Conspiracy of Silence breeds Corruption

Conspiracy of silence by all political leaders on corruption: Former CJI JS Verma
POLITICS NEWS, Updated Oct 28, 2012 at 08:27am IST
Karan Thapar, CNN-IBN
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India, JS Verma has hit out at the political class saying that politicians are colluding with each other against the fight to end corruption. While speaking to Karan Thapar on this week's Devil's Advocate, he accused the politicians of conspiring to tolerate corruption at the highest level. Below is an excerpt of the interview:
Karan Thapar: Congress General Secretary Digvijaya Singh said to this programme just a week ago that he was aware of things done by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee's foster son-in-law, Mr LK Advani's children which would not only embarrass their parents but were, he said, equivalent to corruption and wrongdoing. Yet he also insisted he would never reveal what he knew. What you make of that position?
ustice JS Verma: Well, that is a very disturbing statement. It reveals if true a conspiracy at the top against the combating of corruption which people are talking all the time and it shows that political morality is at its lowest ebb. Karan Thapar: But what about Mr Digvijaya's point that it is not ethical to target the children of families of politicians if they themsleves are not in politics. Justice JS Verma: Anyone in a position to influence decision making should be above suspicion.
Karan Thapar: These same ethics determined the silence of the BJP in March 2011 when the economic times first revealed Rober Vadra's DLF connections and the manner in which, the dramatic manner in which his companies fortunes had ballooned. At that time the BJP decided that it would not be ethical and proper to speak about Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law. Now in that instance was that wise discretion on the BJP's part or wrongful silence.
Justice JS Verma: It was failure of duty because, you see, personalities don't matter. According to me, the higher you are in hierarchy the more strict standard of behaviour you have to answer to.
Karan Thapar: So would you also go one step further and say - given on one hand Mr Digvijaya Singh's ethics and behaviour and given on the other the BJP's initial silence over Vadra - that the impression that is created is that politicians behave like a brotherhood which colludes to protect each other and sometimes colludes to cover up for each other.
Justice JS Verma: It would indicate or reveal a conspiracy of silence to tolerate corruption at the highest level.
Conspiracy of silence by all political leaders on corruption: Former CJI JS Verma

Rank Pay: CDA (O) twists in a New Format

Sunday, 28 October 2012 6:01 PM
PCDA (O) has changed the FORM today
Dear Friends,
Brig PT Gangadharan has been keeping a close watch on our Rank Pay case and the various requirements we are required to send down to CDA(O). This is latest from him. Do collect the necessary data from your service records ( I searched for it today and found that it contains a lot of info) Do pull yours out and see what you can lay your hands on.
Rgds
Niranjan Malik
From: ptgangadharan Date: 28 October 2012 16:04
Subject: PCDA (O) has changed the FORM today
Dear Sir,
PCDA (O) has again changed the FORM again today; fresh details wanted; if you go to the CDA website you will find.
I am enclosing the same New Format: Click here.
Till now this information is required by CDA(O) changes affected every day and once MOD letter comes something more will happen or required.
MOD Letter is still awaited.
Please collate your DATA and keep it ready. Maximum details are in Your Record of Service recd from AGs Branch after your retirement.
PS:- Most of you may not have all the required information. Hence try and give max available information. Archives will have all information. IN & IAF offrs may take similar action with their pay offices.
Regards,
ptgangadharan
New CDA (0) Format
New Format: Click here- Supreme Court Verdict regarding Rank Pay and related matters 09/10/2012)
Address New Completed Form to:
Senior AO. Pay Revision Cell (superscribed "Information: Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 04/09/2012")
PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (OFFICERS)
Golibar Maidan, Pune 411 001

Rank Pay: CDA (O) Pune News Flash

Ref: CDA(O) Pune: News Flash

Supreme Court Verdict regarding Rank Pay and related matters and Undertaking (25/09/2012)
CDA (O) Pune Instructions and Undertaking- Click here

All reitred/ released Army officers who were in service in the rank of Capt to Brig as on 01/01/86, are requested to furnish their details in the appended format at the earliest to PCDA(O), Pune so that arrears on account of pay revision with effect from 01/01/86 in view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court may be credited in the bank account". (28/09/2012)
Click here for the Appended Format

Rank Pay: RDOA Felicitates the Legal Team

FELICITATIONS: LEGAL TEAM IV CPC RANK PAY CASE: 30 SEPT 12

The legal team which was instrumental in getting the Armed Forces officers their legitimate dues in the landmark and historic judgment given by the Supreme Court on 04 Sept 2012, pertaining to the IV CPC Rank Pay case was felicitated on 30 Sept 2012 at DSOI Dhaula Kuan by Retired Defence Officers Association (RDOA). Over a hundred officers were present.
The function commenced with the Col Satwant Singh, Secretary RDOA, welcoming the guest present in the meeting. Col Satwant Singh, explained the sequence of the case and read out the operative part of the judgments, issued by various Courts as under –

The Single Judge Order passed in the case of Maj AK Dhanapalan.

The Supreme Court Order Passed in favour of RDOA on 08 Mar 2010.

Subsequent appeal filed by the Union of India against the case.

