earlier issued MoD letter dated 11 Nov 2008, have been promulgated for officers as well as JCOs and OR.
The said letter, alongwith another letter on medical boards, may be accessed by clicking here. It may however be noted that the family pension of a Lt Col has been mentioned incorrectly in the fresh letter as Rs 8760 per month in this letter whereas it actually is Rs 15420 (30% of minimum of Pay Band-4 + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay). The MoD has by mistake printed the family pension for the rank of Lt Col as per the old (Pay Band-3) scale.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:08 AM
More pension to juniors than seniors : Anomaly redressed
Monday, November 22, 2010
One Rank One Pension: 15th Lok Sabha
PIB Monday, November 22, 2010 16:57 IST
The Parliamentary Standing committee on Defence has urged the government to reconsider the demand of "One Rank One Pension" for the ex-servicemen.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence (15th LOK SABHA) on 1st and 7th Reports reiterated that the Government should consider the issue of 'One Rank One Pension' afresh. Since the issue of One Rank One Pension was not accepted in the past and more recently the Cabinet Secretary's Committee set up to consider it also did not recommend the same, it has not been found feasible to accept the demand of One Rank One Pension.
In the case of Original Application No. 15 and 45/2010 the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh had passed the order dated 3.3.2010 with directions to the respondents to take final decision in the matter.
The said order was examined and speaking orders explaining the position were issued on 10.07.2010 to the petitioners.
This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Shri MM Pallam Raju in a written reply to Shri Vilas Muttemwar and others in Lok Sabha today.
One Rank One Pension
Age-Limit for Senior Citizens Facilities click here
Defence Minister Echoes stand taken by Bureaucrats
Pension demand not feasible: Govt November 23rd, 2010 Deccan Chronicle
The government on Monday said that it has not found the demand of “one- rank-one-pension” (OROP) feasible.
“Since the issue of OROP was not accepted in the past and more recently the Cabinet secretary’s committee set up to consider it also did not recommend the same, it has not been found feasible to accept the demand,” defence minister A.K. Antony said in reply to a query in Rajya Sabha.
Regarding the Armed Forces Tribunal advocating providing equal salary and pension to the personal holding equal rank, the minister said, “The Chandigarh bench of the tribunal had passed the order with directions to the respondents to take final decision in the matter.”
Answering to another query, the minister said to promote indigenisation and enhance self reliance in defence capabilities, the government was in the process of finalising a defence production policy by involving both public and private sector companies.
On whether the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) required additional aircraft to meet its requirements, the minister said, “Requirement of assets and equipment by the IAF is based on threat perceptions and their procurement is an ongoing process.” —PTI
Pension demand not feasible: Govt
The Parliamentary Standing committee on Defence has urged the government to reconsider the demand of "One Rank One Pension" for the ex-servicemen.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence (15th LOK SABHA) on 1st and 7th Reports reiterated that the Government should consider the issue of 'One Rank One Pension' afresh. Since the issue of One Rank One Pension was not accepted in the past and more recently the Cabinet Secretary's Committee set up to consider it also did not recommend the same, it has not been found feasible to accept the demand of One Rank One Pension.
In the case of Original Application No. 15 and 45/2010 the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh had passed the order dated 3.3.2010 with directions to the respondents to take final decision in the matter.
The said order was examined and speaking orders explaining the position were issued on 10.07.2010 to the petitioners.
This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Shri MM Pallam Raju in a written reply to Shri Vilas Muttemwar and others in Lok Sabha today.
One Rank One Pension
Age-Limit for Senior Citizens Facilities click here
Defence Minister Echoes stand taken by Bureaucrats
Pension demand not feasible: Govt November 23rd, 2010 Deccan Chronicle
The government on Monday said that it has not found the demand of “one- rank-one-pension” (OROP) feasible.
“Since the issue of OROP was not accepted in the past and more recently the Cabinet secretary’s committee set up to consider it also did not recommend the same, it has not been found feasible to accept the demand,” defence minister A.K. Antony said in reply to a query in Rajya Sabha.
Regarding the Armed Forces Tribunal advocating providing equal salary and pension to the personal holding equal rank, the minister said, “The Chandigarh bench of the tribunal had passed the order with directions to the respondents to take final decision in the matter.”
Answering to another query, the minister said to promote indigenisation and enhance self reliance in defence capabilities, the government was in the process of finalising a defence production policy by involving both public and private sector companies.
On whether the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) required additional aircraft to meet its requirements, the minister said, “Requirement of assets and equipment by the IAF is based on threat perceptions and their procurement is an ongoing process.” —PTI
Pension demand not feasible: Govt
Sunday, September 5, 2010
IESM: One Rank One Pension- Points to Ponder
Initiate Action
The article by Veteran Bhupal Singh dated 30 Aug 10 (click here to read reference) made interesting and inspiring reading. We must change tack. We are gentlemen but they are not. The request and rationalization period is certainly over. Proactive or aggressive measures are the order of the day. Instead of requesting the grand ladies and gentlemen, who are oblivious of our existence, we should now concentrate on individuals. A group or a crowd affords anonymity, thus, protection, allowing individuals to go boisterous. All cases must have been initiated by some one, moved up the chain, on files, and finally approved. Identify all of them with the help of RTI and present them before a Court of Law. Decades back, the Netas and Babus, at least some, spent some time thinking about the country and the milling masses whereas the Courts minded the law only (Courts of Law and not Justice, it was said). The change now is radical. The air, now blowing out of there, is fresh, fragrant and invigorating. The Superior Courts are thinking very significantly and profoundly of and for the country and the common man whereas the N&B have grossly degenerated. That, I suppose, is the difference between the intellectual and the merely educated - if at all. They religiously believe, ‘charity begins (and ends) at home’. May I suggest to the IESM ‘brain trust’ not to approach the high dignitaries as they are entirely focused, Arjuna like, only better, as the former saw the eye whereas these worthies see only the pupil, not even the iris, but on themselves only! So, there you are. Incidentally, I saw in some movies androids and robots, exactly humanlike in looks and was reminded instantly of two of our knights in shining armour. The similarity was eerie and the feeling numbing! I used to think of them as ‘lame ducks’ but was not satisfied with the simile as even the lame ducks could think on their own. These are actually robots! This is not morbid sense of humour as the joke is on us! We have to flounder and wail helplessly till drowning. Do we have to? Pardon the apparent digression but the feeling is overwhelming. We must identify the culprits by name and haul them up. To expect justice and fairness from the people we are dealing with will be pure naivety if not utter stupidity. The legal tunnel is long but one can see light at the end of it. The SC has given us hopes. Gone are the days when a ‘B’ was sheltered by the government but now they have to pay fines from their own pockets, are brought to Courts in person and even jailed. Accountability in the Civil Services Rules does exist. Let a start be made now. Even if the finish line is far away, it is there. Let the Cabinet Secretary give detailed reasons and justifications for not accepting OROP, particularly when parliamentary committees have accepted. He should be sought to be sacked for being incompetent, malicious, unbecoming and unworthy. Charges of treason should be brought against him as his malicious actions have degraded the morale and the fighting strength of our Armed Forces. Recently there have been some welcome developments which will bolster our cause. We must remember, nevertheless, that we have to fight our own battles.
Pension for and of MPs
Much has been written and said about the pay of MPs. Sarcasm has also been used which, of course, must have evoked comment like ‘dogs bark and caravans pass’ etc from the target worthies as their skins are far too tough to affect them in the intended manner. However, no one but NO ONE has talked about their pension and the very justification for it. Of course, they don’t have to justify any thing to any one; their very desire is justification enough: and they know it. A government employee has to put in 20 years of good service to earn a pension but not a MP. Not many – ordinary mortals and MPs - may even know that Short Service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces having put in 14 or 15 years of service do not get a pension. They merely get a gratuity, quite in keeping with their lowly status (civil supremacy-remember?). The Services are alarmingly short of personnel. Who wants to die for the country which regularly cheats and berates them? So? The answer is quite obvious to any one who bothers to think logically and not wishfully/ philosophically.
And to digress some what: concepts such as, right-wrong, proper-improper, ethical-unethical are fast disappearing, aided and abetted by the lawmakers themselves, brazenly and with fan fare. There appears to be no alternative but to live with it. Isn’t what most people do termed ‘normal’? In Mahabharat, one of the questions asked by the ‘Dharma Baka’ to the Pandavas, during their exile, was, “which/what is the correct path?” and the answer, as given by Yudhisthir was, “it is the path followed by the ‘Mahajana’(great people)”. So, who are the “great people” these days? No prize for the correct answer which is the pity (heart rending?)
Moral: Might is right.
Veteran Col BN Ratha
03 Sep 10
The article by Veteran Bhupal Singh dated 30 Aug 10 (click here to read reference) made interesting and inspiring reading. We must change tack. We are gentlemen but they are not. The request and rationalization period is certainly over. Proactive or aggressive measures are the order of the day. Instead of requesting the grand ladies and gentlemen, who are oblivious of our existence, we should now concentrate on individuals. A group or a crowd affords anonymity, thus, protection, allowing individuals to go boisterous. All cases must have been initiated by some one, moved up the chain, on files, and finally approved. Identify all of them with the help of RTI and present them before a Court of Law. Decades back, the Netas and Babus, at least some, spent some time thinking about the country and the milling masses whereas the Courts minded the law only (Courts of Law and not Justice, it was said). The change now is radical. The air, now blowing out of there, is fresh, fragrant and invigorating. The Superior Courts are thinking very significantly and profoundly of and for the country and the common man whereas the N&B have grossly degenerated. That, I suppose, is the difference between the intellectual and the merely educated - if at all. They religiously believe, ‘charity begins (and ends) at home’. May I suggest to the IESM ‘brain trust’ not to approach the high dignitaries as they are entirely focused, Arjuna like, only better, as the former saw the eye whereas these worthies see only the pupil, not even the iris, but on themselves only! So, there you are. Incidentally, I saw in some movies androids and robots, exactly humanlike in looks and was reminded instantly of two of our knights in shining armour. The similarity was eerie and the feeling numbing! I used to think of them as ‘lame ducks’ but was not satisfied with the simile as even the lame ducks could think on their own. These are actually robots! This is not morbid sense of humour as the joke is on us! We have to flounder and wail helplessly till drowning. Do we have to? Pardon the apparent digression but the feeling is overwhelming. We must identify the culprits by name and haul them up. To expect justice and fairness from the people we are dealing with will be pure naivety if not utter stupidity. The legal tunnel is long but one can see light at the end of it. The SC has given us hopes. Gone are the days when a ‘B’ was sheltered by the government but now they have to pay fines from their own pockets, are brought to Courts in person and even jailed. Accountability in the Civil Services Rules does exist. Let a start be made now. Even if the finish line is far away, it is there. Let the Cabinet Secretary give detailed reasons and justifications for not accepting OROP, particularly when parliamentary committees have accepted. He should be sought to be sacked for being incompetent, malicious, unbecoming and unworthy. Charges of treason should be brought against him as his malicious actions have degraded the morale and the fighting strength of our Armed Forces. Recently there have been some welcome developments which will bolster our cause. We must remember, nevertheless, that we have to fight our own battles.
Pension for and of MPs
Much has been written and said about the pay of MPs. Sarcasm has also been used which, of course, must have evoked comment like ‘dogs bark and caravans pass’ etc from the target worthies as their skins are far too tough to affect them in the intended manner. However, no one but NO ONE has talked about their pension and the very justification for it. Of course, they don’t have to justify any thing to any one; their very desire is justification enough: and they know it. A government employee has to put in 20 years of good service to earn a pension but not a MP. Not many – ordinary mortals and MPs - may even know that Short Service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces having put in 14 or 15 years of service do not get a pension. They merely get a gratuity, quite in keeping with their lowly status (civil supremacy-remember?). The Services are alarmingly short of personnel. Who wants to die for the country which regularly cheats and berates them? So? The answer is quite obvious to any one who bothers to think logically and not wishfully/ philosophically.
