Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Perhaps a far fetched idea for the future but an idea nevertheless. And (unrelated) yet another Rumour Killer


First the Sunday rumour killer. There have been rumours that Colonels (Time Scale) have been placed in Pay Band-3 with the Grade Pay of a Lt Col (7600). This is incorrect. The MoD has already issued orders (SAI 3/S/08) placing the rank of Col (TS) in Pay Band-4 with a Grade Pay of Rs 8700. Hence there remains no difference in status of a Col (TS) and Col (Selection) vis-à-vis Civil services. Indeed a good step. Anybody wanting the ibid SAI may email a request to me. (Thanks to our friend MBSG for this)

Now the main post. The following comment at 0850 hrs on 20 November 2008 on this post regarding the potent caustic ability of office notings made me think :

“As one comes on posting to Delhi, first priorities are house, child education and so on. With no overlap provided, the incumbent has no choice but to depend wholly on that cunning babu, who has seen many officers come and go. We must change the posting policy at AFHQ. There needs to be a permanent set of officers and JCOs trained to handle HQ jobs with limited rotation to field after every 5-7 yrs.”

The above comment reminded me of the Adjutant General’s Corps of the US Army which is a separate Combat Support Service and provides personnel and managerial support to the Army besides other administrative duties. This corps has its own insignia and is a separate branch of the Army.

We, in India too can have a similar concept with officers exclusively dealing with policy, records and management at headquarter level - a military equivalent of the Armed Forces HQ Civil Service (AFHQCS). This can also put in place a good system of checks and balances wherein military interests could be effectively looked after by providing a better advisory arrangement to the top political and civil executive. The lack of continuity and to an extent a lack of proper understanding of certain concepts at the HQ level may be responsible for neglect of execution of balanced decision making concerning the military. Such a Service Corps if conceptualized, could also take over ‘Records’ and finance duties in the Army and the subsisting SL Cadre of Record officers could also be merged into it. To take a different but parallel example, the Indian Air Force already has an Accounts Branch and a Central Accounts Office which is able to constructively counter balance and also support and augment elements of the CDA. And they do a good job at that, perhaps (arguably) better than what we have in the other two services.

It may appear to be a far fetched idea as of now, but I think it is absolutely workable.

Click here to see the history of the US AG Corps.

I would request readers to post comments on as to how we can have an effective balanced arrangement at places of governance so that decision making bodies are provided professional and valuable military inputs by those wearing uniform rather than those without it. It may be in the overall interest of the defence set up.



Anonymous said...

The Navy has not promoted Time Scale Commanders to Time Scale Captains even though they have completed more than 26 years reckonable commissioned service, whereas the Army and Airforce has promoted all officers including Lt Col (TS) and Wg Cdr (TS) to Col (TS) and Gp Capt(TS) after 26 years reckonable commissioned service.
Some Commanders with even more than 34 years commissioned service are still stagnating as Commanders and not promoted to Capt(TS) and will never be promoted to Capt (TS) and will have to superannuate and retire at 54 years age as Commanders and will be denied Assured Career Progression given by AVSC.
This means there will be wide disparity in salary, pay, allowances, pension and retirement benefits between officers commissioned on the same dates between Navy and Army / IAF Officers from the same NDA Course. I think the Navy must promote all officers [including Cdr (TS)] to Capt (TS) after 26 years service or at least put them in PB 4 otherwise Navy officers will suffer financially vis a vis their Army and Air Force Coursemates.
At least we must have uniform Time Scale promotion policies and salary pay bands for all the three services before we start comparing with civilian counterparts. I hope the Navy corrects this anomaly in salary and ensures same salary for Naval Officers as their Army and Air Force counterparts as the officers are Coursemates with the same commissioned service.

GOSPEL said...

Dear Sir,

The idea seems farfetched but nevertheless is a brilliant one especially when you see the key places where AFHQ is entrenched.For example MS Branch we have civilians sitting in MSX (promotions of Brig and above),MS 7 handling PMR,MS8 handling commisioning and MS3 handling deputations.Although the best of the armed forces are sent to handle the other sensitive appointments of MS branch but then taking a hint from your idea we can have guys going through an HR course and then sent to handle all the appointments in this sensitive branch.Similarly we can have an inhouse housekeeping organisation in Adm and coord which takes care of complete adminstrative requirements of offrs in Delhi. At present they are cramped up to handle Lt Gens only.In todays age of networking a good set of 5 offrs and a sufficient staff can take care of all reqmts of an offr when he gets posted to delhi rather than the indl running from pillar to post to organise a veh to tranship his luggage.The MCO at various stations and airports should be effectively used to provide reservations to all ranks as they are all equipped to do so. Indoing so we should get rid of all the shadow organisations in MOD which at the face of it are only meant for turning down your requests.Maybe I am day dreaming but thought of sharing it with you.

