COAS Objections on Selective Upgradation
After the submission of 6th CPC Recommendations, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS- in connivance with DGAFMS- this dubious act alone has doubled his Pension) as an after thought had vide letter no. C170211V1-PCC (Army) dated 20 Jun 2008 written to the Cabinet Secretary that, "selective upgradation of Basic Pay, Grade Pay and hence the status of Nurses only in the Armed Forces to equate them with Doctors will seriously impact on the functional relationship and command and control in the Military Hospitals, which would adversely affect patient care in the long run. Hence, there is a need of reconsidering those aspects and keeping the Pay and Grade Pay of MNS officers distinct from the Service Officers". The COAS letter was a quick turnaround from the Armed Forces established stand of demanding 'same pay scales to MNS Officers as for other Service Officers' made to the previous pay commissions. The 6th CPC observed that the starting pay scales of MNS cadre is equal to group A civilian starting pay scales, and is only slightly lower than the pay scales other service officers. The slight upgradation recommended by the 6th CPC was in line with the Armed Forces own pending demands. Opposing the upgradation of MNS cadre fearing an impact on the patient care is illogical.
Armed Forces Tribunal Order
In Maj Gen Mrs. Usha Sikdar Vs. Union of India & Ors (TA. No. 211/2010) the Hon'ble Principal Bench of AFT held that, "she is a regular commissioned officer of the Indian Armed Forces and she is authorised to all entitlements and benefits which a regular officer entitled under the Army Act, 1950 and rules framed thereunder and regulations issued from time to time. Therefore, we have no hesitation to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be treated as a commissioned officer and as a part of the regular force, and she is authorised to all entitlements which are authorised to the regular recruited army officers of the Indian Army." The AFT further directed the Government to "to treat all the commissioned officers of Military Nursing Service as a part of the regular force of the Indian Armed Forces and extend all entitlements which are commensurate with the rank as equal to commissioned officers of Indian Army to her". It is brought out here that, post 6th CPC implementation, the entitlements of a rank is based on the Grade Pay attached to the rank.
Click here to read more
Comment: Will the AHQ right the wrong? Do the powers at hand have the spine to stand up for the Juniors. The Chetwode message seems blown to the winds! Interesting parallel Army gets hit by clubs- click here to read more
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Appeal for Grant of Approved Pension for Majors and Equivalents
From: Lt Cdr(Retd) Avtar Singh
To: Her Excellency, Smt Pratibha Patil, The President of India
SUB: Please give us what sixth CPC has recommended and what Government has approved
Your Excellency,
1. For a moment I drop the just demand of ex servicemen regarding One Rank One pension
2. I am also willing to swallow the unjust difference of Rs 12000 in six cpc as against Rs 2000 per month in fifth cpc between the rank of major and Lt Col.
3. All that I am projecting to you is that I should be paid what six cpc has recommended and what the government has approved under a resolution.
4. The sixth cpc has recommended that under the modified parity agreed to by the government the pension of a retired individual should not be less than 50% of the minimum of pay in pay band corresponding to the rank that an individual had retired provided the individual has served for 33 yrs
5. As per above the pension of an officer of the rank of Major/equivalent should not be less than Rs 18205 provided he has completed 33 yrs of service.
6. As against above my pension has been fixed Rs 14464 (Rs 3741 pm less)
7. Your Excellency, in this case:
(a) The six cpc is not at fault and also
(b) The government has done its job but
(c) The Bureaucrats at the helm of the affairs have become a road block
8. Aggrieved and Cases Instituted
(a) About 200 officers
(b) Under sixteen petitions
(c) At Principal Bench of AFT Delhi and two benches at Chandigarh have petitioned against the injustice meted out to them.
(d) All the above petitions have been heard and admitted under three different judgments.