And to digress some what: concepts such as, right-wrong, proper-improper, ethical-unethical are fast disappearing, aided and abetted by the lawmakers themselves, brazenly and with fan fare. There appears to be no alternative but to live with it. Isn’t what most people do termed ‘normal’? In Mahabharat, one of the questions asked by the ‘Dharma Baka’ to the Pandavas, during their exile, was, “which/what is the correct path?” and the answer, as given by Yudhisthir was, “it is the path followed by the ‘Mahajana’(great people)”. So, who are the “great people” these days? No prize for the correct answer which is the pity (heart rending?)
Moral: Might is right.
Veteran Col BN Ratha
03 Sep 10
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
IESM: OROP outstanding issue stirs the conscience of MsP
ONE RANK ONE PENSION: STRIKE THE IRON WHEN IT IS HOT: A SUGGESTION TO RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR, HON’BLE MP
Respected Veteran Air Cmde MK Chandrasekhar,
Jai Hind & my salute to you.
1. At the very outset, I must thank Veteran Air Mshl Keith Lewis and Veteran Lt Col CR Sundar (of Jawan TV) for prompting me to talk to you on the subject.
2. Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s letter to the Hon’ble PM on the issue of OROP; and, consequent to recent revision of pay in respect of Members of Parliament, his decision to voluntarily forego the increased emoluments due to a MP, till such time OROP is granted, has been greatly appreciated by one & all Veterans; so much so, he is being looked upon as a MESSIAH.
3. Considering the fact that Rajeev Chandrasekhar has always extended his help, assistance & unstinted support to IESM in our crusade for Justice and grant of OROP, right from 27 Sep 2008, when he was very gracious to attend the first South Zone Military Veterans Meet at Bangalore; and ref our telecom on the subject, both yesterday and this morning, I wish to submit the following for your kind consideration:
(a) Rajeev Chandrasekhar may please be requested to endorse copies of his letter to the Hon’ble PM to:
(i) All Members of the Parliament (both Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha).
(ii) Governors of all States & Union Territories.
(iii) Chief Ministers of all States & Union Territories.
(b) Espouse grant of the following by way of an interview to all TV Channels at Delhi:
(i) ONE RANK ONE PENSION. In case the Govt. still has doubts regarding the genuineness of the demand, despite grant of OROP being recommended time & again by the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Defence; the grant of ONE RANK ONE PENSION be examined ‘de novo’ by setting up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), at the earliest. The simmering discontentment amongst the Ex-Servicemen can not be allowed to fester any longer, in the interest of well-being of the Nation
(ii) Payment of Rank Pay with effect from 1.1. 1986 as per ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
(iii) Institution of an Ex-Servicemen Commission with a retired Chief of the Army / Navy /Air Force as the Chairman with Statutory Powers, on the lines of the Minorities Commission, the Womens Commission, etc.
(iv) Immediate convening of a Pay Commission for the Defence Services (as already agreed upon by the Govt.) to do justice to the Defence Services and to set right the anomalies in pay & standing (IZZAT) of Soldiers that have crept in over the years.
(c) Rajeev Chandrasekhar may please consider requesting the kind presence of the following senior Veterans, sympathetic to our cause, at the TV interview along with him:
(i) Marshal of the Air Force Arjan Singh, Padma Vibhushan, PVSM, DFC.
(ii) Admiral Madhvendra Singh, PVSM, AVSM, NM, VSM, Former Chief of Naval Staff.
(iii) Admiral Arun Prakash, PVSM, AVSM, NM, VSM, Former Chief of Naval Staff.
(iv) Lt Gen SK Bahri, PVSM, AVSM,VSM, former MGO Indian Army.
(v) Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM. Email:, Address: Residing at Gurgaon.
4. If required, I shall be only too glad to be of assistance to Rajeev Chandrasekhar, by way of giving a small/ detailed write up on the aforementioned points to be discussed in the interview.
Regards,
Col Rajan Veteran
Respected Veteran Air Cmde MK Chandrasekhar,
Jai Hind & my salute to you.
1. At the very outset, I must thank Veteran Air Mshl Keith Lewis and Veteran Lt Col CR Sundar (of Jawan TV) for prompting me to talk to you on the subject.
2. Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s letter to the Hon’ble PM on the issue of OROP; and, consequent to recent revision of pay in respect of Members of Parliament, his decision to voluntarily forego the increased emoluments due to a MP, till such time OROP is granted, has been greatly appreciated by one & all Veterans; so much so, he is being looked upon as a MESSIAH.
3. Considering the fact that Rajeev Chandrasekhar has always extended his help, assistance & unstinted support to IESM in our crusade for Justice and grant of OROP, right from 27 Sep 2008, when he was very gracious to attend the first South Zone Military Veterans Meet at Bangalore; and ref our telecom on the subject, both yesterday and this morning, I wish to submit the following for your kind consideration:
(a) Rajeev Chandrasekhar may please be requested to endorse copies of his letter to the Hon’ble PM to:
(i) All Members of the Parliament (both Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha).
(ii) Governors of all States & Union Territories.
(iii) Chief Ministers of all States & Union Territories.
(b) Espouse grant of the following by way of an interview to all TV Channels at Delhi:
(i) ONE RANK ONE PENSION. In case the Govt. still has doubts regarding the genuineness of the demand, despite grant of OROP being recommended time & again by the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Defence; the grant of ONE RANK ONE PENSION be examined ‘de novo’ by setting up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), at the earliest. The simmering discontentment amongst the Ex-Servicemen can not be allowed to fester any longer, in the interest of well-being of the Nation
(ii) Payment of Rank Pay with effect from 1.1. 1986 as per ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
(iii) Institution of an Ex-Servicemen Commission with a retired Chief of the Army / Navy /Air Force as the Chairman with Statutory Powers, on the lines of the Minorities Commission, the Womens Commission, etc.
(iv) Immediate convening of a Pay Commission for the Defence Services (as already agreed upon by the Govt.) to do justice to the Defence Services and to set right the anomalies in pay & standing (IZZAT) of Soldiers that have crept in over the years.
(c) Rajeev Chandrasekhar may please consider requesting the kind presence of the following senior Veterans, sympathetic to our cause, at the TV interview along with him:
(i) Marshal of the Air Force Arjan Singh, Padma Vibhushan, PVSM, DFC.
(ii) Admiral Madhvendra Singh, PVSM, AVSM, NM, VSM, Former Chief of Naval Staff.
(iii) Admiral Arun Prakash, PVSM, AVSM, NM, VSM, Former Chief of Naval Staff.
(iv) Lt Gen SK Bahri, PVSM, AVSM,VSM, former MGO Indian Army.
(v) Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM. Email:
4. If required, I shall be only too glad to be of assistance to Rajeev Chandrasekhar, by way of giving a small/ detailed write up on the aforementioned points to be discussed in the interview.
Regards,
Col Rajan Veteran
IESM: Salary hike for MPs and the issue of ‘one rank one pension’
From: President, Navy Foundation, Delhi
To: Mr Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP.
Dear Mr Rajeev,
On behalf of the Navy Foundation, whose members are all retired officers of the Indian Navy, I would like to express our heartfelt thanks and our great admiration for your frank letter of 25th August to the Prime Minister on the subject of Salary hike for MPs and the issue of ‘one rank one pension’ or OROP for ex-servicemen. If I may be permitted to say so, that the letter was a brilliant piece of analysis of decision making by the government. You have put forth in such a logical and succinct manner the double standards being followed. The recourse to refer any issue to a committee of bureaucrats when the government does not want to take a decision is what is affecting many issues of governance including OROP for ex-servicemen. As you have so rightly summed up ‘the bureaucrats have acquired great abilities for obstructive conduct’.
We are grateful to you, Sir, for repeatedly taking up with the Prime Minister and at other fora the injustices to ex-servicemen and denial of OROP. Your decision to forego your salary hike as an MP till OROP is resolved has won our hearts and deepest gratitude. It is heartening to know that there is at least one MP, who has the welfare of those who have silently and selflessly served the nation in peace and in war and who now appear to have been conveniently forgotten. We believe in the power of one and even though you are an Independent, you are on so many Standing and Consultative Committees of the Parliament and we repose full faith in you..
We once again thank you for taking up our cause and salute you for your ideals and principles in fighting the obvious double standards in governance. There are not many like you in the country.
To: Mr Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP.
Dear Mr Rajeev,
On behalf of the Navy Foundation, whose members are all retired officers of the Indian Navy, I would like to express our heartfelt thanks and our great admiration for your frank letter of 25th August to the Prime Minister on the subject of Salary hike for MPs and the issue of ‘one rank one pension’ or OROP for ex-servicemen. If I may be permitted to say so, that the letter was a brilliant piece of analysis of decision making by the government. You have put forth in such a logical and succinct manner the double standards being followed. The recourse to refer any issue to a committee of bureaucrats when the government does not want to take a decision is what is affecting many issues of governance including OROP for ex-servicemen. As you have so rightly summed up ‘the bureaucrats have acquired great abilities for obstructive conduct’.
We are grateful to you, Sir, for repeatedly taking up with the Prime Minister and at other fora the injustices to ex-servicemen and denial of OROP. Your decision to forego your salary hike as an MP till OROP is resolved has won our hearts and deepest gratitude. It is heartening to know that there is at least one MP, who has the welfare of those who have silently and selflessly served the nation in peace and in war and who now appear to have been conveniently forgotten. We believe in the power of one and even though you are an Independent, you are on so many Standing and Consultative Committees of the Parliament and we repose full faith in you..
We once again thank you for taking up our cause and salute you for your ideals and principles in fighting the obvious double standards in governance. There are not many like you in the country.
MP Chandrashekar supports IESM in its battle for OROP
IESM CONVEYS OUR GRATITUDE TO YOU
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Dear Mr Chandrasekhar,
It is, indeed, with our most innate gratitude, that we wish to convey our THANKFULLNESS to you for your unstinted support to our 'Cause' of ONE RANK ONE PENSION.
Let me confide in you by saying that EVERYONE of us Ex-Servicman (ESM) have deeply appreciated your Letter to the Prime Minister on this issue. It is, indeed, so very noble & thoughtful of you to have written so forcefully as you have. We only hope that the Govt will now 'sit up' & grant us our legitimate dues which have been dragged into bureaucratic web for the past 26 yrs.
Our 'Indian Ex-Serviceman Movement'- IESM has set out to 'stand up' & demand for Justice to ESM. Over the past 30 months of our existance we have succeeded in bringing the problems & injustices to centrestage. Now, with the support of 'right thinking' political sources of power like YOU, we do hope that we will be able to get what has been due to us since ages.
THANK YOU, Sir, for all that YOU have done. The 30 Lakhs (+) of ESM in our country, as also their families, will forever remain indebted to you for your thoughtfull kindness. Your refusal to accept the amoluments increased for an MP, is something which we appreciate as a rare gesture on your part.
The IESM Salutes you, Sir, for your indulgence in our 'Cause'. It will be our pleasure to meet & interact with you whenever you are in Delhi next.
With Best Wishes fm us all
Yours affly,
Major General AJB Jaini, AVSM (Veteran)
Member Governing Body- IESM
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Dear Mr Chandrasekhar,
It is, indeed, with our most innate gratitude, that we wish to convey our THANKFULLNESS to you for your unstinted support to our 'Cause' of ONE RANK ONE PENSION.
Let me confide in you by saying that EVERYONE of us Ex-Servicman (ESM) have deeply appreciated your Letter to the Prime Minister on this issue. It is, indeed, so very noble & thoughtful of you to have written so forcefully as you have. We only hope that the Govt will now 'sit up' & grant us our legitimate dues which have been dragged into bureaucratic web for the past 26 yrs.
Our 'Indian Ex-Serviceman Movement'- IESM has set out to 'stand up' & demand for Justice to ESM. Over the past 30 months of our existance we have succeeded in bringing the problems & injustices to centrestage. Now, with the support of 'right thinking' political sources of power like YOU, we do hope that we will be able to get what has been due to us since ages.
THANK YOU, Sir, for all that YOU have done. The 30 Lakhs (+) of ESM in our country, as also their families, will forever remain indebted to you for your thoughtfull kindness. Your refusal to accept the amoluments increased for an MP, is something which we appreciate as a rare gesture on your part.