The Supreme Court Order of 04 Sep 12, dismissing the appeal of Union of India.
The said order will be applicable to all affected officers of the Armed Forces with effect from 01 Jan 1986 to 01 Jan 2006. It would also be applicable to all pending cases in various courts and AFT’s across the country on the subject case.
The interest will be applicable @ 6% wef 01/01/2006 and not 1986. This is the only change made by the apex court. The court has also directed that all arrears should be paid within outer limit of 3 months from the date of the order, 04 Sept 2012.
It was explained by the Secretary RDOA as to how the pay/pension would be revised with the cascading affect from 1/1/86 (IV CPC), 1/1/96 (VCPC), 1/1/2006 (VI CPC). To this affect the commitment made by the UOI on an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court with financial implications of 1623 crores was also read out to the members.
After the Secretary RDOA finished his talk, Col BK Sharma, President of RDOA, welcoming the guests, who had arrived by then, and members said that it was a proud moment in the history of the Armed forces, where a few have mustered strength to fight for the majority and seek a judgment which will benefit all officers of the three Services, holding any rank from Capt to Brig (and equivalent) on 01 Jan 1986.
The President then formally welcomed the guests, Senior Advocate Mahabir Singh and Advocates on Record Gp Capt KS Bhati and Mrs Aishwarya Bhati. A brief introduction of each of the guests highlighting their achievements and contribution to the case was given to the members. The guests were presented bouquets on behalf of all members of RDOA.
As a token of their commitment and unflinching support to the cause of Ex Servicemen, each of the guests were honoured with an ‘Honorarium’ amount in the form of cheque; which is nothing as compared to the Services rendered and the legal fees charged by them. As a reciprocate gesture, Senior Advocate Mahabir Singh donated Rs 50000/- to the corpus of RDOA.
Advocate on Record Gp Capt KS Bhati requested all officers to make RDOA strong and the nodal agency to fight and stand for securing denied benefits to the veteran fraternity.
Col Sharma also welcomed out station officers Lt General VK Oberoi, Air Marshal Savur, Maj’s NS Gill & Sadana. Speaking on the occasion Air Marshal Savur was delighted at the ‘Perseverance and Gusto’ of the RDOA team in getting the judgment. He came all the way from Bangalore to attend the felicitation.

Lt General Oberoi was appreciative at the ‘Resoluteness’ and brain power shown by RDOA and the legal luminaries.
Appreciations and thanks giving were also given by Cdr Ahuja on behalf of Naval Foundation, Delhi Chapter since Admiral Harinder Singh was out of the country. It would be pertinent to mention that Admiral Harinder gave his complete unconditional support for the case from day one and was always supportive of actions taken by RDOA.
Col Kirit Joshipura, Executive Member IESM, on behalf of IESM, applauded the efforts of RDOA in getting the judgment for the benefit of all the Armed forces officers.
Thanks Giving
Team RDOA wishes to thank all its members in supporting it for the ‘cause’ and for all the congratulatory messages sent/expressed on phone/email.
Team RDOA also wants to thank all others who are not members of RDOA, yet have applauded their efforts and achievements.
The felicitations culminated with a contributory lunch.
Next the battle for implementation instructions of the Court order begins.
SECY RDOA

Pathribal Fake Encounter: GCM starts against 5 officers

Pathribal Fake Encounter: Court martial starts against 5 officers 22/09/2012
The Army has commenced General Court Martial (GCM) proceedings at Nagrota-based 16 Corps headquarters against its five officers allegedly involved in the Pathribal fake encounter killing of five innocent men in Anantnag district of Kashmir more than 12 years ago.
“On Sept 20, the Army initiated disciplinary proceedings against the accused Army Officers in the alleged Pathribal fake encounter case”, an Army officer said.
Consequent to the Supreme Court’s Order, the Army had taken over the case from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, and thereafter attached these officers to its Nagrota-based 16 Corps, he said.
Lt Gen A S Nandal, GOC 16 Corps in the capacity of Commanding Officer, heard the charges preferred by CBI against these officers and directed summary of evidence to be recorded against them, officer said.
Lt Gen Nandal heard the evidence led by Ashok Kalra, the CBI Inspector who had investigated the case, he said adding he also produced the document filed by CBI before a CBI court.
“All witnesses examined by CBI during its investigation will now be summoned to appear before the officer recording summary of evidence. After the summary of evidence is recorded, the final charge-sheet will be prepared for the next stage of proceedings”, he said.
On the aspect of change of location of the Court Martial proceedings, the Army spokesperson stated that GOC 15 Corps had contested the case on behalf of the accused persons right up to the Supreme Court and therefore, it was just and proper as also fair to the victims’ families that the disciplinary proceedings be conducted by another commander.
In the fag end of June month this year, the Army decided to try in GCM its five officers allegedly involved in the Pathribal fake encounter in March, 2000.
The Army moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, the designated CBI court, seeking transfer of the case to the GCM.
The CJM directed transferring the records including the charge sheet and other material evidence to the GCM through the Army’s authorised officer.
The Army’s decision came after the Supreme Court on May 1 gave eight weeks’ time to it to decide whether the accused officers will be tried in the GCM or face a trial in the civilian court.
Brig Ajay Saxena, Lt Col Brajendra Pratap Singh, Maj Sourabh Sharma, Maj Amit Saxena and Subedar Idrees Khan were chargesheeted by the CBI in 2006 for killing five civilians and later dubbing them as foreign militants.
As per the CBI investigation, the five civilians were killed and branded as militants days after 35 Sikhs were massacred in the nearby Chattisingpora village.
The CBI had filed the charge sheet against the accused officers in 2006 but the Army contested maintainability of the charge sheet claiming that prior sanction from the Centre was required under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which provides immunity against prosecution to Army personnel deployed in disturbed areas.
The Army’s plea was rejected by all courts, including the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, till the Apex Court partly agreed with it saying prior sanction was required for prosecution.
Pathribal Fake Encounter: Court martial starts against 5 officers
Related Reading
Ex Army Commando kills Delhi cardiologist
Indian navy jeopardising pristine Nicobar island?