(e) None of the petition has been disallowed and
(f) As against three months given to the government six months have past and yet
(g) The orders have not been implemented
9. I humbly request your honour to direct the concerned official to see reasons and implement the decision without further delay
10. Finally I wish to state that I am 78 yrs old and number of my colleagues older than me are awaiting justice in their fag end of life
11. I am enclosing list of litigants along with this submission
Yours truly,
AVTAR SINGH
LT CDR (RETD)
To: Her Excellency, Smt Pratibha Patil, The President of India
SUB: Please give us what sixth CPC has recommended and what Government has approved
Your Excellency,
1. For a moment I drop the just demand of ex servicemen regarding One Rank One pension
2. I am also willing to swallow the unjust difference of Rs 12000 in six cpc as against Rs 2000 per month in fifth cpc between the rank of major and Lt Col.
3. All that I am projecting to you is that I should be paid what six cpc has recommended and what the government has approved under a resolution.
4. The sixth cpc has recommended that under the modified parity agreed to by the government the pension of a retired individual should not be less than 50% of the minimum of pay in pay band corresponding to the rank that an individual had retired provided the individual has served for 33 yrs
5. As per above the pension of an officer of the rank of Major/equivalent should not be less than Rs 18205 provided he has completed 33 yrs of service.
6. As against above my pension has been fixed Rs 14464 (Rs 3741 pm less)
7. Your Excellency, in this case:
(a) The six cpc is not at fault and also
(b) The government has done its job but
(c) The Bureaucrats at the helm of the affairs have become a road block
8. Aggrieved and Cases Instituted
(a) About 200 officers
(b) Under sixteen petitions
(c) At Principal Bench of AFT Delhi and two benches at Chandigarh have petitioned against the injustice meted out to them.
(d) All the above petitions have been heard and admitted under three different judgments.
(e) None of the petition has been disallowed and
(f) As against three months given to the government six months have past and yet
(g) The orders have not been implemented
9. I humbly request your honour to direct the concerned official to see reasons and implement the decision without further delay
10. Finally I wish to state that I am 78 yrs old and number of my colleagues older than me are awaiting justice in their fag end of life
11. I am enclosing list of litigants along with this submission
Yours truly,
AVTAR SINGH
LT CDR (RETD)
One Rank One Pension: an obligation to be fulfilled
Extracts from IDR By Gp Capt AG Bewoor
Issue: Vol 26.1 Jan-Mar 2011 | Date: 21 March, 2011
The disdain for Indian Armed Forces, consistently demonstrated by the politico-bureaucratic-extra constitutional combine, is translated into negation of a justified demand for One Rank One Pension.
Disregard & Disinterest. The so called upper classes, elite, bureaucrats/technocrats/business entrepreneurs/rich professionals couldn’t care less about what the faujis do, what they get, how they manage their affairs and such tiresome issues. When they are safe, secure and successful, the fauj is irrelevant. Whether the material and emotional wherewithal given to the fauji and his family is adequate for maintenance of national security and safety, is far from their minds. They pay taxes and expect the Govt to ensure their security to generate wealth for themselves and India. They are not to be blamed for this indifference, because our politico/bureaucratic/extra-constitutional power centres have encouraged disinterest about matters military.
A Quick Perspective. Till the 60s, OROP was in vogue as Military Pension, and faujis got 65 percent of last pay because most had to retire in their late 40s/early 50s while civilians got 33 percent since all served up to 58 years. The 3rd PC abolished Military Pensions, reduced it to 50 percent, increased civil pensions to 50 percent, and added a proviso that to earn full pension a govt servant must serve for 33 years. Thus most military men seldom got full pension because very few could serve for 33 years, but the civil servants invariably got full pension because they served till the age of 58, getting them at least 33 years of service.
Look at the perfidy of this rule and the shabby treatment meted out to the Armed Forces? The Supreme Court has already declared that pension is, “delayed wages for services already rendered”. But look at it this way, Colonel Kapur who retired with 24 years of service at the age of 48 years in 1989, must get the same pension as Colonel Ghosh who retires today at the age of 50 years with 24 years of service. Why must Colonel Kapur have to beg for this, he is only seeking justice because he had to retire at a much younger age than his civilian contemporary who joined the IAS at the same time.