The IESM Salutes you, Sir, for your indulgence in our 'Cause'. It will be our pleasure to meet & interact with you whenever you are in Delhi next.
With Best Wishes fm us all
Yours affly,
Major General AJB Jaini, AVSM (Veteran)
Member Governing Body- IESM
One Rank One Pension- Press Release
PRESS RELEASE ‘One Rank One Pension’
A lot has been said about ‘One Rank One Pension’ in both houses of Parliament and in the electronic media and Press and nothing has crystallized except that Govt. may give it in long term and in stages. In Punjabi there is a saying “ Dud de gi per maingna paa ke” which means that they will give milk but spoil it with goat’s shit, so that it may stink and become beyond use. It is exactly being done in some of the cases like ‘Rank Pay’ inspite of the clear orders from Hon’ble Courts and same is the story with OROP. They, perhaps, do not know as to how many persons have passed away from 1.1.1986 without getting their due and now the benefits are being denying to their families.
In my recent open letter to the Hon’ble Prime Minister I have pointed out as to how the Defence Personnel are being humiliated by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) who are working as per their whims and fancies instead of implementing orders as passed by Govt. in their Gazette notifications. It is pity that there is no one to check them and see what data they are submitting to various committees and commissions set up. It is happening because of absence of Armed Forces personnel at the decision making level, be it at the Pay Commissions, Govt. Defence committees or within the MOD, to pursue agenda and represent correct facts. This needs to be implemented forthwith like USA and other countries where Defence Officers are inducted in MOD and other decision taking committees / commissions, so that their problems could be projected correctly and justice could be done to them.
I have also written to the Hon’ble P.M. that Govt. Orders are not being faithfully implemented by MOD and anomalies pointed out by competent people are either being ignored or swept under the carpet. MOD needs to be reoriented and told to act as per rules and not as per their whims and fancies. Surprisingly, no one is hauled up by Ministers for not taking actions or distorting orders, though the cases are self explanatory and need no other assistance, legal or otherwise. There are a number of cases where they have allowed payments to some individuals who raised those but though as per rules, they are denying others the same benefits. Once a mistake has been detected it should automatically be rectified in all similar cases without asking by other affected persons or Courts. It is pity that no such action is being taken to benefit other affected persons.
They say ‘where there is will, there is a way.’ But if the MOD is bent upon doing such mischief and are not bothered even of Hon’ble Courts orders and the Ministers, what can one expect from the Govt. except requesting the Hon’ble PM to introduce necessary changes as suggested in our earlier letter and reiterated above. Setting up a separate Commission for Defence Forces to resolve the peace meal changes introduced which have made every thing topsy-turvy especially in Rank, Pay and status in grade.
‘One Rank One Pension’ is not a big issue as it has been projected by the MOD. As we all know that during 3rd CPC, all ranks, including officers, were being retired at the pension of 50% of the maximum Pay of the scale they held at the time of retirement, proportionate to the number of years of service one put in at that time, 30 years being the maximum to earn full pension at that time.. Some weightage was given for service to different ranks to get proportionately better pension since they retire at comparatively younger age. This weightage has now reached 30 years for all ranks, required to earn full pension. In case of other ranks too it would have reached 33 years had the data put up before the committee of secretaries constituted for considering this aspect, been put up by MOD to 33 years to earn full pension, instead of 30 years they considered. The 5th CPC had enhanced the weightage by two to three years vide para133.18 & 162.11. Anyhow, it is a minor issue and can be considered even now in that context and can be raised to 33 years.
Once it is done and all are retired at the 50% of the maximum of the scale they held at the time of retirement, the problem of one rank one pension, automatically gets solved. It is compatible with civil too where practically every one retires at the maximum of the scale one holds at the time of retirement.
It is thus a simple issue and will not require large funds as is being projected as most of the personnel are already getting big chunk of it which needs to be supplemented. It will not invite any repercussions from any where or have administrative problems as apprehended, as practically all retire at the maximum of the scale one holds at the time of retirement in civil.
We once again request the Hon’ble Prime Minster to immediately intervene and provide justice to Armed Forces.
Brig(Retd) KGBehl
President Dehradun Ex Services League
A lot has been said about ‘One Rank One Pension’ in both houses of Parliament and in the electronic media and Press and nothing has crystallized except that Govt. may give it in long term and in stages. In Punjabi there is a saying “ Dud de gi per maingna paa ke” which means that they will give milk but spoil it with goat’s shit, so that it may stink and become beyond use. It is exactly being done in some of the cases like ‘Rank Pay’ inspite of the clear orders from Hon’ble Courts and same is the story with OROP. They, perhaps, do not know as to how many persons have passed away from 1.1.1986 without getting their due and now the benefits are being denying to their families.
In my recent open letter to the Hon’ble Prime Minister I have pointed out as to how the Defence Personnel are being humiliated by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) who are working as per their whims and fancies instead of implementing orders as passed by Govt. in their Gazette notifications. It is pity that there is no one to check them and see what data they are submitting to various committees and commissions set up. It is happening because of absence of Armed Forces personnel at the decision making level, be it at the Pay Commissions, Govt. Defence committees or within the MOD, to pursue agenda and represent correct facts. This needs to be implemented forthwith like USA and other countries where Defence Officers are inducted in MOD and other decision taking committees / commissions, so that their problems could be projected correctly and justice could be done to them.
I have also written to the Hon’ble P.M. that Govt. Orders are not being faithfully implemented by MOD and anomalies pointed out by competent people are either being ignored or swept under the carpet. MOD needs to be reoriented and told to act as per rules and not as per their whims and fancies. Surprisingly, no one is hauled up by Ministers for not taking actions or distorting orders, though the cases are self explanatory and need no other assistance, legal or otherwise. There are a number of cases where they have allowed payments to some individuals who raised those but though as per rules, they are denying others the same benefits. Once a mistake has been detected it should automatically be rectified in all similar cases without asking by other affected persons or Courts. It is pity that no such action is being taken to benefit other affected persons.
They say ‘where there is will, there is a way.’ But if the MOD is bent upon doing such mischief and are not bothered even of Hon’ble Courts orders and the Ministers, what can one expect from the Govt. except requesting the Hon’ble PM to introduce necessary changes as suggested in our earlier letter and reiterated above. Setting up a separate Commission for Defence Forces to resolve the peace meal changes introduced which have made every thing topsy-turvy especially in Rank, Pay and status in grade.
‘One Rank One Pension’ is not a big issue as it has been projected by the MOD. As we all know that during 3rd CPC, all ranks, including officers, were being retired at the pension of 50% of the maximum Pay of the scale they held at the time of retirement, proportionate to the number of years of service one put in at that time, 30 years being the maximum to earn full pension at that time.. Some weightage was given for service to different ranks to get proportionately better pension since they retire at comparatively younger age. This weightage has now reached 30 years for all ranks, required to earn full pension. In case of other ranks too it would have reached 33 years had the data put up before the committee of secretaries constituted for considering this aspect, been put up by MOD to 33 years to earn full pension, instead of 30 years they considered. The 5th CPC had enhanced the weightage by two to three years vide para133.18 & 162.11. Anyhow, it is a minor issue and can be considered even now in that context and can be raised to 33 years.
Once it is done and all are retired at the 50% of the maximum of the scale they held at the time of retirement, the problem of one rank one pension, automatically gets solved. It is compatible with civil too where practically every one retires at the maximum of the scale one holds at the time of retirement.
It is thus a simple issue and will not require large funds as is being projected as most of the personnel are already getting big chunk of it which needs to be supplemented. It will not invite any repercussions from any where or have administrative problems as apprehended, as practically all retire at the maximum of the scale one holds at the time of retirement in civil.
We once again request the Hon’ble Prime Minster to immediately intervene and provide justice to Armed Forces.
Brig(Retd) KGBehl
President Dehradun Ex Services League
Sunday, August 8, 2010
IESM: March for Justice Jantar Mantar 22 Aug 2010
DEPOSITING OF MEDALS AND SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDUM SIGNED IN BLOOD BY THE ESM TO THE SUPREME COMMANDER ON 22 AUG 2010 FROM 11 AM TO 3 PM AT JANTAR MANTAR NEW DELHI
Dear Friends,
1. The gross injustice, apathy negative attitude and indifference of the Govt and the bureaucracy have crossed all levels of tolerance and acceptance. There are two options, one, to accept the status quo, live the life as it unfolds and melt away. The second option is to get up and fight for Justice. As a soldier, the have learnt to follow the second option.
2. I wish to quote a few instances of Govt apathy and injustices:-
All Party parliamentary Committee is supposed to be one of the most powerful committee. This committee headed by a congress MP Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj while tabling its report in the Parliament on 07 May 2010 had recommended the grant of OROP to the Defence Personnel. Three months have passed, the Govt has not taken the decision on this recommendation. Why the Govt has kept this committee report under the carpet is not understood? This was the chance before the Govt to undo the damage already inflicted on Defence Forces.
The Govt has not implemented any of the judgements recently passed favouring the Defence Personnel:
i. SC judgement in Rank Pay case. Instead of accepting its fault and implementing the judgement, it has appealed to the SC to recall its orders.
ii. In the case of pre 96 Maj Gens (Maj Gen Vains Vs Union of India), the Govt continues to ignore the implementation of judgement fully. Instead of giving the same pensions to similarly placed pre 96 Maj Gen as per Para 31 of the SC judgement, it has fixed arbitrarily the pension of pre 96 Maj Gen by increasing it by Rs 500 pm ie Rs 10000/-instead of Rs 11450 being given to similarly placed post 96 Maj Gens.
iii. In the case of Pre 2006 Maj Gen, the Govt has not implemented the judgement of AFT Chandigarh dated 03 Mar 2010 where in the Govt was to implement the judgement within 3 months. The execution proceedings have been filed by the Maj Gens and the hearing is on the 10 Aug 2010.
iv. In the case of Babu Ram Dhiman and Sohan Singh Vs Union of India, AFT Chandigarh judgement on OROP dated 08 Mar 2010 which was to be implemented within 4 months, has not been implemented.
The widows of JCOs and Jawans who need the maximum assistance, care and compassion have been left out from the recent enhancement in pension of JCOs and Jawans. Here, also instead of giving the enhancement with effect from 01 Jan 2006, it has been sanctioned with effect from 01 Jul 2009.
The 6th Pay Commission had granted three Assured Career Progressions (ACP). Strangely the ACP has not been applied notionally while fixing the pensions of Pre 01 Jan 2006 retirees. Even for Post 01 Jan 2006 retiree defence personnel, only two ACPs have been granted. Why the third has not been granted to a Sepoy who has been compulsorily retired from service after 17 years of service?
There is a large gap of Rs 11600 in pension of pre 2006 retiree Maj and Lt Col while the gap in their pay in the 5th Pay Commission was only Rs 1000/-. Similarly the pension gap between pre 2006 retiree Maj Gen and Lt Gen is Rs 9800/- while the difference in their pay prior to 2006 was only Rs 1200. Why this grave injustice?
The President has not granted the audience to the delegation of IESM depositing medals with the President.
3. The Govt indifferent attitude has irked the veterans severely who have decided to intensify the stir. The next event for deposit of medals and submission of Blood Signed Memorandum to the Supreme Commander will be held on 22 Aug 2010 at Jantar Mantar New Delhi from 11 AM to 2 PM. IESM delegation will leave for Rashtrapati Bhawan at 2.15 PM to deposit the medals and memorandum at 3 PM to the President. Chairman IESM Gen Raj Kadyan has written to the President:
Quote
“It is earnestly hoped that the Supreme Commander would relent and receive the delegation in person. However, should that unfortunately not happen, as already intimated vide ibid letter dated 08 June 2010, the delegation would return without depositing the medals and the memorandum”
Unquote
4. All conveners are requested to put in their best effort to motivate the ESM across the country to deposit their medals and sign/ thumb impression the memorandum in Blood voluntarily for the above event. We hope that in the country specially the Northern States where large number of ESM reside are able to reach the target of 5000 Blood Signatures and medals each district. These can either be sent to IESM HQ at 543 Sector 23 Gurgaon or brought to Jantar Mantar on 22 Aug 2010 by 11 AM. Conveners are requested to get maximum ESM at Jantar Mantar. Part payment of transport charges will be made from the IESM funds, Tea, water and lunch packets are being arranged for the ESM attending the event.