Anonymous said...

who is reponsible for the present situation.IT our own senoir officers.IFyou go back to early 50S AHQ WAS manned by service personal. WITH one stoke of pen most of the service personal were posted out .Their place has been taken over by civilians.THIS IS AS PER records at AHQ. why crib now.

* said...

I had the chance to visit the AHQ after 9 yrs of service. But what came to my mind at the first instant is that The AHQ should not be located at delh. If we are really interested in thr security of our nation then our HQ should be at a place where we can function 24X7 like the people are functioning in field area.
1. We cant have 5 days week for such a big army.
2. The AHQ needs to be out of MAD HOUSE of delhi.
3. The civillian staff at the lowest and highest level needs to be replaced by pers in uniform.
4. I dont know if the Highest HQ in the US and China and PAK have a five day week.
5. If we say that we are 24X7 army then we should act like one, and ask everybody whether civillian or uniformed to work 24X7.
6. If the civillians can cope with usthen let them be with us else they can work under their secretaries an directors.
7. No HQs can function 9 to 5 and 5 day in a week.

Anonymous said...

* said

sir,aap pakka Gen material ho.
the whole country is shouting that army can go to hell and no body is intrested in army.

the humiliation which is being faced by the defence forces for the last many decades and specially for the last two months

like a true Gen your are saying in a peace posting army should ragdo itself 24*7.
the govt is not ready to give even a single pie etc. our own Gen wants to put ban on PMR now you are saying that we should work 24*7.
now china and pak are friends india does not face any threat that is why indirectly india says defence forces can be disbanded then why do you want to ragdo yourself.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous November 24, 2008 9:48 AM

You are quite a showstopper.
What were you? The academy full stop.
You do not stop running the cross country just because the Army has jeeps now. Do you? Similarly, just because some bureaucrats have screwed up big time does not mean that someone can decide that Army is not reqd any more and we can hence let down our guard. If we do so -even Bangladesh will show us two fingers tommorrow (someting similar to what the PMF, MES etc guys are doing in this Blog HA HA). Whatever happens, the show has to go on. We unfortunately cannot leave our country in the lurch. Not after "khaoing" Namak for so many years. Our kids will most probably inherit the country- the kids of IAS and IPS will have left for Americas and Europe. So buck up and hold the fort. * or *** has a point. Maybe we should have Army and Air HQ at someplace else. Get the civilians out after starting 24*7 work. Thereafter revert back to 5 day week once the civilians are firmly out.


Anonymous said...

I agree with anon above.
I didn't join the army to suck up to anyone. If there are people who want the armed forces to go the way of the civil services than that has to be prevented, NOT encouraged - no matter what the cost to us. That's what makes us soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Having said that, giving a kick or two to lowlife like this current lot of secretaries will be in order for having, unneccesarily but dangerously, created this mess. And that, is what I expect the Chiefs to bring to fruition.

Anonymous said...

@ANNONY 11.21 AND 12.24




Anonymous said...

Dear Faujies, i am surprised by the rhetoric of ARMY OFFICERS TO MISLED THE COUNTRYMEN. DO YOU THINK ANY CITIZEN WILL BE LEFT WITH ANY FAITH IN THE DEFENCE U CAN PROVIDE. At list about those who have been posting comments here. Iam sure our army is not that. If a officer cannot own in writing what he writes in blog He is only damaging the Army as a institution. Better sense can prevail. Earlier i had suggested why army donot ask 50% more pay than civilian and withdrawal of all kins of benefits etc in peace. I feel having no enemy we have started fighting our own country.

Anonymous said...

My Dear Navadeep,

USA and India have very vast differences so far our Armed forces are concerned.

Firstly, we have standing Army wherein people serve upto 20 or more years. US has only basic standing structure where a battalion is raised for a theater operations and almost disbanded barring a bare minimum permanent key appointment structure. Even in that the officers and NCO get transferred to another battalion.

People serve in the Armed Forces for a short duration in US.

Therefore, Permanency and Continuation to the system is provided by the HQ Cadre sitting in pentagon and other institutions. That cadre is drawn out of the officers who have served in the Forces for adequate time and have sufficient experiences.

US Armed forces are primarily expeditionary Forces to remain out side the Country unlike our Border oriented Forces. In our Army, Officers get deployed in field, difficult areas and their postings to the HQs are governed by twin purposes of provision of exposures and peace tenures.