No Permanent Commission for Women in Combat Formations

No permanent status for women in combat areas, Centre tells SC
Published: Monday, Sep 17, 2012, 20:16 IST
Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI
The government has told the Supreme Court that it would not be possible to grant permanent commission status to women officers in combat wings like infantry, mechanised infantry and armoured corps.
In an additional affidavit filed before the apex court, the defence ministry has said that combat support arms/ services have to sustain prolonged conflict hazards and hence, there is no question of grant of permanent status to women officer either now or in the future.
The ministry has filed the affidavit in connection with the appeal filed by it challenging the Delhi High Court's March 12, 2010, judgment directing the Centre to grant permanent commission status to women short service commissioned officers in the air force and the army.
The Centre while agreeing to implement the direction with regard to the air force has however, expressed its opposition to extending the benefit to women in the army combat and its support units.
"That the grant of permanent commission to women officers in combat arms like infantry, mechanised infantry and armoured corps, which are involved in direct combat with the enemy is ruled out because of their close proximity with the enemy and attendant hazards of battle.
"As regard granting permanent commission to women officers in combat support arms like engineers, signals, army air defence, intelligence and services like electronics mechanical engineers, army service corps and army ordnance corps, the issue has been examined at length," the Centre said justifying its stance.
No permanent status for women in combat areas, Centre tells SC

Rank Pay: Landmark Judgement exposes MOD's immodesty

Unhelpful attitude against military
Tuesday, September 18, 2012, Chandigarh, India
Apex court comes to the aid of defence personnel
by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (retd)
ON September 4, 2012 the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment, which goes against the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC) gave defence services’ officers up to the rank of brigadier rank pay in addition to the basic pay. The MoD, working in consultation with the CDA (O) and in a most arbitrary manner and without any authority, deducted the rank pay from the emoluments of thousands of the effected officers. That was in the year 1986. From then onwards all efforts to get the MoD to undo this gross injustice have been opposed by it. In this machination and subsequent cussedness have been involved the top bureaucrats in the MoD and successive Defence Ministers. From 1986 till now, a large number of defence services’ officers have died, some during the Kargil war, without getting their rightful dues.
A gutsy Major from the South fought it out in the Kerala High Court. Not willing to relent on its mischief, the MoD went in for a review petition, which too was rejected by the Supreme Court. It took the officer over a decade to get this injustice undone. This was followed by innumerable appeals in most high courts of the country by the officers who had been denied their rank pay. The Supreme Court in its wisdom ordered that all these be clubbed and brought before it. A spirited group called the Retired Defence Officers Association (RODA) obtained a favourable order from the Supreme Court on March 8, 2010. Thereafter, the MoD sought recall of the Supreme Court order. Then on subsequent 10 occasions the Solicitor-General of India sought adjournments, stretching the case to September 2012.
The Solicitor-General told the highest court of the land that the defence services headquarters too were opposed to giving back the rank pay to these officers. However, the defence headquarters gave in writing to the Attorney-General that they did not oppose the grant of rank pay and, on the other hand, fully supported the case of these officers. This letter from the defence headquarters falsified the position of the Solicitor-General and, in fact, he stands exposed for an act of perjury. Consequently, the MoD, throwing all norms of fair play to the winds and in a brazen manner, tried to “arm-twist” the defence services headquarters in asking it to withdraw this letter to the Solicitor-General, which the defence services headquaters declined to do.
The Solicitor-General, as a last ditch attempt, pleaded that the restoration of rank pay be ordered to only those officers whose cases are before the court. Ignoring this mischievous plea, the Supreme Court, on September 4, 2012, ordered that all the effected officers (their number is in thousands) should be paid their dues starting from 1986 to now and taking a lenient view of the MoD’s plea of financial constraints made by the Solicitor-General, reduced the period of interest, which starts from 2006 instead of 1986, and at 6 per cent interest.
The Fifth CPC took away the “running pay band,” which, on the hints of resignation by the three service chiefs, was granted by the Fourth CPC and was introduced to somewhat compensate for extremely limited promotions. In the case of the Sixth CPC, there are 39 anomalies that are still to be resolved. The grant of bounty of Non-Functional Advancement to all Central services officers by the Sixth CPC and denying the same to the defence services officers is not only scandalous but also blatant display of bias against them.
Instead of extending a supporting hand to the defence services, the MoD has in almost every case related to pay and allowances and the status of defence personnel been taking an adversial stance. In the case of the Second Central Pay Commission, (CPC), the MoD fielded the case of pay and allowances of defence personnel “as given”. In the case of the Third CPC, the defence services were not permitted to present their case before the Pay Commission on the specious grounds that the same will adversely effect their discipline! While the absurdity of this stance by the MoD is detestable, the fact that this arrangement was accepted by the services chiefs is equally distressing. In the subsequent CPCs, the defence services could get no support from the MoD and on the other hand its despicable act of illegally depriving the officers of their rank pay in the case of the fourth CPC needs no further elaboration.
The MoD’s stance has always been unhelpful to the military. Such a sustained attitude of the MoD has created deep fissures in its relationship with the military. There is palpable mistrust of the ministry among the armed forces. The adverse fallout of this relationship, at one level, relates to national security, and at another it impacts on the military’s commitment and motivation. The Ministry of Home Affairs fights tooth and nail to promote the interests of, say, the Central Police Organizations ( CPOs-inappropriately called para-military). As opposed to this, the MoD operates in a motivated manner against those of the military. This adversial stance of the MoD has become so visible in that the CPOs, in pay and allowances, are far better placed than the military. These policemen, unlike soldiers who retire at 35 years of age, retire at the age of 60 and further end up getting much higher pension, etc.
This attitude of the MoD towards the defence services has created a climate of mistrust, animosity and disharmony between these two major components of the government. This hiatus has had adverse effect on the pace of modernisation of the military as well.
The Supreme Court judgment of September 4, ordering the government to pay up the amount due to the affected officers starting with 1986, needs to be taken to its logical end by bringing to account all those officers who were responsible for this mischief, including those who have since retired, and ones who have continued to follow the same line. It is time some accountability was jacked into the government functioning, and those who function in an arbitrary and irresponsible manner are hauled over the coals
. The writer is a retired Deputy Chief of Army Staff.
Unhelpful attitude against military