5. Logistic Instructions for the event will be issued by the General Secretary separately.
6. We are also, putting efforts to get support from all segments of society including all political parties, MPs, MLAs, CMs.
7. Please circulate these contents to maximum ESM across the country.
“To struggle for the Just Cause is the right of every person. Let us together join in the efforts to get Justice to the Defence Forces”.
With Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
ON 08 AUG 2010- TV PROGRAMME ON ISSUES OF EX- SERVICEMEN
Dear Friends,
A Door Darshan Programme on issues of Ex Servicemen Titled. “Defence Watch” will be telecast at 10.30PM Today i.e. 08 Aug 10 at “DD News”. The programme will be repeated at 3.30 PM as Wednesday 11Aug 10.
This programme has Gen Ashok Mehta as the anchor with Air Marshal Roy (ECHS expert), Brig Gulia (President IESL) and self as participants.
You are requested to watch the programme. Pass on the info to as many ESM as possible.
With Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
Dear Friends,
1. The gross injustice, apathy negative attitude and indifference of the Govt and the bureaucracy have crossed all levels of tolerance and acceptance. There are two options, one, to accept the status quo, live the life as it unfolds and melt away. The second option is to get up and fight for Justice. As a soldier, the have learnt to follow the second option.
2. I wish to quote a few instances of Govt apathy and injustices:-
i. SC judgement in Rank Pay case. Instead of accepting its fault and implementing the judgement, it has appealed to the SC to recall its orders.
ii. In the case of pre 96 Maj Gens (Maj Gen Vains Vs Union of India), the Govt continues to ignore the implementation of judgement fully. Instead of giving the same pensions to similarly placed pre 96 Maj Gen as per Para 31 of the SC judgement, it has fixed arbitrarily the pension of pre 96 Maj Gen by increasing it by Rs 500 pm ie Rs 10000/-instead of Rs 11450 being given to similarly placed post 96 Maj Gens.
iii. In the case of Pre 2006 Maj Gen, the Govt has not implemented the judgement of AFT Chandigarh dated 03 Mar 2010 where in the Govt was to implement the judgement within 3 months. The execution proceedings have been filed by the Maj Gens and the hearing is on the 10 Aug 2010.
iv. In the case of Babu Ram Dhiman and Sohan Singh Vs Union of India, AFT Chandigarh judgement on OROP dated 08 Mar 2010 which was to be implemented within 4 months, has not been implemented.
3. The Govt indifferent attitude has irked the veterans severely who have decided to intensify the stir. The next event for deposit of medals and submission of Blood Signed Memorandum to the Supreme Commander will be held on 22 Aug 2010 at Jantar Mantar New Delhi from 11 AM to 2 PM. IESM delegation will leave for Rashtrapati Bhawan at 2.15 PM to deposit the medals and memorandum at 3 PM to the President. Chairman IESM Gen Raj Kadyan has written to the President:
Quote
“It is earnestly hoped that the Supreme Commander would relent and receive the delegation in person. However, should that unfortunately not happen, as already intimated vide ibid letter dated 08 June 2010, the delegation would return without depositing the medals and the memorandum”
Unquote
4. All conveners are requested to put in their best effort to motivate the ESM across the country to deposit their medals and sign/ thumb impression the memorandum in Blood voluntarily for the above event. We hope that in the country specially the Northern States where large number of ESM reside are able to reach the target of 5000 Blood Signatures and medals each district. These can either be sent to IESM HQ at 543 Sector 23 Gurgaon or brought to Jantar Mantar on 22 Aug 2010 by 11 AM. Conveners are requested to get maximum ESM at Jantar Mantar. Part payment of transport charges will be made from the IESM funds, Tea, water and lunch packets are being arranged for the ESM attending the event.
5. Logistic Instructions for the event will be issued by the General Secretary separately.
6. We are also, putting efforts to get support from all segments of society including all political parties, MPs, MLAs, CMs.
7. Please circulate these contents to maximum ESM across the country.
“To struggle for the Just Cause is the right of every person. Let us together join in the efforts to get Justice to the Defence Forces”.
With Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
ON 08 AUG 2010- TV PROGRAMME ON ISSUES OF EX- SERVICEMEN
Dear Friends,
A Door Darshan Programme on issues of Ex Servicemen Titled. “Defence Watch” will be telecast at 10.30PM Today i.e. 08 Aug 10 at “DD News”. The programme will be repeated at 3.30 PM as Wednesday 11Aug 10.
This programme has Gen Ashok Mehta as the anchor with Air Marshal Roy (ECHS expert), Brig Gulia (President IESL) and self as participants.
You are requested to watch the programme. Pass on the info to as many ESM as possible.
With Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Men in Uniform are they obiligated to the Ex- Servicemen brethern?
Sent: Wed, 28 October, 2009 8:45:39 PM
Dear Colleagues,
On a family visit to Jaipur we stayed the Night 27/28 Oct with a Regimental battalion. It was nice being back to the freshness, warmth, and orderliness of a cantonment life. During the usual PT time walk through the officers' colony, we could see a noticeable improvement in the living standards. Roads are better maintained, lawns better manicured. More ACs than coolers can be seen jutting out of windows. Cars are bigger and better. Smartly dressed children could be seen rushing to catch the school buses – not the modified cagey trucks but proper buses. Odd Sahayaks could be seen walking Pugs and Danes, which fact is always used as a battering rod by the bureaucrats wanting the facility taken away.
A Subedar in his 28th Years of service gets 24-25000 in total. The mess waiter, who turned out to be from my own village (and claimed to have been helped by me in getting enrolled), gets a take- home of between 14000 and 15000 a month, that includes Salary, MSP, Grade Pay and Transport Allowance. Incidentally, every serving person is getting Rs 1600 pm as transport allowance.
One can have different views whether the existing salaries are adequate compensation for the dangers, hazards and difficulties of Service life. However, during my interaction, everyone from a Safaiwala to a Subedar Major appeared happy with what he gets.
I was pleasantly surprised that all the serving personnel are aware of the IESM and the efforts being made by it for betterment of the ESM. There was near unanimity that the Army is doing a lot for the serving but is not doing enough for the ESM and someone needs to focus in that direction.
New Members
We extend a very warm welcome to the following veterans and families who have joined the IESM:
Serial/ Number/ Rank/ Name/ Place
01. JC402013/ SUB/ RAMDHARI/ ROHTAK
02. JC1712850/ H CAPT/ WAZIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
03. JC695711/ SUB/ SURAN BHAN SIWACH/ ROHTAK
04. JC100803/ SUB/ BALWANT SINGH/ ROHTAK
05. JC1059527/ H NB SUB/ MAHABIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
06. JC2868263/ NK/ SAT PAUL/ ROHTAK
07. JC3168755/ NK/ SATBIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
08. JC3171050/ HAV/ RAJBIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
09. JC3161619/ NK/ DHANPAL SHINGH/ ROHTAK
10. JC1377478/ HAV/ RAJBIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
11. JC1260804/ NK/ DHIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
12. JC2878358/ HAV/ SAT NARAIN/ ROHTAK
13. JC3178994/ HAV/ SURESH KUMAR/ ROHTAK
14. JC13610280/ HAV/ DHIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
15. JC4543414/ HAV/ BALRAJ/ ROHTAK
16. JC2867579/HAV/ KARTAR SINGH/ ROHTAK
17. JC14290739/ NK/ RANDHIR SINGH SIWACH/ ROHTAK
18. JC3168520/ HAV/ PREM SINGH/ ROHTAK
19. JC3160923/HAV/ SURAJ BHAN/ ROHTAK
20. JC2858760/ NK/ SUMERA/ ROHTAK
21. JC3157571/ NK/ MAHAVIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
22. JC2851675/ RFN/ JAG PAL/ ROHTAK
23. JC2645327/ NK (LATE)/ MEVI DEVI W/O/ ROHTAK
24. JC6882576/ NK(LATE)/ W/O (LATE) BALWAN SINGH/ ROHTAK
25. JC14290043/ L/NK (LATE)/ JAINO DEVI W/O LATE RAJKUMAR/ ROHTAK
26. JC3132731/ SEP (LATE)/ RUKMANI W/O LATE RISAL SINGH/
27. JC2882240/ NK (LATE)/ MUNI DEVI W/O LATE BHIM SINGH/ ROHTAK
28. JC3168068/ HAV(LATE)/ KALA DEVI W/O LATE JAGDISH CHANDER/ ROHTAK
29. JC3144697/ NK(LATE)/ CHANDRO W/O LATE DHANA RAM/ ROHTAK
30. JC6902556/ NK/ MAHA SINGH/ ROHTAK
31. JC6480199/ SEP/ PARTAP SINGH/ ROHTAK
32. JC1448635/ L/NK/ RAMDHARI/ ROHTAK
33. JC6817776/ SEP/ JAGDISH RAI/ ROHTAK
34. JC1085848/ DHARAM VIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
35. JC16395/ RAM SARUP/ ROHTAK
36. JC036637/ SUB (LATE)/ KRISHNA DEVI W/O SUB NAFE SINGH
37. JC1496422 SEP (LATE)/ CHAMELIDEVI W/O SEP SULTAN SINGH/
38. JC14202589/ L/NK(LATE)/ ROSHNI DEVI W/O RAM KANWAR/ ROHTAK
39. JC95346/ SUB(LATE)/ DHANO DEVI W/O GOPI RAM/ ROHTAK
40. JC15051/ SEP (LATE)/ JEEVO W/O JAGI RAM/ ROHTAK
41. JC2571961/ SUB MAJ/ KAMAN SINGH DIWA/ ROHTAK
42. JC218261/ N/SUB/ RANBIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
43. JC1253855/ NK/ UMED SINGH/ ROHTAK
44. JC15177724/ NK/ SUNDER SINGH/ ROHTAK
45. JC36071/ SEP(LATE)/ KASTURI DEVI W/O DIWAN SHINGH/ ROHTAK
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM
Dear Colleagues,
On a family visit to Jaipur we stayed the Night 27/28 Oct with a Regimental battalion. It was nice being back to the freshness, warmth, and orderliness of a cantonment life. During the usual PT time walk through the officers' colony, we could see a noticeable improvement in the living standards. Roads are better maintained, lawns better manicured. More ACs than coolers can be seen jutting out of windows. Cars are bigger and better. Smartly dressed children could be seen rushing to catch the school buses – not the modified cagey trucks but proper buses. Odd Sahayaks could be seen walking Pugs and Danes, which fact is always used as a battering rod by the bureaucrats wanting the facility taken away.
A Subedar in his 28th Years of service gets 24-25000 in total. The mess waiter, who turned out to be from my own village (and claimed to have been helped by me in getting enrolled), gets a take- home of between 14000 and 15000 a month, that includes Salary, MSP, Grade Pay and Transport Allowance. Incidentally, every serving person is getting Rs 1600 pm as transport allowance.
One can have different views whether the existing salaries are adequate compensation for the dangers, hazards and difficulties of Service life. However, during my interaction, everyone from a Safaiwala to a Subedar Major appeared happy with what he gets.
I was pleasantly surprised that all the serving personnel are aware of the IESM and the efforts being made by it for betterment of the ESM. There was near unanimity that the Army is doing a lot for the serving but is not doing enough for the ESM and someone needs to focus in that direction.