Since our officers cadre is permanent, they are required to be provided exposures at various echelons of functioning including Services HQs.

Regarding AFHQSC, it will be better to fill it up with the SSC officers by lateral entries or providing them an option. The other way to fill it up would be posting the finally superceded officers in the Services HQ in place of Civilians.

Very few Armed Forces Officers get an exposure of Functioning of Services HQ and MoD. Majority of Delhi posting's share belongs to the Signals and Services in the Army which needs to be drastically reduced by reduction of their posting slots in the HQs and giving those slots to others.

The model proposed is absolutely unworkable in our case due to standing nature of our Armed Forces.

Some of the 24X7 types above are over zealous and do not understand that an officer is Posted to the HQ not only for work but for rest and relief. Some of our training type peace formation also do not realize that they all are doing things to tire already tired soldiers. Some never see the field and just have no comprehension about the nature of difficulties the soldiers have gone through. They device all sorts of exercises just to put some vague theory in practice.

It must be clearly understood that our Army is an operationally deployed Army on borders and in CI Operations and is not totally peace time training Army.

Anonymous said...

A very sensible and logical proposal(regarding creating an armed force cadre for HQ). Hope the powers that be take note of this in the best interest of the country.

Anonymous said...

maj Navdeep

SAI 3/s/08 deals with issues of fixation of pay for officers holding acting rank and col TS. It implies that even if some one becomes a col (acting) after 16-17 years of service, he will get basic pay of col only after 20 yr that is after substantive promotion which is supposed to be after 20 years as per rules being quoted by CDA. What is the rule position on this? In this case, what is the use of expediting promotion boards for promotion to the rank of colonel, if only enhanced grade pay is going to be given in addition to basic pay of Lt Col? How will all this change as and when Lt Col are brought to PB4.

What is the rule position on this as per 5 CPC. Suppose one officer becomes acting Col in December 2004, should he not have got basic of col from December 2004 and not from say Dec 2005 when he actually completes 20 yrs. Had he been given the basic of col in Dec 2004, he would have got one increment in Dec 2005 and accordingly his pay fixation as on 01 jan 06 will be more.
May I request some one to clarify the rule on this.

nishith said...

Maj Navdeep,

A very nice post. In my opinion the root of the problem is the person at the head of the civilian setup taking decisions about armed forces. What we actually need is an administrative reforms where in an armed forces person is the defence sec, an IRS officer is Finance Sec, ITS(Telecom) officer is Telecom Sec, IPS officer is HOme Sec etc.

Anonymous said...

dear navdeep the pbor pre-2006 pensioners condition is not good but pbor thought after sixth pay commission their condition will be improved but nothig has been increased pension for pre-2006 pensioners . they thoght that after sixth pay commission they will get full pension becoz they are not able to complete 33 years .
post 2006 pbor wil get full pension after 15 years of service but pre-2006 pbor will get full pension after 33 years of service.
so pls give me answer why govt took this decision and will this be anomaly removed?pls give me the ans thanksssss

Anonymous said...

it is fact that navy has not promoted the timescale commander to the rank of timescale captaion.
Officers have moved to Bombay high court,it is regrated that navy has put forward the argument the navy does not follow same command and control stracture therefor not oblised to impliment the promotion of Time Scale Commanders to Time Scale Captains even though they have completed more than 26 years reckonable commissioned service, as has been done by the Army and Airforce .The officers have moved to suprim court of india the suprim court was suppose to give final judgement on 12 Nov 2008 but navy has sought deferment till jan 2009,In this background Chairmen chiefs of staff committee asking for parity of service officers with civilian officers has any meaning ? when there is no parity between three services.

Anonymous said...

The navy is known to put a spoke where ever it can and make life difficult for its Officers.All the resources are in the hands of a few top Officers and the junior lot are made to run for everything from HRA to ty duty allowances.It's an uncaring service,period.What needs to be done is to file cases against the individual who is holding up this promotion.

watchdog said...

methinks all the issues of payscales of acting col, TS commanders waiting to become TS captains (IN) etc would be addressed by moving ltcol to PB-4 as there would not be much of a difference in two scales,barring one incrmnt & minor grade pay diff.Ofcourse for those wanting Col (retd) or Captain (IN)(retd) boards on their doors, it would still matter.

yourstrulyOG said...