Armed Forces Tribunal will be under Law Ministry

Paralyzed armed forces tribunal. notice to ministry of defence Kudos to Navdeep Maj Navdeep Singh who clarifies the status of the Paralyzed AFT
Armed Forces Tribunal will be under Law Ministry
Clash of interests is being cited as the main reason why this tribunal must be removed from under the Ministry of Defence.
SUMAN SHARMA NEW DELHI | 9th Sep 2012
he Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) is all set to come under the Ministry of Law, instead of its parent body, the Ministry of Defence. The Supreme Court gave a directive to this effect in 2010 as it felt that the MoD could influence the tribunal's judgements since the latter dealt with decisions pertaining to the ministry. To ensure that fair judgements were given, the Supreme Court, in fact, directed that the administrative control of the AFT and all other tribunals should not be under their parent ministries. It recommended that the tribunals should be placed under one single nodal department, preferably the Department of Legal Affairs.
The SC directive has been under consideration ever since. But the matter got a fresh lease of life with Law Minister Salman Khurshid's recent statement in Parliament that the government was looking at the possibility of removing these tribunals from under their parent ministries and putting them under the Ministry of Law.
Clash of interests is the main reason why these tribunals need to be removed from under their parent ministries. To give an instance, the members comprising the AFT use the various facilities offered by the MoD, but are also required to pass orders against the ministry in the cases coming to them. An RTI query by a retired army officer revealed that the MoD funded AFT chairperson A.K. Mathur's foreign trips worth lakhs of rupees. The AFT also makes use of the infrastructure offered by the MoD to function: the land on which the AFTs are constructed is given by the MoD. The ministry gives the AFT members facilities such as the CSD (Canteen Stores Depot) cards. These are canteen cards that can be used to procure grocery and other household items at subsidised rates from all military canteens.
A senior retired army officer working as an administrative member at one of the AFT benches told this newspaper, "The AFTs should be under the Ministry of Law so that they can give fair judgements. Litigants are always afraid that fairness will go missing as the AFTs function from MoD land and do not have their own premises. Funds for the AFTs are also sanctioned through the MoD. The CSD cards given to the members are actually a privilege."
The Armed Forces Tribunal enjoys the status of a High Court, and came into being in 2009. Each court consists of a judicial member and an administrative member. The administrative member of an AFT is always a retired senior officer, usually a three-star officer. A source told this newspaper, "These retired officers usually know the applicants approaching the Tribunal. This increases the chances of the Tribunal's decisions being influenced. So their decisions are unlikely to be fair. This debate to delink the AFT from the administrative powers of the MoD has been going on for a long time."
Armed Forces Tribunal will be under Law Ministry

Rank Pay:: Too little, too late!

Too little, too late!
P M Ravindran | 05-Sep-2012
After outrageously denying justice to Gen V K Singh in a simple matter of his date of birth the apex court now mocks at soldiers with a pretense of justice. Let us get this straight- no citizen goes to courts seeking charity. He goes to courts demanding justice, which is a fundamental right; all those addressing the judges as Lordship and cloaking their demand in terms like Prayers, not withstanding. And in this case justice has been done apparently but falls much short of it.
Firstly Maj Dhanapalan's case was decided more than a decade back. The court did not cover all affected officers in its order then.
Secondly, now it has taken 10 years to decide this case when the precedence had been set and the facts, laws and precedences of the issue had already been established through a long drawn judicial process itself.
Thirdly, the rate of interest is just the barest minimum and not even enough to compensate for the losses incurred by the soldiers, forget about being penal.
And lastly, the date of its applicability is only from 1 Jan 2006- a date that has no relevance in this case. Usually the courts consider the date of filing the petition for the applicability of its orders, though even that is questionable because natural justice demands that it has to be the date of occurrence and especially so in cases like this where all other options have to be exhausted before approaching the courts!
Just to highlight the contrast look at the case of compensating a judge to the tune of Rs 100 Crores in a defamation case and the apex court refusing to entertain an appeal unless Rs 20 Crores is deposited by the media channel which had in any case tendered an unconditional apology for the genuine mistake that had occurred in displaying the photo of the judge which was similar in name to another judge who had been implicated in a crime!
And it also needs to be highlighted that the rank pay was not introduced to give any advantage to the armed forces officers over their civilian counterparts because the fact is that there has never been any such advantage then nor is it there now. It was actually another ploy to keep these officers at a lower station because the rank pay was to be considered part of basic pay only for calculating the allowances and not status!
Pay Rs 1600 cr arrears to army officers: SC tells Centre
Antony supports granting representation to armed forces in pay panel How Fake are our politicians and bureaucrats?

Fifty years after 1962, India dwells in denial

PMO’s China fear stalls Mountain Corps

Supreme Court Order on Rank Pay

Dear Veterans,
The gist of the Supreme Court Order issued on 04 Sep 12, regarding Rank Pay Case of Retired Defence Officers is reproduced below.
Those of you are keen to read the whole order may visit the URL Click here
Thank you
Chander Kamboj

O R D E R
I. A. No. 9 in T.P. (C) No. 56 of 2007:
We have heard Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Solicitor General of India and Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
2. On thoughtful consideration of the entire matter, we are satisfied that the order dated March 8, 2010 does not require any modification or variation save and except the interest part.
3. As regards interest, on totality of the circumstances including the circumstance that Special Leave Petition arising from the judgment dated July 4, 2003 in the matter of Major A.K. Dhanapalan was dismissed by this Court in August, 2005 and the Kerala High Court had not ordered payment of interest on the arrears of pay, we direct that the interest shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondent @ 6% p.a. from January 1, 2006 instead of January 1, 1986. It is clarified that this order shall govern all similarly situated officers who have not approached the court and also those who have filed Writ Petitions which are pending before various High Courts/Armed Forces Tribunal.
4. We record and accept the statement of the learned Solicitor General that arrears of pay with interest, as directed above, shall be paid to the concerned officers expeditiously and positively within twelve week from today.
5. I.A. No. 9 of 2010 stands disposed of accordingly.
W.P. (C) Nos. 268/2010, 192/2012, and I.A. No. 1 of 2011 in W.P. (C) 34/2009 and T.C. (C) Nos. 11/2010, 14-19/2010, 31/2010, 32/2010, 33/2010 and 35/2010:
The above matters and pending I.As. therein, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the above order passed in I.A. No. 9 of 2010 in T.P. (C) No. 56 of 2007.