New Members
We extend a very warm welcome to the following veterans and families who have joined the IESM:
Serial/ Number/ Rank/ Name/ Place
01. JC402013/ SUB/ RAMDHARI/ ROHTAK
02. JC1712850/ H CAPT/ WAZIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
03. JC695711/ SUB/ SURAN BHAN SIWACH/ ROHTAK
04. JC100803/ SUB/ BALWANT SINGH/ ROHTAK
05. JC1059527/ H NB SUB/ MAHABIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
06. JC2868263/ NK/ SAT PAUL/ ROHTAK
07. JC3168755/ NK/ SATBIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
08. JC3171050/ HAV/ RAJBIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
09. JC3161619/ NK/ DHANPAL SHINGH/ ROHTAK
10. JC1377478/ HAV/ RAJBIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
11. JC1260804/ NK/ DHIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
12. JC2878358/ HAV/ SAT NARAIN/ ROHTAK
13. JC3178994/ HAV/ SURESH KUMAR/ ROHTAK
14. JC13610280/ HAV/ DHIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
15. JC4543414/ HAV/ BALRAJ/ ROHTAK
16. JC2867579/HAV/ KARTAR SINGH/ ROHTAK
17. JC14290739/ NK/ RANDHIR SINGH SIWACH/ ROHTAK
18. JC3168520/ HAV/ PREM SINGH/ ROHTAK
19. JC3160923/HAV/ SURAJ BHAN/ ROHTAK
20. JC2858760/ NK/ SUMERA/ ROHTAK
21. JC3157571/ NK/ MAHAVIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
22. JC2851675/ RFN/ JAG PAL/ ROHTAK
23. JC2645327/ NK (LATE)/ MEVI DEVI W/O/ ROHTAK
24. JC6882576/ NK(LATE)/ W/O (LATE) BALWAN SINGH/ ROHTAK
25. JC14290043/ L/NK (LATE)/ JAINO DEVI W/O LATE RAJKUMAR/ ROHTAK
26. JC3132731/ SEP (LATE)/ RUKMANI W/O LATE RISAL SINGH/
27. JC2882240/ NK (LATE)/ MUNI DEVI W/O LATE BHIM SINGH/ ROHTAK
28. JC3168068/ HAV(LATE)/ KALA DEVI W/O LATE JAGDISH CHANDER/ ROHTAK
29. JC3144697/ NK(LATE)/ CHANDRO W/O LATE DHANA RAM/ ROHTAK
30. JC6902556/ NK/ MAHA SINGH/ ROHTAK
31. JC6480199/ SEP/ PARTAP SINGH/ ROHTAK
32. JC1448635/ L/NK/ RAMDHARI/ ROHTAK
33. JC6817776/ SEP/ JAGDISH RAI/ ROHTAK
34. JC1085848/ DHARAM VIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
35. JC16395/ RAM SARUP/ ROHTAK
36. JC036637/ SUB (LATE)/ KRISHNA DEVI W/O SUB NAFE SINGH
37. JC1496422 SEP (LATE)/ CHAMELIDEVI W/O SEP SULTAN SINGH/
38. JC14202589/ L/NK(LATE)/ ROSHNI DEVI W/O RAM KANWAR/ ROHTAK
39. JC95346/ SUB(LATE)/ DHANO DEVI W/O GOPI RAM/ ROHTAK
40. JC15051/ SEP (LATE)/ JEEVO W/O JAGI RAM/ ROHTAK
41. JC2571961/ SUB MAJ/ KAMAN SINGH DIWA/ ROHTAK
42. JC218261/ N/SUB/ RANBIR SINGH/ ROHTAK
43. JC1253855/ NK/ UMED SINGH/ ROHTAK
44. JC15177724/ NK/ SUNDER SINGH/ ROHTAK
45. JC36071/ SEP(LATE)/ KASTURI DEVI W/O DIWAN SHINGH/ ROHTAK
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
IESL: Aims and Objectives
IESL: Aims and Objectives
Click links below for more information:
MINUTES OF 201ST EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF IESL, HELD AT 1030 HOURS ON 26 MAR 2009 (THURSDAY) AT THE LEAGUE OFFICE, NEW DELHI
MINUTES OF 139TH GOVERNING COUNCIL MEETING OF IESL HELD AT 1100 HOURS ON 27 MAR 2009 (FRIDAY) AT THE LEAGUE OFFICE, NEW DELHI
Monday, September 14, 2009
IESM: Collection and Depositing Service Medals to the President
Warrant Officer Bala Thilkan giving a talk at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi - 13 Sep 09
Maj Gen Satbir Singh, Vice Chairman IESM, giving a talk at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi- 13 Sep 09
Left to Right- Col RP Chaturvedi and Wg Cdr CK Sharma, collecting and recording the medals
Left to Right- Wg Cdr Sharma and Hony Lt Kameshwar Pandey collecting and recording the medals
Medals being collected
Service Medals packed and ready for despatch to President
IESM poster at Jantar Mantar, New DelhiSunday, September 13, 2009
IESM: Readers inputs and responses
Inadequate Compensation
Date: Saturday, 12 September, 2009, 5:05 PM
Dear All,
One of the Delhi based Channel have undertaken the task of relaying stories of those families of martyrs who did not receive adequate compensation from the Government on the lines of Kargil martyrs. Basically soldiers who died while fighting terrorist during period from 2001 to 2009.
We request all to intimate details of any such known case or cases.
Regards,
Brig Nawab Singh (Retd)
Abnormal Pension Disparity
Dear Friends,
May I request those of you who retired in Oct- Dec 2005 and those who retired in Jan- Mar 2006 to kindly send me (cc to Maj Gen Surjit Singh) a scanned copy of your PPOs. Ask your friends to send, if necessary. We need PPOs from officers of each rank to build a case for non- application of mind in awarding pensions (post 6 CPC). If you cannot scan and send, please post it to me.
Help us to help yourselves.
Visit www.iesm.org for information on veterans' issues.
Best regards,
Maj Gen (Retd) PK Renjen, AVSM
Pension Red- Tape
I had invited two serving bank officials to RSI Bangalore as a token of my appreciation for the outstanding work they had done/ doing for ESM's 6 PCP implementation.
It was a very fruitful meeting & I came to know the startling news that RBI pays Rs45/ per transaction to the banks for pension credit i.e. a total of 9 crores (assuming the total ESM population as 20 lakhs) is paid by the RBI to banks every month & this alone amounts to 108 crores every year. Imagine having own IESM bank to take care of the transactions. Just imagine what we can do for ESM even if we get a fraction of this amount even Re 1/ per transaction.
Another sad fact that came to light again was about widows whose pension has not been revised since long. He quoted the name of one Mrs Thangammal (from Bangalore) wife of a sqn ldr who died in 1956 (the year I was born) & her pension has not been revised since 1956. She is 92 now & her dues amount to 24 lakhs. In spite of his best efforts he has not been able to get her the pension due to red tapism all over (including AF records office).
He will be providing her details to me next week & then I will request the IESM Pension cell to take up her case (if I am not able to solve it).
When we dig into a case we find all kinds of unexpected issues. This creates real agony for the widow (what I would call as a double whammy -death of loved one & reduced pension payment)
This only illustrates that we need to have a parallel org with CDA(P) on a PPP model to manage the pension issue. It should have a software development team & a data maintenance team along with a call center to address all issues of ESM pension on a pro active manner (& not a reactive manner). People may say that this the job of the CDA(P). Since we have to live with realities & we cannot change the work culture of a govt org we have no choice but to under take this mission. In the bargain we will obtain the ESM's data also which will facilitate unity of ESM (though we will be bound by some govt regulations also)
He also told me that 60 % arrears are expected on 22 Sep 2009 (to keep their names confidential I am not revealing the bank name).
Col VT Venkatesh (Retd)
Date: Saturday, 12 September, 2009, 5:05 PM
Dear All,
One of the Delhi based Channel have undertaken the task of relaying stories of those families of martyrs who did not receive adequate compensation from the Government on the lines of Kargil martyrs. Basically soldiers who died while fighting terrorist during period from 2001 to 2009.
We request all to intimate details of any such known case or cases.
Regards,
Brig Nawab Singh (Retd)
Abnormal Pension Disparity
Dear Friends,
May I request those of you who retired in Oct- Dec 2005 and those who retired in Jan- Mar 2006 to kindly send me (cc to Maj Gen Surjit Singh) a scanned copy of your PPOs. Ask your friends to send, if necessary. We need PPOs from officers of each rank to build a case for non- application of mind in awarding pensions (post 6 CPC). If you cannot scan and send, please post it to me.
Help us to help yourselves.
Visit www.iesm.org for information on veterans' issues.
Best regards,
Maj Gen (Retd) PK Renjen, AVSM
Pension Red- Tape
I had invited two serving bank officials to RSI Bangalore as a token of my appreciation for the outstanding work they had done/ doing for ESM's 6 PCP implementation.
It was a very fruitful meeting & I came to know the startling news that RBI pays Rs45/ per transaction to the banks for pension credit i.e. a total of 9 crores (assuming the total ESM population as 20 lakhs) is paid by the RBI to banks every month & this alone amounts to 108 crores every year. Imagine having own IESM bank to take care of the transactions. Just imagine what we can do for ESM even if we get a fraction of this amount even Re 1/ per transaction.
Another sad fact that came to light again was about widows whose pension has not been revised since long. He quoted the name of one Mrs Thangammal (from Bangalore) wife of a sqn ldr who died in 1956 (the year I was born) & her pension has not been revised since 1956. She is 92 now & her dues amount to 24 lakhs. In spite of his best efforts he has not been able to get her the pension due to red tapism all over (including AF records office).
He will be providing her details to me next week & then I will request the IESM Pension cell to take up her case (if I am not able to solve it).
When we dig into a case we find all kinds of unexpected issues. This creates real agony for the widow (what I would call as a double whammy -death of loved one & reduced pension payment)
This only illustrates that we need to have a parallel org with CDA(P) on a PPP model to manage the pension issue. It should have a software development team & a data maintenance team along with a call center to address all issues of ESM pension on a pro active manner (& not a reactive manner). People may say that this the job of the CDA(P). Since we have to live with realities & we cannot change the work culture of a govt org we have no choice but to under take this mission. In the bargain we will obtain the ESM's data also which will facilitate unity of ESM (though we will be bound by some govt regulations also)
He also told me that 60 % arrears are expected on 22 Sep 2009 (to keep their names confidential I am not revealing the bank name).
Col VT Venkatesh (Retd)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
OROP: Legal angle lightened up
Date: Sunday, 6 September, 2009, 2:03 PM
My Dear VK,
I have gone through your write up on 'OROP'. It made an interesting reading. But permit me to say that your conclusions from the Apex Court judgments are not correct.
Firstly, the question before the Constitunal Bench of the Apex Court in Nakra's case was not that of 'OROP'.The question was whether it was proper to lay down a cut-off date and say that the liberalised pension formula for a retired Goverment employee would be applicable only to those who retired after the cut-off date and and not to those retired prior to the cut off date. The Apex Court replied in the negative. Earlier, the pension was worked out on the bases of the average pay drawn by a Govt empolyee in the last 36 months of service. The liberalised formula reduced the period from last 36 months to last 10 months of service but laid down that this would be applicable only to those retired after the cut-off date. The Apex Court directed the Govt to make it applicable to all Govt employees irrespective of their date of retirement. The famous quote from the said judgment was "Govt cannot pick up a date from the hat to say those retiring after the date would get the benefit and those retiring before it won't".
The last statement from the Apex Court judgment was misunderstood by many, including IESL (Indian Ex-Servicemen League) and they thought the judgement propagated 'OROP'. It did not. IESL on such misconception moved the Apex Court and instead of building up its case with regard to 'OROP' on its own merit, sought directions to the Government for 'OROP' on the basis of Nakra's judgment.
Another Constitutional Bench of five judges deciding IESL case (judgment by JS Verma CJI) then threadbare analysed Nakra's judgment and concluded that Nakra's judgment did not lay down such proposition and dismissed IESL writ petition.
In the latest case of Major Generals decided by two judges (Vains case) the question before the Apex Court was whether it was rational that pension of a Major General retiring before 1.1.1996 (i.e. even on 31.12.1995) is lower than that of a Brigadier retiring on or after 1.1.1996. Taking cue from and Nakra's judgment "Govt cannot pick up a date from the hat to say those retiring after the date would get the benefit and those retiring before it won't" and relyning upon the said judgment, the two-judges Bench decided it was not rational that the pension of a Major General retiring before 1.1.1996 (i.e. even on 31.12.1995) is lower than that of a Brigadier retiring on or after 1.1.1996. The Court (two judges) then directed the Govt to fix the pensions of all Major Generals who retired before 1.1.1996 at par with the pension of similar officers who retired on or after 1.1.1996.
