Is this 1909 or 2009 ?

The pictures above may astonish some as to their relevance here. But these have some application to the subject I want to discuss. On a recent private visit to Sri Lanka, I was cheerfully surprised to see women soldiers in civilian areas of Colombo going about their day to day activities with total professionalism, the cheer was about their utmost dedication, and the surprise was about the fact that the soldiers were not officers but Other Ranks.

The recent case involving dismissal of a lady officer upon being found guilty of misdemeanour has evoked sharp reactions from many quarters. While some talk of instances of impropriety in the services, others are seeing it as a fallout of induction of women in our forces. It has been heard and read ad nauseum that women should not be allowed in our forces because in a milieu that is male oriented, allegations of sexual harassment can, and are often misused. However the point I want to make is that this cannot become per se a case against having women in the forces because:

One. Hurling allegations of sexual advances against male colleagues is something that can happen in any occupation, not just the armed forces. Ethics are on the decline north south east and west, being a man or woman has nothing to do with it.

Two. One woman officer getting the sack generates so much heat, while we conveniently overlook the many men who have similarly been shown the door - it is not about gender, it is about character.

High time to end this kind of positioning vis-à-vis women in a progressive society, let us allow the armed forces lead by example in allowing women utilise their full potential while in uniform. Impropriety knows no gender. Soldiering in women is not even an issue in countries like Sri Lanka while it is made out to be such a big deal by us. While deployment of women at the battlefront may rightly remain a debatable subject, in other arenas, women are here to stay and the sooner we accept and make them (and the men) comfortable, the better.

Let us grow up, a look on my calendar shows it’s 2009.

(Pictures courtesy : squidoo.com and dailnews.lk)

DoPT regains some sanity – asks all Ministries to disclose file notings under RTI Act

Well, the threat of strong action under the Indian Penal Code by the Central Information Commission (CIC) against two officers of the DoPT has had the desired effect. DoPT has officially issued a circular to all Ministries and Departments that file notings have to be disclosed under the RTI Act.

The action came against the backdrop of serious vacillation on the part of the DoPT to correct contents of its website wherein it was stated that ‘file notings’ were not a part of the definition of ‘information’ under the RTI Act. Despite various decisions by the Central Information Commission declaring file notings disclosable under the Act, the DoPT did not amend the web material. In fact, even in the face of specific directions to remove the offending portion from its portal, the department failed to act in the matter fully knowing that as per the RTI Act, CIC decisions are binding on public authorities.

Some officers suggest that disclosure of file notings and minute sheets would lay open to scrutiny their decisions in tough public matters, not realising that transparency is much more important in public life than secrecy of identity. Moreover, officers taking decision as per law with proper application of mind have nothing to be afraid of. File notings have an important role to play in public administration – it is these notings which bring to light the logic or reasons behind administrative decisions and matters of public policy, it is these notings which disclose whether a particular public authority acted in a bonafide manner or was misled into taking a particular action by someone in the channel leading to the particular final policy decision. File notings also assist Hon’ble Courts of Law under the writ jurisdiction since the rationale and motives behind objectives sought to be achieved through public policies and decisions are disclosed and laid bare, which is good for any democracy, especially where public servants (masters ?) tend to hide behind a thick veil of official secrecy.

Please relax on OROP / PIP

There has been a flow of negative emotions on OROP / PIP.

While it may or may not meet our expectations, I would request everyone to hold on to such outbursts till the policy is laid before the public in black and white.

The Govt has tried to club pre-97 and post-97 retirees and bridge their gap with post-06 pensioners. Till the time the actual tables come to light, it would not be correct to base our arguments on assumptions.

Officers’ pensions were never expected to be upwardly revised. And even earlier, this blog had forewarned readers about raising false hopes. Even at the sake of repetition, I shall reproduce it once again :

“It would not be proper to rejoice over such tables. Neither would it be proper to take hopes to such levels which result in serious frustration and embarrassment at a later stage.”

“…the new pension regime would be based on a formula or a rank-wise one time increment (OTI) to bridge the gap between past and present pensioners. It is also unlikely that officers’ pensions are made amenable to the new system. My only request to veterans is to refrain from circulating mails which may raise false hopes and cause (avoidable) discomfiture at a later stage.”