.....................J.
(R.M. LODHA)

.....................J
(T.S. THAKUR)

.....................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
Supreme Court Order on Rank Pay

IESM: Government continues to be a compulsive litigant

Date: 28 May, 2012
To
Sh. Salman Khurshid
Union Cabinet Minister, Law and Justice.
4, Kushak Road, New Delhi - 110 011
GOVT MUST CEASE TO BE COMPULSIVE LITIGANT: PLEA TO SC FOR RECALL OF ITS ORDER IN RANK PAY CASE TO DEFENCE OFFICERS IS FRIVOLOUS
Honorable Shri Salman Khurshid Jee,
1. Please refer to our letter dated 30 April 2012.
2. We have not received any response from your good self. We are your former soldiers who have been denied Justice for a long time. I am tempted to remind you for your indulgence and positive response. I have been watching your responses on TV debates on various issues and find that you have the requisite depth of personality and compassion and I am sure you will consider our suggestion accordingly.
3. May we request you to kindly consider the issue raised by with your appropriate response please.
With Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Related reading
OROP: According to calculations done by the military, the annual outgo for granting one-rank-one-pension to the approximately 21 lakh ex-servicemen would not be more than Rs. 1300 crores.
Defence Want One-Rank-One-Pension: WILL PM SINGH BITE THE BULLET?…
MoD's farewell to welfare
Instead of safeguarding the welfare of retired soldiers, ministry effectively holds off payment until an ex-serviceman claimant is either dead or broke- Ajai Shukla / New Delhi Feb 21, 2012, 00:26 IST
MOD's Farewell to Welfare

Rank Pay Litigation: MOD is the Culprit to Recall Court Rulings Repeatedly

Re-fix Defence officers’ pay: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court directed the Centre on Tuesday to re-fix the pay of about 20,000 Defence officers from January 1, 1986, without deducting the rank pay and to pay them arrears.
A three-judge Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha, T.S. Thakur and Anil R. Dave also directed the Centre to pay six per cent interest from January 1, 2006 to all the officers, irrespective of whether they had filed petitions before any of the High Courts or Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal, within 12 weeks from Tuesday.
The Bench directed that all pending petitions before High Courts or Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal by similarly placed officers would be governed by this order. The Bench rejected the Centre’s application seeking the recall the order of the Kerala High Court, which in October 1998 found no justification in deducting the rank pay and directed the Centre to re-fix the pay.
The core issue is the wrong fixation of rank pay awarded by the Fourth Pay Commission. The element of rank pay was introduced for all ranks from Captain to Brigadier in the Army and their equivalent ranks in the Air Force and the Navy, in addition to pay in the integrated scale. The rationale behind this was to make the Armed Forces an attractive career option and ensure that the defence officers continued to have an edge vis-à-vis their civilian counterparts, keeping in mind the difficult and challenging nature of their job. However, according to the officers, the rank pay was first deducted at the time of fixation to arrive at the total emoluments and thereafter added, after fixation, in the integrated scale. Consequently, the final fixation of the total pay of the officer became on a par with his civilian counterpart’s and the edge was neutralised.
Major A.K. Dhanapalan was the first officer to challenge this erroneous fixation before the Kerala High Court. Thereafter, several petitions were filed by similarly placed officers in High Courts and before different benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
After the High Court judgment, the Armed Forces and the Chiefs of Staff Committee had recommended against pursuing the litigation further in the Supreme Court. However, the Ministry of Defence chose to press the application for recall on several grounds, including a total financial liability of about Rs. 1600 crores.
Re-fix Defence officers’ pay: Supreme Court

Rank Pay: NDTV Special Report

Armed Forces win long standing pay battle in Supreme Court
Written by Nitin Gokhale, Edited by Abhinav Bhatt | Updated: September 04, 2012 20:27 IST
New Delhi: The armed forces won a landmark victory in their long standing battle to get an anomaly in fixation of pay scales for commissioned officers noticed in the 4th Pay Commission.
The Supreme Court today ordered payment of rank pay arrears to all affected officers estimated to number over 20,000 with effect from January 1, 1986.
The government had been told the pay the arrears within 12 weeks. According to sources, the total outgo to government in making this payment will be over Rs. 1500 crore.
Military lawyers told NDTV that historically the most important litigation involving the military has culminated today.
The Supreme Court decided not to interfere in its earlier decision granting the cumulative benefits and arrears of Rank Pay with effect from 01-01-1986 to all affected officers.
It said the benefits shall be released to all officers irrespective of whether they had approached a judicial forum or not.
According to Major Navdeep Singh who specialises in military cases, this matter was carried over from the 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC) when an integrated pay scale of Rs. 2300-5100 was implemented for officers from the rank of 2/Lieutenant to Brigadier. In addition, rank pay was authorised to officers from the rank of Captain to Brigadier ranging from Rs. 200 to 1200 which was to be added into the basic pay for all intents and purposes.
However, while fixing the pay in the new scales, an amount equal to the rank pay was deducted from the emoluments resulting in financial loss to all affected officers. Hence all officers holding the rank of Captain to Brigadier as on 01-01-1986 suffered cumulative losses, Major Navdeep Singh says. The Kerala High Court in a case filed by Major AK Dhanapalan had termed illegal this deduction of rank pay.
Soon thereafter, many similar petitions were filed in various High Courts all over the country which were clubbed together and transferred to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had on March 8, 2010, upheld the Kerala High Court verdict and granted relief to all similarly placed officers.
Things were, however, not to end there since the government constituted a committee to look into the amount involved and went back to the Supreme Court by filing an application for recall of the order dated March 8, 2010 on the grounds that the monetary outgo will be a big burden on the exchequer and also stating therein that many more issues on the subject were not taken into consideration by the Court and hence the order needed to be recalled, Major Navdeep explained.
The biggest credit, he says should go to Retired Defence Officers' Association (RDOA) who had been unflinchingly following up the matter with great zeal in a very objective and balanced manner.
Armed Forces win long standing pay battle in Supreme Court