This too does not lay down OROP proposition. In any case, IESL case decided by five-judges Constitutional Bench was not referred to the two-judges Bench in Vains case (Major General's case). Two-judges Bench naturally cannot decide against what a five-judges Constitutional Bench has held.
In this context your quoting a part only of the judgment and analysing the complete law on the subject is not correct. You thus have quoted the following out of context:
"This also contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of 17 December 1982 that stated: “by introducing an arbitrary eligibility, being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date, or being eligible for the regularised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, these classifications being not based on any discernible rational principle ... are unconstitutional and are struck down."
In my view the whole subject calls for a 'Review' by the Apex Court by a seven-judges Constitutional Bench.
With best wishes,
MG
(Lt Col MG Kapoor, Practising Law in Delhi High Court)
Blog link:
Military Pension Parity: Logical and a sound solution
My Dear VK,
I have gone through your write up on 'OROP'. It made an interesting reading. But permit me to say that your conclusions from the Apex Court judgments are not correct.
Firstly, the question before the Constitunal Bench of the Apex Court in Nakra's case was not that of 'OROP'.The question was whether it was proper to lay down a cut-off date and say that the liberalised pension formula for a retired Goverment employee would be applicable only to those who retired after the cut-off date and and not to those retired prior to the cut off date. The Apex Court replied in the negative. Earlier, the pension was worked out on the bases of the average pay drawn by a Govt empolyee in the last 36 months of service. The liberalised formula reduced the period from last 36 months to last 10 months of service but laid down that this would be applicable only to those retired after the cut-off date. The Apex Court directed the Govt to make it applicable to all Govt employees irrespective of their date of retirement. The famous quote from the said judgment was "Govt cannot pick up a date from the hat to say those retiring after the date would get the benefit and those retiring before it won't".
The last statement from the Apex Court judgment was misunderstood by many, including IESL (Indian Ex-Servicemen League) and they thought the judgement propagated 'OROP'. It did not. IESL on such misconception moved the Apex Court and instead of building up its case with regard to 'OROP' on its own merit, sought directions to the Government for 'OROP' on the basis of Nakra's judgment.
Another Constitutional Bench of five judges deciding IESL case (judgment by JS Verma CJI) then threadbare analysed Nakra's judgment and concluded that Nakra's judgment did not lay down such proposition and dismissed IESL writ petition.
In the latest case of Major Generals decided by two judges (Vains case) the question before the Apex Court was whether it was rational that pension of a Major General retiring before 1.1.1996 (i.e. even on 31.12.1995) is lower than that of a Brigadier retiring on or after 1.1.1996. Taking cue from and Nakra's judgment "Govt cannot pick up a date from the hat to say those retiring after the date would get the benefit and those retiring before it won't" and relyning upon the said judgment, the two-judges Bench decided it was not rational that the pension of a Major General retiring before 1.1.1996 (i.e. even on 31.12.1995) is lower than that of a Brigadier retiring on or after 1.1.1996. The Court (two judges) then directed the Govt to fix the pensions of all Major Generals who retired before 1.1.1996 at par with the pension of similar officers who retired on or after 1.1.1996.
This too does not lay down OROP proposition. In any case, IESL case decided by five-judges Constitutional Bench was not referred to the two-judges Bench in Vains case (Major General's case). Two-judges Bench naturally cannot decide against what a five-judges Constitutional Bench has held.
In this context your quoting a part only of the judgment and analysing the complete law on the subject is not correct. You thus have quoted the following out of context:
"This also contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of 17 December 1982 that stated: “by introducing an arbitrary eligibility, being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date, or being eligible for the regularised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, these classifications being not based on any discernible rational principle ... are unconstitutional and are struck down."
In my view the whole subject calls for a 'Review' by the Apex Court by a seven-judges Constitutional Bench.
With best wishes,
MG
(Lt Col MG Kapoor, Practising Law in Delhi High Court)
Blog link:
Military Pension Parity: Logical and a sound solution
Friday, September 4, 2009
Military Pension Parity: A logical and sound solution
Friday, 4 September, 2009 11:54:24 AM
Dear Brigadier Kamboj,
I am giving below a note about OROP that we discussed yesterday.
Regards,
VK Singh
(Maj Gen VK Singh)
ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)- THE PROBLEM & SOLUTION
Background
Before 1970, armed forces personnel were granted pension based only on the rank held by them when they retired. A soldier became eligible for pension after having served for the minimum period laid down. Extra service did not earn him more pension. This really meant One Rank One Pension (OROP).
The Third Pay Commission, set up in April 1970, equated military pension with the civil pension. Eligibility for pension was related to the civil service requirement of 33 years service. The Commission ignored the fact that soldiers rarely serve for 33 years, since the age of retirement is not uniform, but related to rank. The earlier inbuilt monetary compensation for a truncated career was dispensed with and in lieu a weightage in years of service was introduced. These measures effectively neutralised the prevailing edge that military pension had until then.
In 1985, Shri KP Singh Deo, the then RRM, suggested that OROP should mean ‘same rank same total length of service same pension’. (This needs to be verified). The guiding principle or logic was “No two soldiers holding the same rank and same total length of service to their credit shall draw different pensions.” Since then, OROP has come to mean just this, with a length of service forming part of the eligibility criteria, unlike the pre 1970 definition when only rank was considered.
Successive pay commissions have continued with this trend, revising pay and pensions of military personnel from a certain date. This has effectively made classes within each rank, nullifying the principle given above ie soldiers holding the same rank and same length of service should get the same pension. This also contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of 17 December 1982 that stated: “by introducing an arbitrary eligibility, being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date, or being eligible for the regularised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, these classifications being not based on any discernible rational principle ... are unconstitutional and are struck down."
The Problem
The constraints at present stems from the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, which has decided to fix the pension based on pay bands, instead of rank. The concept of clubbing several ranks in one pay band is illogical, especially in the military, which has distinct ranks. These pay bands are applicable from a particular date, leading to a differential in the pensions of persons of the same rank retiring before 1997, between 1997 and 2006, and after 2006.
The Solutions
The ideal solution would be to revert to the pre 1970 concept of one rank one pension, without taking into account the length of service. This solution is simple, logical and would be permanent. This provision can be incorporated in Defence Service Regulations and approved by Parliament. It would not be subject to debate and protests after every pay commission.
Another solution would be to fix the pensions in line with the latest Supreme Court judgment of September 2008 in the Major Generals’ case, which directed that “the pay of all pensioners ----- be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales ------, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis”. This solution appears to be logical, but would result in the pay of every retiree being fixed, notionally, into the new pay scale/ band, requiring issue of fresh individual PPOs – a herculean task. This exercise would have to be repeated every ten years or so, when a new pay commission is constituted.
There is a view that the truncated service of a soldier should not viewed as a loss which has to be compensated. A soldier who retires at the age of 45 with full pension is able to start a new career, where he earns a salary. In addition, he gets his pension. Civil servants who retire at the age of 60 are too old to start a new career, and have to make do with the pension only. There is merit in the argument. An out of the box solution would be to ensure that all government servants, including soldiers, retire at the age of 60. It is possible, as explained below.
Due to the peculiar demands of military service, soldiers cannot serve beyond a certain age in the Armed Forces. Then how does he serve up to the age of 60? By side stepping to a non military government job. This need not be only in the para military forces, but in any government department, such as forests, irrigation, education, agriculture, horticulture, electricity boards, telecom, PSUs and so on. The second career will be treated as a continuation of his service in the military, and he will start getting his pension only after his superannuation at the age of 60.
Consider the advantages. Every soldier will be assured of a government job till the age of 60. This will do wonders to his morale.. The induction of trained and disciplined personnel will gradually improve the motivation and discipline of the government work force, which is at present lacking these attributes. The State will save a lot of money. Today, a soldier gets a salary for 20 years and then draws a pension for 40 years, assuming he lives up to the age of 80. If he was to be side stepped to a government job, he would serve for 40 years and draw a pension for only 20 years. The pension bill for the Armed Forces would be reduced by almost half! The major objection to grant of OROP is that it will cost a lot of money.
Once we suggest a solution that saves money, how can anyone object? At least the Finance Minister should jump at it.
Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)
Dear Brigadier Kamboj,
I am giving below a note about OROP that we discussed yesterday.
Regards,
VK Singh
(Maj Gen VK Singh)
ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)- THE PROBLEM & SOLUTION
Background
Before 1970, armed forces personnel were granted pension based only on the rank held by them when they retired. A soldier became eligible for pension after having served for the minimum period laid down. Extra service did not earn him more pension. This really meant One Rank One Pension (OROP).
The Third Pay Commission, set up in April 1970, equated military pension with the civil pension. Eligibility for pension was related to the civil service requirement of 33 years service. The Commission ignored the fact that soldiers rarely serve for 33 years, since the age of retirement is not uniform, but related to rank. The earlier inbuilt monetary compensation for a truncated career was dispensed with and in lieu a weightage in years of service was introduced. These measures effectively neutralised the prevailing edge that military pension had until then.
In 1985, Shri KP Singh Deo, the then RRM, suggested that OROP should mean ‘same rank same total length of service same pension’. (This needs to be verified). The guiding principle or logic was “No two soldiers holding the same rank and same total length of service to their credit shall draw different pensions.” Since then, OROP has come to mean just this, with a length of service forming part of the eligibility criteria, unlike the pre 1970 definition when only rank was considered.
Successive pay commissions have continued with this trend, revising pay and pensions of military personnel from a certain date. This has effectively made classes within each rank, nullifying the principle given above ie soldiers holding the same rank and same length of service should get the same pension. This also contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of 17 December 1982 that stated: “by introducing an arbitrary eligibility, being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date, or being eligible for the regularised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, these classifications being not based on any discernible rational principle ... are unconstitutional and are struck down."
The Problem
The constraints at present stems from the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, which has decided to fix the pension based on pay bands, instead of rank. The concept of clubbing several ranks in one pay band is illogical, especially in the military, which has distinct ranks. These pay bands are applicable from a particular date, leading to a differential in the pensions of persons of the same rank retiring before 1997, between 1997 and 2006, and after 2006.
The Solutions
The ideal solution would be to revert to the pre 1970 concept of one rank one pension, without taking into account the length of service. This solution is simple, logical and would be permanent. This provision can be incorporated in Defence Service Regulations and approved by Parliament. It would not be subject to debate and protests after every pay commission.
Another solution would be to fix the pensions in line with the latest Supreme Court judgment of September 2008 in the Major Generals’ case, which directed that “the pay of all pensioners ----- be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales ------, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis”. This solution appears to be logical, but would result in the pay of every retiree being fixed, notionally, into the new pay scale/ band, requiring issue of fresh individual PPOs – a herculean task. This exercise would have to be repeated every ten years or so, when a new pay commission is constituted.
There is a view that the truncated service of a soldier should not viewed as a loss which has to be compensated. A soldier who retires at the age of 45 with full pension is able to start a new career, where he earns a salary. In addition, he gets his pension. Civil servants who retire at the age of 60 are too old to start a new career, and have to make do with the pension only. There is merit in the argument. An out of the box solution would be to ensure that all government servants, including soldiers, retire at the age of 60. It is possible, as explained below.
Due to the peculiar demands of military service, soldiers cannot serve beyond a certain age in the Armed Forces. Then how does he serve up to the age of 60? By side stepping to a non military government job. This need not be only in the para military forces, but in any government department, such as forests, irrigation, education, agriculture, horticulture, electricity boards, telecom, PSUs and so on. The second career will be treated as a continuation of his service in the military, and he will start getting his pension only after his superannuation at the age of 60.
Consider the advantages. Every soldier will be assured of a government job till the age of 60. This will do wonders to his morale.. The induction of trained and disciplined personnel will gradually improve the motivation and discipline of the government work force, which is at present lacking these attributes. The State will save a lot of money. Today, a soldier gets a salary for 20 years and then draws a pension for 40 years, assuming he lives up to the age of 80. If he was to be side stepped to a government job, he would serve for 40 years and draw a pension for only 20 years. The pension bill for the Armed Forces would be reduced by almost half! The major objection to grant of OROP is that it will cost a lot of money.