I feel that if the IAS or anybody is playing games Of the sort we have seen, in the past few months then we should play the game smarter.Firstly with respect to the cadre management I think few things have to be rectified. I think fair way to make more offrs reach the higher ranks is restricting the entry of offrs proportionate to the no of exits with a fair competitive ratio of 1:3. this may be done by
1. Increasing the intake of SSC offrs lets say 60% of the vac.
2. 40% through IMA (counting the trg period in the service as the IAS does).
3. Thus a fair no of offrs will have the option to leave at a young age and may be absorbed in the PSU / Private sector depending upon their caliber and choice.
4. Reintroduce the rank of 2 Lt. I feel the abolishing of this rank may have led to the disparity in grade pay as the civ have compared the lowest existing rank with the corresponding lowest civ rank.
5. An option may also be given for exits at lets say 10 and again at 15 years of service with or without pension(pension may be given on a sliding scale depending upon the no years of service).
6. To a great extent the army needs to reconsider the appointments and the QR for some of them. In todays world logistics is a very specialized subject and we post offrs with little or no knowledge of the same(beg your pardon but I have considered the working experience which may brought certain amount of knowledge with it to the offr)We post off as QM,DQ who may not be a expert on the sub , he no doubt learns over a period of time but i feel the org sufferers as by the time he is an expert , he is posted out(hence no doubt the offr gains in experience the org looses out)Hence lot of funds alloted go underutilized or may not efficiently utilised. Secondly the accounts departments have to be more professional hence we may have to adopt the procedures and org setup of the air force with respect to the accounts dept. This will no doubt ease out a lot of pain.
7. Promote offrs to the rank of
Col 15-16 yrs
Brig 20-21 yrs
Maj Gen 25-26 yrs and so on
They may choose to leave at a relatively young age of 45 with adequate pension and still good for the corporate world.
Create more posts at the senior level and please let the time scales ranks leave service and abolish the re-employment concept... I don't think it does anything good for the org

8. Offer study leave for a variety of courses so that the intellectual development of the individual and the environment improves. Only MBA and PGDCA may not be adequate.

Hence I feel there is a problem and has to be understood and solved holistically. A knee jerk here and there wont solve the problem. The babus are not going to change hence we should try to outsmart them in the own game. ... May be raising a separate corps to tackle them, may be required by the next pay commission.
I think we were caught unawares this time by an enemy within. I know we can tackle them and beat them but may be we have think not with our hearts as most of us do.....

Harry said...

@yourstruly OG

Sir, all your points are well taken but my observation is regarding abolition of 2/Lt rank. Here I hold a different view. I would even go further by saying that abolish Lt as well as Lt Col rank as well (Ahrite, Lt Col rank b retained for promoting majs who miss direct selection to Col rank.)
And cadre management should be such planned that all PC officers should reach Col rank either by selection (in around 14-15 years, mind u this is incl training) and those who miss out shd get Col (TS) rank in abt 18-19 years. Similarly service for Brig Gen( upgrade Brigs to Brig Gen and equate with JS)and Maj Gen (equate with Addl Secy) ranks should be brought down to 18-19 and 23-24 years respectively.

By abolishing Lt rank and commissioning officers directly as capts it would hv even rank badge parity with IPS/CPMFs as they put on three stars directly. If we say that our 2/Lt is equivalent to IPS ACP (wearing 3 stars),though we are right technically, but how many actually buy that? Even our jawans would feel that IPS guy with three stars is senior, so rank badges do matter esp if you consider Army and Police, where we are at tremendous disadvantage. Wanna hear this, 93 batch IPS officers have already been empanelled as DIGs, surprised?!!!! And as per 6PC (watever we may say) DIG is Brig equivalent!! Our 93 batch officers have not even been made COs (who are in any case only acting Cols and Substantive Lt Cols). So lets go with the world and not plough our lone furrow in isolation and end up cribbing in frustration because "duniya hamare hisaab se nahin chalti"...time for some outta box thinking blokes!!

Anonymous said...

Jugment of case filed by an officer against his promotion to time scal captain on completion of 26 Years in bombay high court is reproduce below for the information of all.




1503 OF 2006

Commander Ravindera Sadashio
(01807-F), resident of A-25, Hyderabad
Estate, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai 400 036. ... Petitioners


1. Union of India
(through Law &
Judiciary Dept), Ayakar Bhavan,
New Marine Lines, Mumbai.
2. The Chief of Naval Staff,
having his office at Naval Headquarters,
DHQ PQ, New Delhi 110 011.
3. The Chief of Personnel,
having his office at Naval Headquarters,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi 110 011.
4. The Flat Officer Commanding
in-Chief, Western Naval Command,
having his office at Shahid Bhagat
Singh Road, Mumbai 400 023.
5. Integrated Headquarters of the
Ministry of Defence (Navy), having
its office at Naval Headquarters,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi 110 011. .. Respondents
Mr. Shyam Mehta with Mr. Satendra Kumar for Petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Singh, Addl. Solicitor General along with Mr. Rajiv Chavan and
Ms. Akhila Kaushik i/by Pankaj Kapoor for Respondents.