Rank Pay: RDOA Rides High: Supreme Court Confirms its 2010 Order

REPORT MY SIGNAL
GREAT NEWS FOR ALL RETIRED DEFENCE OFFICERS - WE HAVE WON THE RANK PAY CASE IN SUPREME COURT
HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL RETIRED DEFENCE OFFICERS
IN PARTICULAR TO THE RETIRED DEFENCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
WHO HAVE FINALLY WON THE CASE OF RANK PAY IN SUPREME COURT ON 04 SEP 2012.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL NOT TO ALLOW THE CASE. AND THEN TO ALLOW RANK PAY ONLY TO THOSE WHO WERE PART OF THE RETIRED DEFENCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION.

LT COL BK SHARMA, CHAIRMAN RETIRED DEFENCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND HIS ABLE LAWYER AGAIN ARGUED VERY STRONGLY AND GOT THE RANK PAY CASE APPROVED FOR ALL RETIRED DEFENCE OFFICERS, WHETHER MEMBER OF THE RETIRED DEFENCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OR NOT.

GOVERNMENT HAS TO PAY ALL ARREARS WITHIN 12 WEEKS OF PASSING THE ORDER.
INTEREST ON ARREARS WILL BE PAID WITH EFFECT FROM 01 JAN 2006 AND NOT FROM 01 JAN 1986 AS SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

IT IS A GREAT JOB DONE BY LT COL BK SHARMA, CHAIRMAN RETIRED DEFENCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND HIS ENTIRE TEAM OF THE ASSOCIATION.

ON BEHALF OF YOU ALL I CONGRATULATE LT COL BK SHARMA AND HIS ENTIRE TEAM FOR HAVING WON THIS CASE INSPITE OF THE BABUS TRYING THEIR LEVEL BEST TO DEFEAT US AND EMPLOYING UNFAIR MEANS.

FURTHER DETAILS WILL FOLLOW AFTER COPY OF THE COURT ORDER IS RECEIVED.
SATYAMEV JAITE
EMAIL ID OF LT COL BK SHARMA IS - beekay_sharma49@yahoo.co.in
I am sure you will give this information widest possible publicity.
In service of the Retired Personnel of All Ranks of the Armed Forces of India
Chander Kamboj

OROP: Government counsel misleading the Supreme Court

Read in conjuction with:

OROP twists, turns and twirls

Raw deal to the Armed Forces by Lt Gen SK Bahri
Subject: IESM Gov Body 07 Jun evening
Dear Colleagues,
I had a meeting with Mr Salman Khurshid, the Minister of Law & Justice today. I apprised him of the unfortunate fact of the government challenging each and every judgment of the lower courts that go in favour of the ESM. I explained details of the disability broad banding case where a judgment of the AFT has been challenged despite instructions of the Defence Minister (issued on 06 Mar 2012) to the contrary. He was also apprised of the government counsel misleading the SC in many cases, such as in the case of Hony Naib Sub (leading to a judgment that only those pre 1.1.2006 Hony Naib Sub be given the pension of a regular Nb Sub, who get the Hony rank while being in service).
On the point of the goverment dragging its feet in not implementing the SC judgment, I gave a concrete example in the form of a written handout on the ongoing rank pay case, with a request that either the government withdraw its appeal and implements the SC judgment of 08.03.2010 or the solicitor General be made to attend the next hearing on 04.09.2012 so that the case is finally disposed of. He promised to look into all these points.
Making use of the opportunity, I also sought his help as a Cabinet Minister in prevailing upon the government in sanctioning OROP. He wanted to understand the various nuances of OROP which I explained. I mentioned to him about my letter to the Congress President in Oct 2011 where I had said non-grant of OROP may affect the ESM voting pattern in Assembly and Parliamentary elections, further underscoring the fact that this may have happened in the recent elections in UP and Punjab. I also mentioned that anti Congress sentiments of the ESM may be even stronger during the 2014 Parliamentary elections. He promised to do what he can.
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
Comment: All ESM organisations need to be apolitical. The Politicians know that the armed forces and their families just constitute 1% of the total population. Even out of this percentage Serving and Veterans do not bother to vote. Even if 50% vote, it is meagre and well under 0.5% of total Voters. The impact will be near negligible except for the states like Punjab, Himachal, Haryana and Rajastan where perhaps the voters percentage may exceed marginally by a percent. "Service before Self" must be the motto of all ESMs and being balanced will pay dividends in the long run. The Government intent is to make monkey of the Armed Forces. All Political Parties (except for few Independents) treat Armed Forces like the Nation's super Police Force and not as a Professional Army. The long Battle with insurgency is a quid pro arrangement between Government and Military- former reducing the sheen of the professional army and later to ensure the selected Officers are annointed for gallantry awards with decorations for guaranteed promotions (in most cases fakes go as real). This arrangement suits the Political Community as it constantly diminishes the image of the Military. The Officer Shortage will continue to haunt till the Glamour of Professional Army is restored. This is not likely to happen in the near future. Incidently Pandit Nehru trusted the Malabar Police more than the Military during the 1962 conflict (Krishna Menon propped up the calibre of Malabar Police). Nothing has changed... MOD, MHA, PMO, MEA have more trust on the PMF's than on the Indian Military... their scope and range is enlarging much more than their mandate... here we are reminded of Nidhi Razdan's Left Right and Centre refrain... "Let us look at the Bigger Picture".... maybe we will get the true reflection!