Once we suggest a solution that saves money, how can anyone object? At least the Finance Minister should jump at it.
Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)
Saturday, August 29, 2009
SCPC: Military Pensions Screwed Beyond Comprehension
Dear Brig Kamboj,
In an idle reverie, I worked out the total terminal benefits received by two Cols who had put in identical lengths of service. Of them one retired in Dec 2005 and the other was luckier and served one month longer. The difference in their take home packages is a whopping nineteen lacs of rupees, tax free. Some friends tell me that this kind of anomalies have occurred during the previous pay commissions also. True. But the magnitude this time is far greater.
As far as I can see it, the hard feelings this time are unlikely to die out in a hurry. The legal eagles tell me that the government is pretty sure that they can hold their ground in the court of law. Indeed they may be able to make the case drag on for years on end, but I doubt that they can ever face the veterans face to face.
I do not see this 'movement' dying in a hurry!
The worksheet is given for those who care for figures.
Regards,
Maj Gen Surjit Singh (Retd)
Daylight Robbery which can haunt the Pre 2006 Retirees till doomsday
The typical military officer retiring these days is a Col or Col (TS). At the time of superannuating, he receives some terminal benefits, apart from his pension. I took the case of two such colonels one of whom retired in Dec 2005 and the other in January 2006, for the sake of comparison.
Benefits/ Jan 2006/ Dec 2005
Gratuity/ 10,00,000/ 3,50,000
Leave encashment/ 6,96,000/ 4,14,000
Commutation/ 18,91000/ 9,40,000
Total/ 35,87,000/ 17,04,000
The monthly pension is as under:
Full pension/ 31,200/ 26,050
Commuted portion/ 15,600/ 6,509
Residual pension +DA-CV(Jul 09)/ 24,024/ 26,574
With each passing year, Jan 2006 retiree will get a greater sum, because his DA will accrue on a larger ‘basic’ pension, and by 2012, his monthly pension will also be higher.
The Bottom Line
It is evident that the officer who retired just one month later gets about nineteen lac rupees more than his colleague who went home just one month earlier. The difference in their dates of birth could be just one day! (And this amount is tax free). Even at a conservative 10% rate of interest, this can yield a monthly income of Rs 16,000 per month, with the capital intact. The officer born just one day later therefore becomes that much richer.
In an idle reverie, I worked out the total terminal benefits received by two Cols who had put in identical lengths of service. Of them one retired in Dec 2005 and the other was luckier and served one month longer. The difference in their take home packages is a whopping nineteen lacs of rupees, tax free. Some friends tell me that this kind of anomalies have occurred during the previous pay commissions also. True. But the magnitude this time is far greater.
As far as I can see it, the hard feelings this time are unlikely to die out in a hurry. The legal eagles tell me that the government is pretty sure that they can hold their ground in the court of law. Indeed they may be able to make the case drag on for years on end, but I doubt that they can ever face the veterans face to face.
I do not see this 'movement' dying in a hurry!
The worksheet is given for those who care for figures.
Regards,
Maj Gen Surjit Singh (Retd)
Daylight Robbery which can haunt the Pre 2006 Retirees till doomsday
The typical military officer retiring these days is a Col or Col (TS). At the time of superannuating, he receives some terminal benefits, apart from his pension. I took the case of two such colonels one of whom retired in Dec 2005 and the other in January 2006, for the sake of comparison.
Benefits/ Jan 2006/ Dec 2005
Gratuity/ 10,00,000/ 3,50,000
Leave encashment/ 6,96,000/ 4,14,000
Commutation/ 18,91000/ 9,40,000
Total/ 35,87,000/ 17,04,000
The monthly pension is as under:
Full pension/ 31,200/ 26,050
Commuted portion/ 15,600/ 6,509
Residual pension +DA-CV(Jul 09)/ 24,024/ 26,574
With each passing year, Jan 2006 retiree will get a greater sum, because his DA will accrue on a larger ‘basic’ pension, and by 2012, his monthly pension will also be higher.
The Bottom Line
It is evident that the officer who retired just one month later gets about nineteen lac rupees more than his colleague who went home just one month earlier. The difference in their dates of birth could be just one day! (And this amount is tax free). Even at a conservative 10% rate of interest, this can yield a monthly income of Rs 16,000 per month, with the capital intact. The officer born just one day later therefore becomes that much richer.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Committee Report circumnavigates main issue of Pension Parity for Defence Forces
Date: Wednesday, 26 August, 2009, 11:26 AM
Sir,
I happened to lay my hands (courtesy Lt Cdr Balaji of Pension Cell of IESM) for the first time on the 'Report of the committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary to (specifically study OROP Demand of the Armed Forces' click me formed under the directions of the Prime Minister on a reference from the Raksha Mantri.
The President had also announced in the Parliament the formation of this committee specifically for the Armed Forces as related to their demand of OROP. The clear inference of this is that the terms of reference for this committee were as related to the reference to issues raised by the Raksha Mantri. Therefore the committee was supposed restrict their study only to the demand of OROP of the Armed Forces. Yet, the committee advises the extension of one of the recommendations to the civilians also. This is with regard to the pay scale and consequently pension in respect of Lt.Gen. and equivalent ranks in the other two services. Para (V) of the report 'summary of recommendations' advocates a separate pay-scale(67000-79000) for Lt. Gens in the HAG. In the same breath the committee recommends the extension of this benefit to Addl Secretaries,Chief Commissioners of Income Tax, Addl Dir Gens of police/eq grade. If so many arguments are advanced by the committee against accepting OROP, how does the same committee makes such a recommendation without even one line of justification for its own ilk?
This shows how babus extend all benefits meant for others to themselves conveniently and without any struggle. And how they ensure that their ascendancy is always maintained.
But the main issue at consideration is whether this underhand dealing is legally or ethically sustainable? Can an official committee formed with a specific terms of reference enlarge the scope of its study on its own and whether acceptance/ implementations by the government of its recommendations on such enlarged scope legally/ ethically valid? The inference is also that the President misled the Parliament when she announced that the government is committed to the welfare of the Armed Forces resulting in the formation of the committee, while the committee was also committed to the welfare of its own tribe. Has this yet been questioned by any ESM?
I request the legal cell of IESM to study the matter. This will also be useful for taking a decision on further course of action once the RTI information on the 5 committees sought by Cmde Batra is available.
Regards,
Shashank Bendre
Wg Cdr (Retd)
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Complete recommendations: report of the Committee of Secretaries
Readers may access and download the complete recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries by clicking here. Though most of the important issues have already been amplified in earlier posts, some other recommendations are :
(a) Like defence personnel, linkage of full pension with 33 years’ service also to be removed for civilians who retired between 01 January 2006 and 31 August 2008.
(b) Broad-banding of disability percentage would be extended to pre-1996 pensioners too. It may be recalled that the 5th Pay Commission, in order to curtail medical subjectivity of medical boards, had recommended that personnel with a disability percentage below 50% may be released a disability element by taking the disability @ 50%, those with 50%-75% disability may be paid @ 75% and those with a disability percentage of over 76% may be paid by taking the disability as 100%. This was accepted by the Govt in 2001 but was made applicable only to post-96 pensioners. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had however held that this dispensation should be extended to pre-96 disability pensioners too but the said decision was challenged by the Govt in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(c) Removal of the cap on war-injury pension (known as Disability pension of Category E in case of civilians) to be extended to personnel of civilian forces too.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh
Recommendations of Cabinet Secretary
Sir,
I happened to lay my hands (courtesy Lt Cdr Balaji of Pension Cell of IESM) for the first time on the 'Report of the committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary to (specifically study OROP Demand of the Armed Forces' click me formed under the directions of the Prime Minister on a reference from the Raksha Mantri.
The President had also announced in the Parliament the formation of this committee specifically for the Armed Forces as related to their demand of OROP. The clear inference of this is that the terms of reference for this committee were as related to the reference to issues raised by the Raksha Mantri. Therefore the committee was supposed restrict their study only to the demand of OROP of the Armed Forces. Yet, the committee advises the extension of one of the recommendations to the civilians also. This is with regard to the pay scale and consequently pension in respect of Lt.Gen. and equivalent ranks in the other two services. Para (V) of the report 'summary of recommendations' advocates a separate pay-scale(67000-79000) for Lt. Gens in the HAG. In the same breath the committee recommends the extension of this benefit to Addl Secretaries,Chief Commissioners of Income Tax, Addl Dir Gens of police/eq grade. If so many arguments are advanced by the committee against accepting OROP, how does the same committee makes such a recommendation without even one line of justification for its own ilk?
This shows how babus extend all benefits meant for others to themselves conveniently and without any struggle. And how they ensure that their ascendancy is always maintained.
But the main issue at consideration is whether this underhand dealing is legally or ethically sustainable? Can an official committee formed with a specific terms of reference enlarge the scope of its study on its own and whether acceptance/ implementations by the government of its recommendations on such enlarged scope legally/ ethically valid? The inference is also that the President misled the Parliament when she announced that the government is committed to the welfare of the Armed Forces resulting in the formation of the committee, while the committee was also committed to the welfare of its own tribe. Has this yet been questioned by any ESM?
I request the legal cell of IESM to study the matter. This will also be useful for taking a decision on further course of action once the RTI information on the 5 committees sought by Cmde Batra is available.
Regards,
Shashank Bendre
Wg Cdr (Retd)
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Complete recommendations: report of the Committee of Secretaries
Readers may access and download the complete recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries by clicking here. Though most of the important issues have already been amplified in earlier posts, some other recommendations are :
(a) Like defence personnel, linkage of full pension with 33 years’ service also to be removed for civilians who retired between 01 January 2006 and 31 August 2008.
(b) Broad-banding of disability percentage would be extended to pre-1996 pensioners too. It may be recalled that the 5th Pay Commission, in order to curtail medical subjectivity of medical boards, had recommended that personnel with a disability percentage below 50% may be released a disability element by taking the disability @ 50%, those with 50%-75% disability may be paid @ 75% and those with a disability percentage of over 76% may be paid by taking the disability as 100%. This was accepted by the Govt in 2001 but was made applicable only to post-96 pensioners. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had however held that this dispensation should be extended to pre-96 disability pensioners too but the said decision was challenged by the Govt in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(c) Removal of the cap on war-injury pension (known as Disability pension of Category E in case of civilians) to be extended to personnel of civilian forces too.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh
Recommendations of Cabinet Secretary
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
IESM: Return of Military Medals to the President
Dear Friends,
1. This is to prepare ourselves for the event of depositing of our Gallantry Medals on 13 Sep 2009. Every segment of society gets its due only when they Unite and fight for their rights. Kautaly’s advice to King Maurya has been totally forgotten by the Govt in the case of the Indian Soldiers today. While we are totally committed to the peaceful Movement in a dignified manner remaining within the confines of discipline and democratic norms, we need to solidly unite. Government takes serious note of our legitimate demands. Depositing of medals has been one of most successful strategy of our Movement. It is with great anguish and hurt feelings, we are once again depositing our medals with the President.
2. In our country today, the numbers matter. There is therefore, need to put in hard efforts in collection and deposit of medals on the 13th Sep 2009. All ESM Organisations and ESM are requested to go all out and collect maximum medals for deposition with the President.
3. IESM conveners at all levels are requested to organize the collection of medals and duly packed with details, send these to IESM HQ at 543 Sector 23 Gurgaon/ bring it along when you come for 30 Aug 2009 meeting/ deposit on 13 Sep 2009 at Jantar Mantar from 9 AM to 2 PM. Maximum Publicity is Requested Please.
With Kind Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
1. This is to prepare ourselves for the event of depositing of our Gallantry Medals on 13 Sep 2009. Every segment of society gets its due only when they Unite and fight for their rights. Kautaly’s advice to King Maurya has been totally forgotten by the Govt in the case of the Indian Soldiers today. While we are totally committed to the peaceful Movement in a dignified manner remaining within the confines of discipline and democratic norms, we need to solidly unite. Government takes serious note of our legitimate demands. Depositing of medals has been one of most successful strategy of our Movement. It is with great anguish and hurt feelings, we are once again depositing our medals with the President.
