Is the Law Ministry befooling and hoodwinking the Disabled Veterans?

Meeting with Additional Law Secretary
Being the President of The Disabled war Veterans (India) I have been getting all the credit for the efforts of our Senior Vice President Satnamjit Singh,who retired as Ambassador to Egypt. We have been working in close cooperation trying to ensure that the Disabled War Veterans receive their just dues.

One of the issues that was causing heartburn effecting morale was the unnecessary appeals by MOD on the issues hard fought and won in AFT or Courts and delaying the same further. Many appeals filed quoted out of date letters are facts were incorrect.
Please find attached a copy of issues raised with Mr Koli, Addl Secretary Ministry of Law and his response thereto. WE WILL HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THEY ARE ACTED UPON.

Today, I met with RL Koli (not Kohli), Additional Secretary in Ministry of Law. The meeting was further to my meeting with Legal Advisor (Defence) last week and a part of the ongoing effort to sensitise concerned officials to the need to adopt a sensible policy on the issue of appeals against Tribunal / Court judgments in cases relating to war injury pension, disability pension and family pension. You would recall, earlier I have met Secretary (ESW), JS (ESW) and JS (Pension) in this regard.

I conveyed DIWAVE's views on the lines of the enclosed note, a copy of which was also left with him at the end of the meeting. Last week's discussion with LA (Def) also were on the same lines.

Mr. Koli stated -

Since the adoption of the National Litigation Policy in June, 2010, the Ministry had given instructions to its Law Officers (who process judgments to decide whether they should be appealed against or not) not to file appeals against individual pension cases, as a matter of routine. However, he would give specific instructions in cases involving war injury pension, disability pension and family pension cases.

While the final decision regarding appeals would still lie with Ministry of Law, he would direct LA (Def) not to make such a recommendation in this category of cases. He also assured that he would not pass these cases to Law Officers, but handle them himself, return the files to MoD within a matter of days after getting Secretary's approval.

He has also agreed to write to MoD asking them to ensure that defence counsels are briefed properly, not suppressing facts and quoting only relevant rules. He suggested we should also request MoD accordingly.

He would also instruct Law Officers to take care that appeals are not filed in cases with settled legal position.

Koli assured that from now onwards you would see a marked improvement in the situation on the issues of our concern.
Let's see!
We can start monitoring the new appeal cases and if we find a case violating the above assurances, it can be brought to Additional Secretary (Legal)'s attention requesting for withdrawal. In this connection, legal eagles like Major Navdeep can play an important role.
Col H N Handa (Retd)
President Diwave

Comment: Assurance of Bureaucrats is routine, nothing tangible will materialise and the ground reality is apparent from statistics! No eagles can untangle the Law Ministry's web/ wall of deceit. Only the courts can unravel the truth!

Revised Casualty, Disability and War Injury Awards

Revised letter on casualty / disability / war-injury pensionary awards for pre-2006 retirees based on 6th CPC scales issued
The letter on modified parity for casualty awards has finally been issued. Casualty awards from now onwards are to be calculated based on 6th CPC scales.
The letter can be accessed and downloaded by clicking here. .
In brief, this shall be the fresh entitlement with effect from 01-01-2006.

Special Family Pension: Would not be less than 60% of minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable) corresponding to the rank held.

Liberalized Family Pension : Would not be less than the (100% of) minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable).

Disability Element : Would not be less than 30% of the minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable) for 100% disability, proportionately reduced for lesser disability.

War Injury Element : Would not be less than 60% of the minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable) for 100% disability proportionately reduced for lesser disability in cases of retirement / discharge and 100% of the minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable) for 100% disability proportionately reduced for lesser disability in cases of invalidment.

Other finer modalities can be seen from the letter linked above.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:44 PM
Revised letter on casualty / disability / war-injury pensionary awards for pre-2006 retirees based on 6th CPC scales issued

Disability Pension- Anomalies Broad Banded by MOD

Wednesday, 22 September, 2010, 6:03 PM
Dear Raman,
I am sorry I could not revert to you till now. The following is a detailed answer, so that it can be given wide publicity, perhaps through the "Report My Signal - Blog" of Chander Kamboj.