Abhishek Manu Singhvi "caught with his pants down"

Singhvi lashes out at social networking sites
Last Updated: Saturday, April 21, 2012, 14:23 5
 New Delhi: With a controversial CD featuring Abhishek Manu Singhvi going viral on internet, the senior Congress leader has lashed out at social networking sites, saying they are indulging in "sensationalism" despite a court injunction.
Singhvi told a news agency, "It is obvious that the adage 'be you the ever so high, law is above you' does not apply to any social media."
"Not only is there a court injunction, not only has the author of the alleged CD sworn in an affidavit in court and accepted that the contents were fabricated and morphed, but even as respectable a media group as India Today has accepted the position of the court," Singhvi said.
"Obviously, an organised gang has been purposely used by motivated interests to concertedly use the social sites for sensationalism and permanent damage. Remember, this can happen to anyone and if this lawlessness is allowed to continue as it is, we will all be consumed shortly."
The Delhi High Court in an order passed April 13 restrained Aaj Tak, Headlines Today and the India Today Group from disseminating the contents of the CD allegedly prepared by Singhvi's former driver.
But the clip, which allegedly features the senior advocate in sexual acts, is around 13 minutes long and was posted on YouTube on Friday and has since got over 9,000 views and several comments. It has been posted by a person identifying himself as Laddi Rana.
Another site - Twitvid - also has the video, uploaded two days ago, with close to 34,000 views. It was posted by Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga of the Delhi-based Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena (BSKS).
"I downloaded the video from YouTube on Thursday and posted on Twitvid. It had been uploaded by someone named 'Singhvi' which was obviously a fake profile," Bagga told a news agency.
"I am not afraid of these people and they deserve this. I am prepared for any consequence," he added.
Bagga was also involved in the attack on lawyer Prashant Bhushan in his Supreme Court chamber in October 2011.
Advocate Abhishek Bhandari, who appeared for Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the high court seeking permanent injunction on the alleged CD, told a news agency that some organised groups were trying to defame the Congress spokesperson.
"I am sure that Singhvi will take strict legal action against this," he said.
When a news agecy contacted Google on whether it had received any request from Singhvi to take the clip off the video, one of its officials said, "I cannot comment on it as I have no information about it." IANS
Singhvi lashes out at social networking sites
Comment: This scandal is akin to Bill Clinton fame... Are our Indian Politicians competing with Americans? Many more are hidden in the in Pandora's Sex Box... However, personal privacy should not be invaded... MP's should not misuse official position in sleaze games...  Whatever goes on within the confines of the four the walls of their house is nobody's business... sex urge must be controlled while performing official work especially in the Court Chambers allotted for application of Judicial Prudence!

Ministry of Defence withdraws appeals against pre-1973 pensioners

MoD withdraws appeals against grant of ‘service element’
Pension to pre-1973 disabled ex-servicemen
Vijay Mohan/TNS
Chandigarh, February 24, 2012
Bringing succour to hundreds of disabled ex-servicemen pensioners across the country, the grant of “service element” to whom had been challenged by the government in the Supreme Court, the Defence Ministry today informed the apex court that it had decided to withdraw appeals in all such cases that were bunched and listed yesterday.

The veterans concerned, many of whom belong to this region, would now be entitled to get their dues and arrears in accordance with existing rules and court rulings. Lawyers associated with the cases said some of the affected veterans were in their nineties now.

Disabled personnel are entitled to a disability pension consisting of a “service element” commensurate with the length of service and a “disability element” that depends upon the quantum of injury. Prior to 1964, on disability decreasing below 20 per cent, the disability element used to be withdrawn, but the service element continued if the service rendered was more than 15 years. The service limit for service element was brought down to 10 years in 1964 and 5 years in 1968.

With effect from 1973, the qualifying service requirement for service element was totally abrogated and persons with even one day of service became eligible for service element. Even after 1973, the MoD refused to extend the benefit of service element to earlier retirees with lesser length of service, leading to a spate of litigation. Ultimately, various high courts ruled in favour of disabled ex-servicemen, asking the govt to release service element irrespective of length of service to pre-1973 retirees.

Though the appeals filed by the government against HC decisions were time and again dismissed by the SC, the MoD continued to file SLPs against its disabled veterans, leading to multiple litigation. Sources associated with the issue said the Adjutant General’s Branch and the Army’s Personnel Services Directorate repeatedly requested the MoD’s Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare to resolve the issue, but the requests were not acceded to.

Sources say the current Secretary DESW Samirendra Chatterjee, however, saw reason in the Army’s proposal and played an instrumental role in withdrawing all such appeals and conceding the matter.

On the last date earlier this month, the Supreme Court Bench hearing the case had asked the MoD to “seek instructions” if it did not want an adverse order. The veterans have welcomed the government’s move to withdraw the said cases.
Clicjk here for the Tribune Post
Click here for the earlier Blog Post
Comment: We need to thank the Media, Maj Navdeep and Ajai Shukla for taking on the "MOD Bulls". I hope similarly MoD finds sense in the two decade Rank Pay litigation case dragging on and release the arrears of pension entitled under the 4th Central Pay Commission to the Officers who were cheated of it.

Ministry of Defence treats disabled war heros in disgust

Disability pension: Govt drags ex-Vice Chief of Army to SC
The Tribune by R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent
New Delhi, February 19
The government has dragged Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, who retired as Vice-Chief of the Army Staff, to the Supreme Court over a dispute involving a difference of just five per cent in the disability pension.

Gen Oberoi lost his right leg below the knee during the 1965 India-Pakistan war when he was Captain.

Subsequently, his disability was assessed at 70 per cent. He was retained in service and he rose to the rank of Lieutenant General before his retirement in 2001.

The war hero claimed 75 per cent disability pension under a February 3, 2000 government circular on rounding off of benefit. Under the circular, personnel assessed at 20-50 per cent disability would be entitled to 50 per cent disability pension.

Similarly, the extent of disability from 50 to 75 per cent would be rounded off to 75 per cent and 75 to 100 per cent disability would be treated as 100 per cent disability.