2. In our country today, the numbers matter. There is therefore, need to put in hard efforts in collection and deposit of medals on the 13th Sep 2009. All ESM Organisations and ESM are requested to go all out and collect maximum medals for deposition with the President.
3. IESM conveners at all levels are requested to organize the collection of medals and duly packed with details, send these to IESM HQ at 543 Sector 23 Gurgaon/ bring it along when you come for 30 Aug 2009 meeting/ deposit on 13 Sep 2009 at Jantar Mantar from 9 AM to 2 PM. Maximum Publicity is Requested Please.
With Kind Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
IESM: Pension Anomalies- March for Justice
Date: Friday, 14 August, 2009, 4:04 PM
SERIOUS ANOMALIES IN PENSIONS AND DEPOSITING OF MEDAL
Dear Friends
1. The next date for return of medals to the President is 09 Sep 2009 at 3.00 PM. This is being done due to the total apathetic attitude shown by the Govt towards our most genuine demand of One Rank One Pension. A few facts are brought to your notice.
PBOR
There is a large gap which still exists between pre 01.01.06 retirees and post 01.01.06 retirees. Pre 01-01-06 Sepoy will get Rs 5461 where as the post 01-01-06 will get Rs 7045 with 50 percent weightage. This gap which will further increase once 70% weightage is implemented. OROP to the PBORs thus has not been granted as against what is being claimed by the Government.
Officers
A Major General pre 2006 retiree will get far less pension than his four ranks junior ie Lt Col who retired after 01-01-06. Likewise other senior rank officers ie Brig, Col, Lt Col, Maj, Capt, Lt, JCO's who are pre 2006 retirees will get less pension than their counterparts who retired after 01-01-06. This is a weird situation which is also a blatant violation of article 14 of the constitution. A senior rank officer must never get less pension than his junior rank officer irrespective of the date of retirement. The very functioning of the Army Rank structure is being adversely affected. The table below illustrates the point.
Pre 2006/ Post 2006 (01.01.06)
Major 14100/ 22135
Lt Col 25700/ 28695
Col 26050/ 30375
Brig 26150/ 31170
Maj Gen 26700/ 33925
Lt Gen 36500/ 39500
Likewise pre 2006 retiree Col will draw 26050 where as post 01-01-06 will get 30375. A large a gap of Rs 11600 exists between pensions of Major and Lt Col. Similarly large gap has been created between the pensions of Major General and Lt Gen i.e Rs 9800/-. The pension variation/ differential of Lt Col, Col, Brig and Major General have been kept in a narrow a range ie Rs 25700– Rs 26700/- gap of only Rs 1000. Between Col and Maj Gen the difference in pension is only Rs 650/-. The anomaly is too glaring. There should be adequate diffential between the pensions of successive rank and there should be no large variations within a particular rank.
While implementing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Maj Gens, the Govt has accepted the concept of granting the same pension to pre 96 and post 96 retirees the plea made by Maj Gens when 5th Pay Commission was implemented. In the same way the Govt should have applied the same concept in the case of pre 01 Jan 2006 and Post 01 Jan 2006 retirees. Three Assured Carrier Progressions (ACP) concept has been accepted as 6th CPC award. But the same has not been applied to the past pensioners. The past pensioners should also be given the benefit of ACP by notionally applying the concept to them and their pensions fixed accordingly.
2. Friends, we need to prepare ourselves to be a one united whole of ESM to resolve all our issues to get due justice with an aim of establishing healthy environment of functioning of Defence Forces in a democracy. As you are aware the IESM has already been registered as a federation of all ESM organizations. Organization membership system has been put in place besides the individual membership. The IESM has had one year’s experience of its functioning. Besides pressing for our major demands, we have also started ECHS and Pension Cells to improve the satisfaction levels of ESM. This is the right time that all ESM organizations in the country should join the IESM as part of the Federation to make it an umbrella organization of the ESM of India. State convenors are requested to launch a concerted drive in this regard.
3. Medals deposit being our next event, all out efforts be made to collect maximum medals and send these through couriers or by hand to IESM HQ Office at 543 Sector 23 Gurgaon (Haryana) 122017. Representatives attending the meeting on 30 Aug 2009 at Noida may kindly bring the collected medals from their respective area with them. The state convenors are also requested to nominate their districts, city, tehsil and block committees of IESM if not already done and forward their details to the HQ IESM at the above address at the earliest.
With Kind Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
SERIOUS ANOMALIES IN PENSIONS AND DEPOSITING OF MEDAL
Dear Friends
1. The next date for return of medals to the President is 09 Sep 2009 at 3.00 PM. This is being done due to the total apathetic attitude shown by the Govt towards our most genuine demand of One Rank One Pension. A few facts are brought to your notice.
PBOR
There is a large gap which still exists between pre 01.01.06 retirees and post 01.01.06 retirees. Pre 01-01-06 Sepoy will get Rs 5461 where as the post 01-01-06 will get Rs 7045 with 50 percent weightage. This gap which will further increase once 70% weightage is implemented. OROP to the PBORs thus has not been granted as against what is being claimed by the Government.
Officers
A Major General pre 2006 retiree will get far less pension than his four ranks junior ie Lt Col who retired after 01-01-06. Likewise other senior rank officers ie Brig, Col, Lt Col, Maj, Capt, Lt, JCO's who are pre 2006 retirees will get less pension than their counterparts who retired after 01-01-06. This is a weird situation which is also a blatant violation of article 14 of the constitution. A senior rank officer must never get less pension than his junior rank officer irrespective of the date of retirement. The very functioning of the Army Rank structure is being adversely affected. The table below illustrates the point.
Pre 2006/ Post 2006 (01.01.06)
Major 14100/ 22135
Lt Col 25700/ 28695
Col 26050/ 30375
Brig 26150/ 31170
Maj Gen 26700/ 33925
Lt Gen 36500/ 39500
Likewise pre 2006 retiree Col will draw 26050 where as post 01-01-06 will get 30375. A large a gap of Rs 11600 exists between pensions of Major and Lt Col. Similarly large gap has been created between the pensions of Major General and Lt Gen i.e Rs 9800/-. The pension variation/ differential of Lt Col, Col, Brig and Major General have been kept in a narrow a range ie Rs 25700– Rs 26700/- gap of only Rs 1000. Between Col and Maj Gen the difference in pension is only Rs 650/-. The anomaly is too glaring. There should be adequate diffential between the pensions of successive rank and there should be no large variations within a particular rank.
While implementing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Maj Gens, the Govt has accepted the concept of granting the same pension to pre 96 and post 96 retirees the plea made by Maj Gens when 5th Pay Commission was implemented. In the same way the Govt should have applied the same concept in the case of pre 01 Jan 2006 and Post 01 Jan 2006 retirees. Three Assured Carrier Progressions (ACP) concept has been accepted as 6th CPC award. But the same has not been applied to the past pensioners. The past pensioners should also be given the benefit of ACP by notionally applying the concept to them and their pensions fixed accordingly.
2. Friends, we need to prepare ourselves to be a one united whole of ESM to resolve all our issues to get due justice with an aim of establishing healthy environment of functioning of Defence Forces in a democracy. As you are aware the IESM has already been registered as a federation of all ESM organizations. Organization membership system has been put in place besides the individual membership. The IESM has had one year’s experience of its functioning. Besides pressing for our major demands, we have also started ECHS and Pension Cells to improve the satisfaction levels of ESM. This is the right time that all ESM organizations in the country should join the IESM as part of the Federation to make it an umbrella organization of the ESM of India. State convenors are requested to launch a concerted drive in this regard.
3. Medals deposit being our next event, all out efforts be made to collect maximum medals and send these through couriers or by hand to IESM HQ Office at 543 Sector 23 Gurgaon (Haryana) 122017. Representatives attending the meeting on 30 Aug 2009 at Noida may kindly bring the collected medals from their respective area with them. The state convenors are also requested to nominate their districts, city, tehsil and block committees of IESM if not already done and forward their details to the HQ IESM at the above address at the earliest.
With Kind Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
SCPC: Pension anomalies are created by bureaucrats
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 11:28 AM
Sir,
This is with reference to the injustice done to the Majors in fixing their pensions.
Have the three service chiefs taken any action on the issue of unacceptable level of pension the officers of the rank of 'Major', which is considered a 'senior officer' in the services, have got? It is just ridiculous that an officer just one rank lower than a Lt.Col. and in some cases equal service should get over Rs. 10000/- less. Earlier, Lt Cols were unjustly put in the lower pay band by the 6th CPC just because there is no equivalent grade in the Central Civil Services. And they got their due because the govt capitulated on realising the strong reaction from the serving officers and the service chiefs and its overall repercussions.
It is apparent that the anomalies arise because the CPCs (bureaucrats) first fix the pensions of the CCS and then attempt to find equivalent ranks of personnel in the Armed Forces personnel- both Commissioned officers and PBORs by a method which can be termed "fill in the gaps". They are unable to find precise equivalence because of the fact that the hierarchical structure of the Armed Forces is basically different from that of the CCS. It is a rank structure as distinct from the grade structure in the CCS. This structure has evolved to suit the peculiar nature of their job which is entirely different from that of any civil service job.
So the answer to that is to have a separate Pay Commission for the Armed Forces which the (Prime Minister?) govt has accepted in principle for future. But we need to take care of the present. IESM must take up the case of Majors, Squadron Leaders and Lieutenant Commanders who form the backbone of the officer cadre of the Armed Forces.
The same treatment has been meted out to non-commissioned ranks. The proper terminology for the (Air Force) airmen of the rank of Corporal is non-commissioned officer,Sergeants-Senior Non-Commissioned officer and above are Junior warrant Officers, Warrant Officers and Master Warrant officers. Likewise in the Army and the Navy. So why and when was this term PBOR coined? This was after 1980s. When a class II person in CCS is a called a Section Officer, why are service personnel of Class II gazetted grade called Personnel Below Officer Rank? The aim is clear.
IESM must take up these causes else there will be more 'anomalies' in store for the Armed Forces!
Regards,
Shashank Bendre
Wg.Cdr.(Retd)
Member PC,IESM
Sir,
This is with reference to the injustice done to the Majors in fixing their pensions.
Have the three service chiefs taken any action on the issue of unacceptable level of pension the officers of the rank of 'Major', which is considered a 'senior officer' in the services, have got? It is just ridiculous that an officer just one rank lower than a Lt.Col. and in some cases equal service should get over Rs. 10000/- less. Earlier, Lt Cols were unjustly put in the lower pay band by the 6th CPC just because there is no equivalent grade in the Central Civil Services. And they got their due because the govt capitulated on realising the strong reaction from the serving officers and the service chiefs and its overall repercussions.
It is apparent that the anomalies arise because the CPCs (bureaucrats) first fix the pensions of the CCS and then attempt to find equivalent ranks of personnel in the Armed Forces personnel- both Commissioned officers and PBORs by a method which can be termed "fill in the gaps". They are unable to find precise equivalence because of the fact that the hierarchical structure of the Armed Forces is basically different from that of the CCS. It is a rank structure as distinct from the grade structure in the CCS. This structure has evolved to suit the peculiar nature of their job which is entirely different from that of any civil service job.
So the answer to that is to have a separate Pay Commission for the Armed Forces which the (Prime Minister?) govt has accepted in principle for future. But we need to take care of the present. IESM must take up the case of Majors, Squadron Leaders and Lieutenant Commanders who form the backbone of the officer cadre of the Armed Forces.
The same treatment has been meted out to non-commissioned ranks. The proper terminology for the (Air Force) airmen of the rank of Corporal is non-commissioned officer,Sergeants-Senior Non-Commissioned officer and above are Junior warrant Officers, Warrant Officers and Master Warrant officers. Likewise in the Army and the Navy. So why and when was this term PBOR coined? This was after 1980s. When a class II person in CCS is a called a Section Officer, why are service personnel of Class II gazetted grade called Personnel Below Officer Rank? The aim is clear.
IESM must take up these causes else there will be more 'anomalies' in store for the Armed Forces!
Regards,
Shashank Bendre
Wg.Cdr.(Retd)
Member PC,IESM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