There are anumber of anomalies in the war injury pay / disability pay as applicable to pre Jan-2006 personnel and post Jan-2006 personnel. The two most important are:

Lump sum approach for pre-2006 and percentage of pay for post-2006 disabled / war injured persons. This is patently wrong and adopted by the MoD arbitrarily, as the Sixth Pay Commission had recommended the percentage of pay approach for all, as is applicable to civilian disabled personnel since the Fourth Pay Commission. In the lump sum approach all affected personnel tend to lose out.

The anomalous situation of Broad banding, for which the MoD again created two classes, viz. those who were invalided out soon after their war injury / disability and those who opted to serve and went home on superannuation or on completion of pensionable service.

I wrote to the Raksha Mantri on both the above aspects. However, when no action was taken by the MoD, I filed a case against the anomaly of Broadbanding with AFT, Chandigarh Bench and won the case. It is a very detailed judgement of 30 pages, but the crux of the judgement, dated 04-08-2010, is as under:

"it is held that the persons including the petitioners, being discharged on attaining the age of superannuation, or on completion of tenure, or being retired etc., if found to be suffering from disability to the extent of 20 % or above, and being attributable to or aggravated by military service, would be entitled to the benefit of rounding off / broad banding, at par with the persons, who are prematurely invalided out.

The respondents are directed to make calculations, and make payment of the amount becoming due, in consequence of this judgement, within a period of six months from today, faiing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% w.e.f. the date the amount became payable till actual receipt of the amount by the respective petitioners."

The judgement is for all affected cases and not just for me. The MoD has two options now. Firstly, appeal against the verdict and fight in a higher court or secondly, accept the verdict and issue an implementation letter before the time stipulated by the AFT. So far, the MoD has taken no action. My gut feeling is that the MoD is unlikely to challenge the verdict.

Now, coming to the second and bigger anomaly, viz. lump sum versus percentage dispensation. Again, I had requested the Raksha Mantri for rationalisation. No action has been initited by the MoD on this either. It is on this that Col Kahlon now wants to go to court. I have already filed my case in AFT Chandigarh and I hope to win this too, for all affected personnel. Col Kahlon must have come to know of it and hence his offer.

My suggestion is that there is no need for everyone to file individual cases and waste money, as my case has already started and the AFT has asked the MoD to file their comments.

To answer your specific query whether litigation is the only answer? It seems to be so as many overtures made by different individuals and organisations have not borne fruit with the MoD. Some people are even trying for ‘Modified parity", which in my view is a weakening of the case, as our case is very strong.
I am endorsing a copy to Chander.
Warm regards.
Vijay Oberoi
Former Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS)
Former Director Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)

Veterans under IESM banner to return medals to Prez

The following report -- released by the United News of India news agency on August 21, 2010 -- is for your kind perusal.
With regards
Abhi

Bhopal, Aug 21 (UNI) Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement Chairman Lieutenant- General (Retd) Raj Kadyan, Param Vishisht Seva Medal, will lead a delegation to Rashtrapati Bhavan tomorrow to deposit medals and submit a memorandum signed in blood to President Pratibha Devisingh Patil in protest against the Centre not looking after its defence forces who have been "pillars of strength" for Indian democracy.
In a letter to the President, the veteran said, "it is earnestly hoped that the Supreme Commander would relent and receive the delegation in person. However, should that unfortunately not happen... the delegation would return without depositing the medals and the memorandum."
The recent judgements of the Supreme Court, high courts and Armed Forces tribunals clearly reveal the "grave injustice, apathetic attitude and arrogance of the Government and the bureaucracy," IESM Vice-Chairman Major-General (Retd) Satbir Singh, Sena Medal, said in a release.
The fact that the all- party Standing Committee on Defence – after taking into consideration the reasons given by the Centre for not accepting veterans’ main demand of One Rank One Pension– has strongly recommended grant of OROP to defence personnel holistically in its report tabled in Parliament on May 7, proves the genuineness of their demand, he added.
"Junior commissioned officers (naib subedars, subedars and subedar majors) who are gazetted officers are equated with non-gazetted civilians, their widows left out from the recent small enhancement of pensions of JCOs and Other Ranks, no enhancement in pension to the old reservists, superannuated disabled soldiers not being included in the policy of broad- banding for Disability and War injury, non-grant of third Assured Career Progression to the sepoy, ACP award of the 6th Central Pay Commission not being notionally applied while fixing pensions of pre-January 1, 2006 retirees, the Centre not implementing judgements, the list of grievances and injustice is never ending," Maj-Gen Singh lamented.
The collection of medals and signing of the memorandum will take place at Jantar Mantar from 1100 to 1400 hrs.
"We are also trying to muster ESM from other states for this rally that will be entirely peaceful and in keeping with the military ethos," said Brigadier (Retd) Chander S Kamboj, Vishisht Seva Medal.
"If each ESM was to say that his not joining the struggle will not affect the cause, there will be no struggle, and worse our children will be struggling for the same in 2025," said IESM Governing Body Member Maj-Gen (Retd) Pravesh Renjen.