19th October, 2007




As the matter involves career of senior Officers in the Indian
Navy, the parties agreed that it would be appropriate if the Petition is
disposed of at the admission stage itself. The matter accordingly was
heard on various dates. The parties were also directed to file their
written submissions considering the time constraint. The Petitioners have
submitted their written arguments only on 21.9.2007.

2. The Petitioner is at present working as
Commander (Time Scale). Till
the notification of the Government of India dated 11.3.2005, the
Petitioner ordinarily would have superannuated as Commander (Time
Scale). The Government of India had appointed a committee which is
known as “Ajay Vikram Singh Committee (AVS Committee). The
committee was constituted by the Ministry of defence, to examine the
Army headquarters proposals for reconstructing their officer cadre.
One of the recommendations made was time based promotions in
the officers rank. It was also recommended that the rank of Col. (Time
Scale) be granted to all Lt. Cols on completion of 26 years service.
The Committee noted in Para 76 of its report that whilst this report is
primarily focused on the restructuring of the Officers' Cadre of the
Army, it is applicable in nearly equal measure to the other two
services. The Navy and Air Force however, should work out their
Service specific requirements including the additional vacancies,
which will be required at various ranks on operational/functional
grounds. The variations that may be necessary to meet Service
specific requirements would be perused by the individual Service Hqs
3. Subsequent to the report, the Government accorded approval
for implementation of the report of the AVS Committee, one of which
was promotion of Lt. Colonel's who had completed 26 years service
to the rank of Colonel (T.S.). On 12.3.2005. The Government then


accorded approval for implementation of the AVS Committee report
to the Indian Air Force. One of the recommendations was promotion
of Wing Commander to Group Captain (Time Scale) on completion of
26 years of service subject to other requirements.

On 11.3.2005, the President was pleased to convey sanction
for revision of various terms and conditions of service for Naval Officers,
except Medical and Dental Officers. Some of the relevant paragraphs
are as under :

“1. Consequent to the acceptance of recommendations

of the AV Singh Committee Report (Part,1), I am directed to

convey the sanction of the President for revision of various terms

and conditions of service for Naval Officers, except

Medical and Dental Officers, as given in the succeeding


2. Substantive Promotion : To reduce the age profile
and supersession levels in the Navy, as also to improve vertical
mobility, promotion to substantive ranks will be made based on
eligibility criteria indicated below.
(a) Sub Lieutenant On commissioning

02 years as Sbt.
© Lieutenant
04 years from date of
promotions to Substantive Lt.

(d) Commander
11 years from date of


promotion to Substantive Lt.
(e) Captain (Time Scale) 26 years of reckonable

3. The aforementioned promotions will be governed by the
following :
(a) Inter-se seniority amongst officers as per Navy List will be
(b) Forfeiture/gain of time as specified in Chapters IV and VI of
Regs Navy Part III.
© Provisions w.r.t. Discipline, vigilance and medical as
promulgated by IHQ Mod (N) from time to time.
4. Promotions accruing from Para 2 above shall also be subject
to officers fulfilling other criteria, to be notified by the IHQ Mod
(N) through policy letters on the subject. Seniority of officers
eligible for promotion based on above mentioned criteria, who
have not completed mandatory sea time due to service
constraints, will be protected.
5. Those serving in the rank of Commander (Time Scale) will
now be eligible for grant of substantive rank of Commander.
The existing rank of Commander (Selection) shall remain
applicable till the existing Commanders (Selection) are either
promoted to the rank of Captain (Selection) or Captain (Time
Scale) or are retired. No further promotions to Commander
(Selection) shall be made.
Captain (Time Scale)


6. Officers not promoted to the rank of Captain by selection may
be granted substantive rank of Captain (Time Scale),
irrespective of vacancies, provided they are considered fit in
all respects. The terms and conditions governing the rank of
Captain (Time Scale) to these officers are as under :
Pay scale : As applicable to Captain Selection Grade
which currently is Rs.15,100-450-17,350.
Rank Pay Officers will be entitled to rank pay of a
Commander which currently is Rsw.1,600/-p.m.
Other Allowances & Perks : Officers holding the rank

of Captain (Time Scale) will be eligible for all
allowances and other perks as applicable to
Captain Selection Grade.

Age of Superannuation : All officers holding the rank
of Captain (Time Scale) shall retire on
superannuation on attainment of the age of 54 years.