Unknown to many, In 2004, the govt had announced improvement in the scales of PBOR which had almost resulted in OROP for Sepoys, Naiks and Havildars. According to that policy, the pensions of all three ranks were linked with top end of 5th CPC scales irrespective of vintage of retirement. Further an additional weightage of 10, 8 and 6 years was granted to past and future pensioner Sepoys, Naiks and Havildars respectively. Hence, contrary to common belief, PBOR always had a system of pension calculation which was different from Commissioned Officers and other Civil Govt employees. On the other hand, the system of pension computation for officers had always been absolutely similar to civilian employees, the only difference being that unlike the 5 years weightage available to civilians, officers of the defence services were granted higher weightages to cater for early retirement since while military officers retire between the ages of 54 and 62 depending upon arm / service and rank, most civilians retire between the ages of 58 and 60 (though certain categories of personnel of the CPOs retire earlier). Now to say that officers should exactly be at par with PBOR would be a little controversial. We cannot compare employees who start retiring at the age of 33+ with another set of employees who retire at 54+. So this conspiracy theory about the govt employing a policy of ‘divide and rule’ between officers and PBOR has no credibility since the govt has merely continued what was in vogue earlier. If at all there have been sinister moves in this whole 6th CPC imbroglio, the same may have been perpetrated by lower level bureaucracy which always manages to stump both the higher bureaucracy and people in uniform.

Having said that, I still maintain that OROP for all ranks and all employees (civilians included) would be an ideal structural form. A Major General who retired in say 1995 has to buy the same atta, dal and chawal and at the same prices as a Major General who retires today and in this light OROP definitely makes sense. But to say that it should be granted to officers on the same terms as PBOR or that officers of the military should be treated differently than civil servants may cut ice within our community but would widen the wedge between faujis, and dare I say it, the outside world.

Back to the point. There are two major sufferers in the officer community – Majors, who form the bulk of the officer retirees from the earlier eras and Non-Army Commander Lt Generals who retired prior to 2006 and who shall not (as per rules in vogue presently) get the pensionary benefit of HAG+. Leaving aside our personal opinions, we should convince the govt to atleast grant the following to the officer cadre which may well be within the rules of equity and fairplay :

(a) Grant an across the board increment of Rs 3000 on account of MSP to existing pensions of commissioned officers upto the rank of Major. It may be recalled that the benefit of MSP is practically available only to Lt Cols and above based on Annexure-II pension tables of GoI / MoD letter dated 11 Nov 2009 and the same is not extended to Annexure-I pension tables. It also may be pointed out here that in the distant past, some Majors used to retire in their 40s.

(b) Grant pension based on HAG+ to all past retirees who retired as Lt Generals. There is a strong case for this since past DsGP who till 4th CPC were at par with Lt Generals (non Army Commanders) are now drawing a pension of Rs 37750 while pre-06 Lt Generals (non Army Commanders) are placed @ Rs 27700.

Our approach should not be emotional but realistic, practical, pragmatic and extremely logical. Wait till the new scheme is officially announced and we shall bring to light the infirmities therein.

Parity in Pensions announced : Applicable to PBOR only, as signified earlier on this blog

A new regime of Parity in Pensions is to be brought into place and the same has been announced in the Union Budget. As signified on this blog earlier, and contrary to the many tables floating around, the new system would be made applicable to PBOR only.

The quantum of increase would be put into public domain soon. The same is expected to be based on a 'set amount' stipulation for each rank. The date of implementation may not be 1-1-06 but 1-7-2009.

Bridging the gap between retirees of varied vintage (especially pre and post 2006) was the aim of the govt, which to an extent seems to have been addressed. Pensions of pre-97 and post-97 pensioners have also been rationalised. Disability / casualty pensionary awards are also being rationalised.

Complete authentic details would be uploaded on the blog only when officially released by the Govt.

Do not wait for Govt Notification for fixation of pay on substantive promotion : CGDA to CDAs

At last some simplification of procedure, albeit after constant requests by the services and 62 years down our independence.

The Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) has passed instructions to the concerned CDAs to release pay and all financial benefits to officers on the basis of Part II Orders / GENFORMS / PORs issued by military establishments and supported by the relevant branch of the Services Headquarters without waiting for publication of Gazette Notifications related to substantive promotion. Though the system of processing draft govt notifications (DGNs) would continue as before, the pay and allowances shall not be contingent on the same.