Broad Banding Disability Pension Explained

Dear Viru,
Please refer to your mail addressed to Chander Kamboj.
Broad banding, in brief, means that the percentages of disabilities sanctioned to service personnel (and presumably civilians) have been rationalized by rounding off, only in the category of invalidment. The following table gives the details:

The broad banding as explained above does not automatically translate to war injury component of pension, as you have queried.

As you must be aware, there are two broad types of disabilities that the government recognizes and for which personnel get benefits. The first is disability that has occurred in a non- warlike situation, which entitles a person to get ‘disability’ component in his pension. The second is disability on account of injuries sustained in war or warlike situations. In this case, the person is entitled to ‘war injury’ component that is added to his pension. In broad terms, ‘war injury’ component is double that of ‘disability’ component and is added to the pension.

As I have mentioned above, till date, broad banding is only applicable to personnel invalided out and not to personnel who continued to serve and then retired or were discharged. It is not logical, but who said the government was logical in any thing it does!!!
Hope your doubts have been clarified.
Best wishes.
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi (Retd)
Former Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS)

Dear Friends,
Jai Hind.
I have received a few emails enquiring about the meaning of “Broad banding of Disability Pension”.
Please read the email above, received from Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, Former Vice Chief of Army Staff and President War Wounded Foundation, which clearly explains the term broad banding of disability pension.

Please help in disseminating of this information to all concerned. THANK YOU.
In service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj.

DISABILITY PENSION
Dear Sir,
Thanks for the info relating to broad banding of disability pension. I’m afraid, I’ve no idea as to the term of brad banding in the context of disability benefits. Could someone, elucidate on this as how does it really translate to War Injury Pension? Does it mean that the disability pension will now be paid on percentage basis of the basic pay as sanctioned by the 6th Pay Commission to those who are being invalidated out of military service now and its applicable to all disabled personnel of pre-1996 cases.
Looking fwd hearing from you.
War regards,
Veteran Viru Swarup

CHECK YOUR PENSION: PRE-2006 RETIREES- Para 9 Broad Banding of Disability

War Injury Pay and Disability Pension

12522 / VO / W I P 08 June 2009
Shri A K Antony
Raksha Mantri
Ministry of Defence
South Block
New Delhi – 110011

INJUSTICE AND DISCRIMINATION IN WAR INJURY PAY AND DISABILITY PENSION

Hon’ble Raksha Mantri,
Please accept my heartiest congratulations on the thumping victory of your party in the General Elections and your assumption of the office of Raksha Mantri once again. I am sure the serving and retired personnel of the Defence Forces will be benefited greatly under your sagacious leadership.

I am writing this letter on behalf of the entire disabled community of ex-servicemen, especially the war disabled, to bring to your notice the grave injustice that has been done to them in the matter of granting disability allowance and war injury pay. Brief details are appended in the succeeding paragraphs.

The Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare has issued two letters relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission in respect of armed forces personnel who are disabled or become so in future, on account of wounds suffered in war or warlike situations or under other circumstances. Letter No. 16(6)/2008(1)/D (Pension/Policy) dated 04 May 2009 relates to ex-servicemen who had been invalidated out / retired from service prior to 01-01-2006. The second letter of even number dated 05 May 2009 relates to similarly categorized personnel who have or are retiring or being invalidated out after 01-01-2006. The disability allowance and the war injury pay of the two categories thus created are different. This defies any logic, especially when the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission (6CPC) do not make any such distinction.