Medical Criteria : Criteria applicable for the rank of
Cdr.(TS) will now be applicable to the new grade of
Capt (TS).
7. Officers holding the rank of Captain (Time Scale) will be held
against the sanctioned strength of Commanders. Such officers
shall in precedence, rank junior to the following officers :
(a) Substantive Captain by Selection
(b) Acting Captain by Selection


8. Detailed criteria and procedure for
grant of substantive rank of
Captain (Time Scale) will be notified by integrated
Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).”
4. Subsequent to the sanction by the President, Integrated
Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy) New Delhi issued a policy on
14.3.2005 for implementation of Part I – AVS Committee
Recommendations (AVSCR). Some of the relevant paras read as under
“3. Governing Principle : The fundamental tenet for
implementation is that the inter-se seniority among Officers
as per Navy List, will be protected. The aim of succeeding
paragraphs is to lay down the modalities for implementation'
of the above, with minimum impact on command and control
structures and traditional naval ethos.”

“10. All Lt. Cdrs who have completed 11 years from
date of promotion to substantive Lt would be eligible for
promotion to Substantive Cdr. In the first instance, the
following officers would also become eligible :

(a) All Ag. Cdrs (Select List)
(b) All Cdrs (Time Scale)
© All “R”/”N” Graded Lt. Cdrs.

Paras 19, 20 and 22 read as under:

“19. The IHQ Mod (N) will screen and promote
substantive Cdrs who have completed 26 years of


reckonable commissioned service to the rank of Capt.
(TS). All Capts (TS) will continue to be borne against
the sanctioned strength of Cdrs and below and will
hold appointments tenable by Cdrs. These officers will
not be constituted as Cmde subsequently.

20.To maintain existing inter-se seniority, Cdrs (Time
Scale) and Lt. Cdrs. who have been finally
superseded will be eligible for promotion to Capt
(Time Scale) only after all erstwhile Ag. Cdrs
(Select List) have been promoted to Capt (Select
List) / Capt (Time Scale)/ retired. Para 3 of GOI
Letter ibid also refers.

“22. Such Officers shall, in precedence, rank
junior to the following officers

(a) Substantive Captain by selection;
(b) Acting Captain by Selection.”
5. The Integrated Headquarter of Ministry of Defence
(Navy) New Delhi issued another communication dated 2nd
November, 2005. The following paras of the communication
are relevant :
“2. The AVSC recommendations, besides
improving the promotion prospects of officers, are
aimed at ensuring a younger age, profile of officer in the
three Services. Whilst embracing the fundamental
tenets of the AVRC recommendations, the underlying
thrust of the IN promotion policy for non select ranks,


has been to preserve inter-se seniority amongst officers
as per Navy List, thereby ensuring minimal turbulence
to the existing Command and Control structure.

4. The above implies that immediate grant of promotion
to Cdrs (TS) with 26 years of commissioned service, to
the rank of Captain(TS), is untenable since it would
impact on the sanctity of inter-se seniority. While, this
may be considered at variance with the Army/Air Force
implementations, it is relevant to highlight that the
implementation by the two Services has been based on
mitigating circumstances such as their geographical
dispersion and selective placement. The IN policy is
practical and based on time tested, functional and
traditional norms followed even pre-AVSC.
5. It is further clarified that the new regulations do not
preclude promotion of erstwhile R1/R2 graded Lt.
Cdrs (subsequently not placed on Select List for
promotion to Captain) or erstwhile Cdrs (Time Scale)
and Lt. Cdrs ((N Graded) (finally superseded) to the
rank of Capt (TS) but only appropriately defers it till
such time the provisions at para 3(a) are complied.”
6. Several Commanders (Time scale) who were
aggrieved by these Communications made
representations to the Ministry of Defence. The
representations were rejected and they were so informed.
6. It is the Petitioners case that inspite of
the notification of
11.3.2005 consequent to the subsequent notifications, the


Petitioner though eligible and having completed 26 years
of service to be considered for promotion to the rank of
Captain (Time Scale), cannot be considered, till such time
as all commanders (select) and Commanders (Acting) are
promoted as either Captain (TS) or Commander (Select).
The Petitioner in the course of such exercise, would retire.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the terms
and conditions of service governed by the Government of
India letter dated 11.3.2005 are to be effective from
16.12.2004. The notification by the Integrated Headquarters,
Ministry of Defence (Navy) on 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 has
the effect of altering the rights for consideration for
promotion, as contained by Government of India letter dated
11.3.2005. The impugned policy letters in effect alter the
terms and conditions of the services of the Petitioner, which
are prescribed by the Government of India and as such are
without authority of law. It is also submitted that the
Paragraph 3 of the Communication of 11.3.2005 cannot
have the effect of deferring the promotion of Commander
(TS) like the Petitioners who has completed 26 years of
service. What the para at all would mean is that in the rank
as and when Commander (Select) and acting Commanders
are promoted to Captain (TS), they will be senior to
Commanders (Time Scale) who were promoted as Captain
(Time Scale) before them. More over inter-se seniority
obviously means seniority in the same rank and not in
different ranks.
It is next submitted that the Army and the Air Force
have both implemented the AVS Committee