Subsequently, the Defence Ministry issued a letter on January 31, 2001 disqualifying those retiring on superannuation from getting the rounding off benefit. Another letter on January 19, 2010, clarified that rounding off would be done only for those who were prematurely released from service.

Gen Oberoi challenged the two letters before a regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Chandigarh, at Chandimandir, which allowed his claim for 75 per cent disability pension on August 4, 2010, directing the government to make the payment within six months. Any delay in the payment would entail an interest of 8 per cent.

The government has, however, moved the SC after a delay of 429 days, challenging the AFT’s judgment. Opposing the petition on behalf of Gen Oberoi, counsel Aishwarya Bhati contended that the matter had very serious ramifications as about 2,000 such cases were pending for adjudication.

After a brief hearing on February 17, a Bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad tagged the petition with other similar cases and sought the response of Gen Oberoi.

In the appeal, the government contended that the AFT’s ruling was in violation of several SC verdicts, holding that there was a clear distinction between those invalidated out of service and those discharged from service on completion of tenure for the purpose of pension benefits. Further, the AFT had no power to strike down government orders.

This case has come to the SC close on the heels of the apex court resolving another high-profile dispute involving the age of Army Chief Gen Vijay Kumar Singh. The SC had rejected Gen Singh’s plea that his date of birth should be taken as May 10, 1951 on his service records and not as May 10, 1950 as directed by the government.
Disability pension: Govt drags ex-Vice Chief of Army to SC

General VK Singh withdraws his petition on age row

Updated Feb 10, 2012 at 03:57pm IST
Age row: General VK Singh withdraws his petition
New Delhi: Army Chief General VK Singh has withdrawn his petition filed in the Supreme Court on the controversy over his date of birth. General Singh's counsel UU Lalit told the two-judge bench of Justice RM Lodha and Justice HL Gokhale that they do not wish to press the matter any further in the court. The apex court also asked the General to give an undertaking that he would accept his date of birth as May 10, 1950 within the next 48 hours.

The petition was withdrawn after Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati told the apex court that the government had never questioned the bonafide or integrity of General Singh and contesting the petition did not reflect any lack of confidence in the Army Chief.

Earlier, Vahanvati had told the bench that even though the government was resisting General Singh's plea, it was not against the highly decorated soldier.

General Singh's lawyer Puneet Bali said that the petition was withdrawn as the Army Chief was fighting for his honour and integrity. Claiming that the petition was not about General Singh's tenure, Bali said that the petition was only about determining the correct date of birth.

"The Government of India and the General sorted out the matter gracefully and amicably. Right from the time the petition was filed in the court, it was a matter of integrity. This petition was not meant for extension of service. We are satisfied with the court's ruling as the honour and integrity (of the General) has been restored. The honour and integrity is restored, and it wasn't meant to be beyond that for us. The matter has been amicably solved and we have withdrawn the matter," said Bali.

Adding that "this is the end of the matter", he said that they don't plan to agitate further on the matter.

Earlier, in a major setback to General Singh, the Supreme Court directed him to accept May 10, 1950 as his date of birth and asked him to withdraw his plea or else the court would pass an order on it. The General would complete his tenure as Army Chief on May 31, 2012 and retire on the same date.
click here to read more

Spare the General and save the Nation

09 Feb 2012
The face-off between the government and the Army Chief General V K Singh is not in the interest of the nation. While there appears to be a concerted attempt to depict Gen. Singh in bad light, a close scrutiny of available information seems to be in favour of the Army Chief.

Defence minister AK Antony says the government exercised maximum restraint and patience on the issue of determining Gen. Singh’s date of birth and wants to wait for the final verdict of the Supreme Court. There is no legal issue involved for the apex court to lay down any law.

A confidential memo A/4501/01(GEN/MS(1) dated 01 July, 2011, from the Military Secretary’s Branch sent to the Ministry of Defence on the DoB of IC 24134 General VK Singh PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC, by Lt.-Gen. GM Nair, Military Secretary observed, says: “On scrutiny of past records pertaining to Selection Boards, it has been that the MDSs pertaining to Gen. VK Singh which were drawn up at the time of his consideration for promotion to select ranks reflect the date of birth of the General Officer as 10 May, 1951.”

The memorandum said that copies of the relevant MDS sheets were available with the Ministry of Defence for verification and that this had been brought to the notice of the Defence Minister for due consideration.

This memo flies in the face of Antony’s claim that Gen. Singh accepted 1950 as his year of birth when former Army Chiefs asked for it before his promotion as Major-General and Lt.-General.

What was the need for their asking when the Selection Board’s records show his year of birth as 1951?

Gen. Singh earned the wrath of Home Minister P Chidambaram and the powerful mining lobby for his principled opposition to the deployment of the Army to decimate the tribal population of Dandakaranya forests to hand it over to MNCs by saying: “We cannot do this to our own people. Maoists are not secessionists.”

The hard line adopted by the Army Chief against the erring officers in the Adarsh co-operative housing society scandal did not make him popular among his peers in the Army.

The corruption-ridden UPA government has no place for an upright officer like Gen. Singh, particularly at a time when large arms deals are going to be signed.

Gen Singh's service track-record vouches for his integrity

An error committed by VK Singh while filling an application form for entrance to the National Defence Academy when he was just 14 years old has been ferreted out to change his DoB as 10 May, 1950, and the government is sticking like a leech to this piece of paper to deny justice to the chief of the world’s third largest Army.

To add insult to injury, the government is trying to portray him as someone fiddling with his date of birth to hang on to the power and pelf of the high office.

The President, in her capacity as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, has a duty to safeguard the honour of soldiers like Gen. Singh, who has lived up to the credo embossed in Chetwood Hall of the Indian Military Academy.

“The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes first, always and every time; The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command come next; Your own ease comfort and safety come last, always and every time.” – TWL Bureau
Click here to read the full article