The 6 CPC, in its recommendations had unequivocally stated that all disabled personnel of the military need to be brought up at the same level as the disabled amongst the civilian government employees, by giving them compensation for their disability as a percentage of pay, like their counterparts in the civil have been getting. This was an attempt to correct a historical wrong that has existed for a very long time. Although the 6 CPC had made no such recommendations, the military veterans have now been neatly divided into pre -01 Jan 2006 and post - 01 Jan 2006 veterans. This is a clear case of creating a divide without any justification. The upshot is that while the military veterans of post-01 Jan 2006 would at long last become at par with the civilian government employees and come under ‘a percentage of pay dispensation’, the poor ex-servicemen of earlier vintage would continue to remain ‘on a lumpsum basis’ as hithertofore. This is obviously biased and illogical.

Only one actual example should suffice to illustrate the huge difference. Sepoy Jigme of Ladakh Scouts had lost both his arms and both his eyes during the Kargil War and was granted a disability of 100%. With the new dispensation, he will receive a war injury pay of only Rs. 7,020, but a Sepoy of same length of service and same percentage of disability invalidated out after 01-01-2006 will receive Rs. 11,400 (being 60 % of total emoluments of Rs. 19,000), if he is retained in service, as is the case of this Sepoy. If a similar case occurs and the Sepoy gets invalidated immediately after his injuries, he will receive Rs. 19,000.00 (100 % of emoluments last drawn). This distortion affects all ranks - officers as well as PBOR.

The non-war disabled personnel are equally badly off. Prior to 01 Jan 2006, they were entitled to Disability Element of Rs. 2600 for officers, 1900 for JCO’s and 1550 for jawans for 100 % disability. This has been enhanced to Rs. 5880 for officers, 4300 for JCO’s and 3510 for jawans for 100 % disability. On the other hand, for those retiring after 01 Jan 2006, the disability element would be 30 % of emoluments last drawn, which amounts to higher compensation. The disparity between the two categories is similar to the war injury category.

This invidious treatment of the pre and post - 2006 disabled / war injured ex-servicemen is arbitrary and contrary to the letter and spirit of the 6 CPC recommendations. The 6 CPC, in its recommendations, had no where drawn a distinction between pre-2006 and post-2006 ex-servicemen. The dilution of the 6 CPC recommendations, restricting its application to only the post-6 CPC personnel, is inexplicable, to say the least. Had 6 CPC decided to restrict the benefit of the liberalized disability / war injury dispensation to future disabled / war injured ex-servicemen only, they would have so reflected it. It may be pointed out that the upward revision of the Constant Attendance Allowance for the 100 % disabled has also been applied equally to pre-2006 and post-2006 personnel. It is obvious that the 6 CPC has been guided by similar thinking, as it is a monetary compensation for disability and is not pension. This was also the case when the recommendations of the 5 CPC were implemented in January and May 2001.

Disparities highlighted above need to be removed so that all ex-servicemen who are disabled or war disabled receive equal compensation, on the ‘basis of percentage of pay’. The division into two categories of pre and post 2006 ex-servicemen is neither desirable nor warranted. The issue may please be favourably considered and the orders issued earlier may be suitably revised, so that the pre and post - 2006 disabled and war disabled personnel are placed at an equal footing for getting compensation for the disabilities they have incurred in both war and non-warlike situations.

Copies are being endorsed to officials dealing with the subject, for their advance information.

Thanking you.
Yours Sincerely
sd.........
(Vijay Oberoi)
Lt Gen
President War Wounded Foundation
Copy to:
Shri Vijay Singh, IAS
Defence Secretary
South Block
New Delhi - 110011
Shri S M Acharya, IAS
Secretary (ESW)
Ministry of Defence
South Block
New Delhi - 110011
Shri Sanjeeva Kumar, IAS
Joint Secretary (ESW)
South Block
New Delhi - 110011
Shri Harbans Singh
Director (Pension/Policy)
Ministry of Defence
213, A Wing, Sena Bhawan
New Delhi -110011