The orders signifying the substantive promotion (on the basis of which the pay and other financial benefits shall be released), would have to contain information such as the fact that the officer has completed the requisite qualifying service, he / she is not under DV Ban, he / she has passed eligibility examinations etc.

A welcome step since processing of DGNs was causing undue delay in processing of pay and financial benefits of officers. At times such delay was not in months but in years.

Honorary Naib Subedars have a real reason to cheer

The govt has finally notified an extremely well deserved relief to Havildars granted the Honorary rank of Naib Subedar.

Till date, Hony Naib Subedars were granted a pension of Havildar with Rs 100 as an additional benefit for the Honorary rank as per Regulation 137 of the Pension Regulations for the Army – 1961 (as amended in 1991). A mere pittance it was !!!

Accepting the recommendations of the 6th CPC in this regard, the govt has notified that Havildars granted the Hony rank of Naib Subedar shall now be paid a pension of a regularly promoted Naib Subedar. The said benefit would however only be extended to pension and not for encashment of leave etc.

In actual terms, what does it translate into ?

This for pre-06 pensioners :

Theoretically, for full pensionable service, the minimum guaranteed pension for Hony Naib Subedars till date was :

50% of 5200 (Minimum of Pay in Pay Band-1) + 2800 (Grade Pay) + 2000 (MSP) = Rs 5000

After the new orders, the minimum guaranteed pension shall be :

50 % of 9300 (Minimum of Pay in Pay Band-2) + 4200 (Grade Pay) + 2000 (MSP) = Rs 7750

A good leap.

The orders can be viewed and downloaded by clicking here.

Medical Cover to ESM : 'The Tribune' covers it too

'The Tribune' has also covered the issue today.

Medical cover for short service officers restored

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 2

A large number of short-service commissioned (SSC) officers, who were deprived of medical cover at the military hospitals, would now be entitled to avail the facilities once again.

Earlier, SSC and Emergency Commissioned (EC) officers were entitled to treatment at military hospitals. However, directives issued a few months ago by the Directorate General Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) apparently in contradiction of presidential sanction and Army orders, had debarred them from seeking treatment at the military hospitals.

Sources said a communiqué issued by Army headquarters last week clarifies that medical facilities to SSC and EC officers had not been withdrawn. “A circular issued by Headquarters Western Command states that SSC and EC officers are not to be denied medical treatment in the military hospitals till further orders,” Brig IS Gakhal, director, Sainik Welfare Punjab, who hade taken up the issue with the Defence Ministry, said.

The orders affect thousands of short service officers and their families. Denial of medical facilities had also rendered ineffectual a central scheme for SSC officers under which 80 per cent of the cost of major surgery was borne by the Kendriya Sainik Board, since it required verification by military hospitals. The scheme was introduced because SSC officers are not covered under the Ex-servicemen’s Contributory Health Scheme on the account of being non-pensioners.

Last year, DGAFMS wrote to all Army commands that they were not entitled to medical facilities as these were available only to service pensioners. Since the early 70s, the Army has been inducting about 500 SSC officers annually. In the wake of the 1962 Indo-Pak war, thousands of ECO were also commissioned.

Earlier, medical facilities were only available to ex-service pensioners and their dependants and families of deceased personnel drawing pension of some kind.

Then in 1996, the MoD directed that the term “ex-service pensioners” be replaced by the term “ex-servicemen”. Consequently, entitled categories became ex-servicemen covered under the definition of “ex-serviceman” issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, their dependants and families of deceased personnel drawing pension.

Officers said DGAFMS seemed to have failed to correctly interpret that the sanction for medical facilities was issued by the President through the Defence Ministry and not by the Department of Personnel and Training.

Reality Check : Govt has NOT yet decided on Parity in Pensions

Inboxes of veterans have been flooded by mails announcing the acceptance of the principles of One Rank One Pension (OROP) and Parity in Pensions (PIP). Even certain tables purported to have been accepted by the Govt have been attached with such mails. The triggering factor has been the ambiguous reports on the issue by certain sections of the media.

It would not be proper to rejoice over such tables. Neither would it be proper to take hopes to such levels which result in serious frustration and embarrassment at a later stage.