recommendation by immediately promoting all eligible
officers in the rank of Lt. Col (Time Scale) to Col. (Time
Scale) and Wing Commander (Time Scale) to Group
Captain (Time Scale). In these circumstances, it is absurd
for the Navy to contend that the Govt. Notification permits
them to do the opposite. If the impugned naval policy is
implemented then no Commander (Time Scale) can be
considered for promotion to the rank of Captain (Time
Scale) till January, 2016, since the last Commander
(Select)/acting Commander (Select) would be eligible for
consideration by the end of the year 2015. According to
Petitioners, all Commanders (Time Scale) would by then
have retired and none would be available to get the benefit
of promotion of Captain (Time Scale).

It is also submitted that the Navy does not have the
power to vary a Policy of the Government of India. It is only
the Govt. of India that can vary its own Policy.
Consequently, the impugned Naval Policy as reflected in
these communications, are clearly ultra vires and in any

event cannot alter or modify the Govt. Policy much less
take away the right to be considered for promotion,
conferred by the Govt. Policy.

It is therefore, submitted that the impugned
communications are ultra vires and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India, to the extent that they have the
effect of postponing the promotion of the petitioner to the
rank of Captain (Time Scale) untill all Commanders
(Select) and acting Commanders (Select) are promoted to
the rank of Captain (Time Scale). The two communications


are therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside with a
direction to the respondents to promote Petitioners as
Captain (TS) with effect from 16.12.2004.

8. Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the
Respondents, by Commander R.N. Purandare. It is set out
that the Petitioner has not exhausted the efficacious remedy
available for redressal of his grievance under the provisions
of Navy Act, 1957 and the regulations framed thereunder and
has instead chosen to approach the Hon'ble Court directly,
which is procedurally incorrect. In our opinion at the outset it
may be noted that the representations made by similarly
situated officers have been rejected. The contentions urged
in this Petition also cannot be considered or decided by the
Authorities. That objection is therefore, devoid of merits. The
letters dated 14.3.2005 and 24.11.2005 of the Integrated
Headquarter Ministry of Defence (Navy) it is explained are
simply an elaboration and amplification of Govt. of India
letter dated 11th March, 2005 and in no way at any stage
contravene the provisions of the GOI letter dated 11th March,
2005. The Government of India Letter dated 11.3.2005, Para
3, clearly sets out that the promotions will be governed by the
inter se seniority of the Officers as per naval list which will be
It is also contended that as per Para 8 of the
Government of India Letter, the Government has authorised
Integrated Headquarters/Ministry of Defence to set out the
detailed criteria for grant of substantive rank of Captain (Time
Scale). As such, the policy letters dated 14th March, 2005 and
21 November, 2005 have been issued by Respondent No. 5


under the authority of the Govt. of India. The policy
letters/draft guidelines submitted are as per existing
regulations and taking into consideration all service
exigencies and effect of implementation of the said policy on
the morale of the service. It is submitted that in the Indian
Navy, if the Commander (T.S.) including Petitioner is
promoted to the rank of Captain (T.S.), immediately. as
claimed by the Petitioner, he will supersede almost 1300
Commanders in one stroke, who are senior to him in the
naval list. This will not only affect the morale but also be
contrary to the existing regulations. This is neither practical
nor desirable and in fact will be contrary to the

Dealing with the contention of the other two services, it is
contended that they have so done according to their
needs/requirements and their service conditions. In the armed
forces, the promotional policies are framed to suit the
service requirements which in turn are linked to the
peculiarities of different rank structure and dictates of
command and control. In the Indian Navy, if the
Commanders (TS) including the Petitioner are promoted to
the rank of Captain (Time Scale) immediately as claimed by
the Petitioner, he will supersede almost 1300 Commanders
(Select List) who are senior to them in a single stroke.
Though It is true that the Army and Air force have promoted
Lieutenant Colonel (Time Scale) to Colonel (Time Scale) and
Wing Commander (Time Scale) to Group Captain (Time
Scale) respectively, the terms and conditions of Indian Navy
are different from Army and Air Force. Navy's approach in this
regard has been practical and in conformity with the extant