The civilian does not retire with only 24 years service at the age of 50 years, he carries on till the age of 60, and crosses that 33 year barrier. Recently the Supreme Court was constrained to rebuke the Govt for “treating soldiers like beggars”. Regrettably our media, so fond of sensationalism, has not cared to take up cudgels for the military, which provides and preserves that freedom of expression the media clamour for.
What Justifies the Military Demanding One Rank One Pension?
Does Honour, Izzat, Life Threatening Occupation Matter? It has been said that izzat, honour, life threatening occupation are irrelevant to pension. Let’s accept it. A recent comment on TV equated the danger to a fire-fighter to that of a soldier fighting terrorists. Ridiculous as it is, one fact is indisputable; the fire does not shoot bullets nor lobs grenades, at the fire-fighter. Further comparison is unnecessary. Notwithstanding the truth that a fauji’s occupational hazard is far severe than all other’s, and he braves those hazards for izzat, camaraderie, and honour of his unit, let’s not consider this factor for granting OROP. It is incomprehensible by non-military persons.
One Rank One Pension: an obligation to be fulfilled- By Gp Capt AG Bewoor
Issue: Vol 26.1 Jan-Mar 2011 | Date: 21 March, 2011
The disdain for Indian Armed Forces, consistently demonstrated by the politico-bureaucratic-extra constitutional combine, is translated into negation of a justified demand for One Rank One Pension.
Disregard & Disinterest. The so called upper classes, elite, bureaucrats/technocrats/business entrepreneurs/rich professionals couldn’t care less about what the faujis do, what they get, how they manage their affairs and such tiresome issues. When they are safe, secure and successful, the fauj is irrelevant. Whether the material and emotional wherewithal given to the fauji and his family is adequate for maintenance of national security and safety, is far from their minds. They pay taxes and expect the Govt to ensure their security to generate wealth for themselves and India. They are not to be blamed for this indifference, because our politico/bureaucratic/extra-constitutional power centres have encouraged disinterest about matters military.
A Quick Perspective. Till the 60s, OROP was in vogue as Military Pension, and faujis got 65 percent of last pay because most had to retire in their late 40s/early 50s while civilians got 33 percent since all served up to 58 years. The 3rd PC abolished Military Pensions, reduced it to 50 percent, increased civil pensions to 50 percent, and added a proviso that to earn full pension a govt servant must serve for 33 years. Thus most military men seldom got full pension because very few could serve for 33 years, but the civil servants invariably got full pension because they served till the age of 58, getting them at least 33 years of service.
Look at the perfidy of this rule and the shabby treatment meted out to the Armed Forces? The Supreme Court has already declared that pension is, “delayed wages for services already rendered”. But look at it this way, Colonel Kapur who retired with 24 years of service at the age of 48 years in 1989, must get the same pension as Colonel Ghosh who retires today at the age of 50 years with 24 years of service. Why must Colonel Kapur have to beg for this, he is only seeking justice because he had to retire at a much younger age than his civilian contemporary who joined the IAS at the same time.
The civilian does not retire with only 24 years service at the age of 50 years, he carries on till the age of 60, and crosses that 33 year barrier. Recently the Supreme Court was constrained to rebuke the Govt for “treating soldiers like beggars”. Regrettably our media, so fond of sensationalism, has not cared to take up cudgels for the military, which provides and preserves that freedom of expression the media clamour for.
What Justifies the Military Demanding One Rank One Pension?
Does Honour, Izzat, Life Threatening Occupation Matter? It has been said that izzat, honour, life threatening occupation are irrelevant to pension. Let’s accept it. A recent comment on TV equated the danger to a fire-fighter to that of a soldier fighting terrorists. Ridiculous as it is, one fact is indisputable; the fire does not shoot bullets nor lobs grenades, at the fire-fighter. Further comparison is unnecessary. Notwithstanding the truth that a fauji’s occupational hazard is far severe than all other’s, and he braves those hazards for izzat, camaraderie, and honour of his unit, let’s not consider this factor for granting OROP. It is incomprehensible by non-military persons.
One Rank One Pension: an obligation to be fulfilled- By Gp Capt AG Bewoor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