The govt has not yet accepted or recommended any such tables. The people assigned to the task are still looking into the issue and have not yet decided the matter at hand. In all probability, the new pension regime would be based on a formula or a rank-wise one time increment (OTI) to bridge the gap between past and present pensioners. It is also unlikely that officers’ pensions are made amenable to the new system.

My only request to veterans is to refrain from circulating mails which may raise false hopes and cause (avoidable) discomfiture at a later stage. The committees and our service headquarters are working hard to bring about an acceptable solution and we should stand by them and hope for the best.

Army Headquarters clarify that medical facilities to SSCOs and ECOs have not been withdrawn

Well, this should end the controversy perpetrated by some self-styled interpreters in M-Block who brought disrepute to the medical top brass and in a way to the entire services medical set-up by writing to all Commands that SSCOs and ECOs were not entitled to medical facilities in service hospitals.

Earlier, Medical facilities were only available to the following categories of retired defence personnel :

(i) Ex-Service Pensioners

(ii) Families of Ex-Service Pensioners

(iii) Families of deceased personnel drawing pension of some kind

Then in the year 1996, the Ministry of Defence in the name of HE The President of India amended Paragraph 296 (O) of the Regulations of Medical Services Armed Forces (RMSAF, 1983) and directed that the term ‘Ex-Service Pensioners’ shall be replaced by the term ‘Ex-Servicemen’ thus leading to the following entitled categories with effect from 26 Sept 1996 :

(i) Ex-Servicemen covered under the definition of ‘Ex- Serviceman’ issued by Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) from time to time

(ii) Families of Ex-Servicemen

(iii) Families of deceased personnel drawing pension of some kind.

In 1998, an amendment to the existing Army Order on the subject of entitlement was also issued vide AO 08/98 whereby the term ‘ex-service pensioners’ was replaced by the new term ‘ex-servicemen’, needless to say, the AO was issued under the hand and seal of the COAS. The following was explicitly stated in the AO 08/98 :

“AO 10/97 is amended as follows :- (a) The term ‘Ex Service Pensioners wherever used in the AO is replaced with the term ‘Ex Servicemen’.”

However despite the fact that the above mentioned amendments had been carried out more than a decade ago and Regulation 296 (O) RMSAF stood amended, still in blatant contravention of the Presidential sanction, no correction was carried out in the copies of RMSAF available in service medical establishments and the old (unamended) Para 296 (O) in which the word ‘pensioners’ appeared was being quoted to refuse treatment to SSCOs and ECOs who were ex-servicemen but not pensioners. Vague letters were also issued asking MHs to withdraw such facilities from SSCOs and ECOs.

The Army HQ has now clearly stated that such facilities have not been withdrawn and the Secretariats of COAS and AG have also been informed about the same.

It is only hoped that such letters leading to total chaos in the system are not allowed to be floated by functionaries in the M-Block again. It is also hoped that the executing authorities give due regard to Presidential and govt sanctions by proper application of mind rather than to locally issued letters by self-styled interpreters which have no value in the eyes of law.

Unfortunate and unfortunate....

The murderous assault on a Ludhiana Tehsildar, Maj G S Benipal who happens to be an ex-Commissioned Officer, was a deplorable incident which reflects the kind of jungle-raaj being perpetrated by small time politicians. The officer was beaten up and stripped resulting in fractures and injuries on his entire body. The dignity of the officer was violated since he refused to entertain certain unjust demands of local politicians of the ruling party. The upright officer was known to have recently unearthed a fake stamp paper scam too. We shall ensure that these street runners responsible for this incident are brought to book and justice prevails.

But the point I am trying to project through this post is different and in a sense unrelated to this deplorable incident. I personally feel that former officers of the military should not take up below-status jobs with the civil government. And if family or other circumstances force some to join junior appointments, then the usage of the military title before the name should be avoided. For instance, the former Major had joined as a Tehsildar with the Punjab Govt but the public at large would have no inkling that a Tehsildar is junior even to a Lieutenant of the Army in pay and status, ultimately resulting in the incorrect linkage of a Tehsildar with a Major of the Army in the public psyche. The upholding of decorum of the military rank should be our utmost responsibility and we should not let our private requirements or circumstances encumber its izzat.

Comments on this issue and welcome.