regulations as it does not disturb the existing seniority
structure as promulgated in the Navy List. It is set out that it
is not as if Commander (TS) have been denied promotions to
the rank of Captain (TS). It has only been deferred.
Consequent to the order of this Court dated 23.11.2006
certain additional information was furnished. It has been
pointed out that as on the date of the notification dated
11.3.2005, made effective from 16.12.2004, the number of
Commanders (Select) were 1119 (One thousand one hundred
and nineteen). Acting Commanders (Select list) were 358 and
Commanders (Time Scale) were 412. As of 25.11.2006, 88
Commanders (Select) have been promoted to the rank of
Captain (Select) and 208 Commanders (Select) granted the
rank of Captain (Time Scale). No Commander (Time Scale)
has so far been granted/appointed as Captain (Time Scale).
It is also pointed out that all Commanders (Select) selected
by Promotion Board 03/2004 would be eligible for promotion
to Captain (Time Scale) by 2015. Although 282 erstwhile
Commanders (Time Scale) including the Petitioner would
have retired by then and not be benefited, yet 420 Officers
(130 erstwhile commanders (Time Scale) and 290 “N” graded
Lieutenant Commanders (Lieutenant Commander who have
now been select listed for Commander) would continue to be
eligible for promotion.

9. An additional affidavit was filed on 27.02.2007 by
Commandare Purandare. Amongst other contentions, it was
brought on record, that several representations made by
individual Officers (Commanders) (TS), has been disposed of
by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence and it is set
out that in terms of the Communication of 8.3.1996 the Jt.


Secretary is competent to decide all the representations.

As it was contended that by the order dated
11.3.2006, the Ministry of Defence had issued policy decision
in the matter of providing promotional avenues and that
policy could have been amended by Jt. Secretary, Navy and
that in fact it has been so done based on the power conferred
by order dated 8.3.1996, we had pointed out that the
communication dated 8.3.1996 only confers power to decide
statutory complaints. An affidavit has now been filed by by
Captain Purandare which clearly sets out that the order
dated 8.3.1996 only deals with the delegation of powers to
the Joint Secretary regarding disposal of statutory complaints
of officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent and that
the communication of the Integrated Headquarters (Navy)
dated 14.3.2005 impugned in the writ petition was to
harmonize the two clauses of the instruction dated 11.3.2005
relating to eligibility of offices to promotion as Captain time
scale vis a viz to maintain interse seniority amongst as per
Navy list. The impugned decision dated 14.3.2005 was under
the instruction dated 11.3.2005 itself.

10.We may only add an additional fact. The Petitioner in his
affidavit has set out, that he denies that Commander
Purandare was authorised to affirm the affidavit on behalf
of the respondents at any rate, on behalf of the Union of
India. This averment has not been dealt with by the
respondents in their subsequent affidavits. It is also
pointed out that the statement on behalf of the
respondents that 218 erstwhile Commanders of time scale
would have retired by 2015 is incorrect as about 405


Commanders will be retiring by that time.

11.Considering these contentions the issues that will arise for
consideration are :

(1) Whether the communications of 14.3.2005
and 2.11.2005 are without the authority of law
and in contravention of the notification dated
(2)Whether the communications dated 14.3.2005
and 2.11.2005 can be said to be arbitrary,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
in as much as the effect of these communications
amount to denial to the Petitioners of
promotional opportunities to the rank of Captain
(Time Scale), even though eligible under
notification of 11.3.2005.

(3)Would the action of Respondent No.
2 to 5 be
said to be arbitrary in as much as the
corresponding ranks in the Indian Army and Air
Force have been granted promotion from

12. To understand the contentions, we may firstly
note the promotion policy in the Navy previous to
communication on 11.3.2005. The promotion to the rank of
Lieutenant was after putting in maximum three years of
service, minus the seniority gained during Sub courses.
Promotion to the rank of Lt. Commander is after completion
of 9 years of service. Promotion to the rank of Commander
was by selection, based on performance/merit after


completion of 14 to 14.1/2 years of service. Three chances
were afforded by the Selection Board for promotion to the
rank of Commander. The promotion to the rank of
Commander (TS) (i.e. When officer not selected in three
chances), is after completion of 20 years of service.
Commander (TS) was not eligible for consideration for
promotion to the rank of Captain.

Pursuant to the policy of 11.3.2005 and
communications dated 14.3.2005 and 24.11.2005, promotion
to the rank of Lieutenant is on completion of two years of
service. Promotion to the rank of Lt. Commander is after
completion of six years of service. Promotion to the rank of
Cdr. is after completion of 13 years of service. Promotion by
selection to the rank of Captain by virtue of merit/performance
is after completion of 18 years of service, three chances are
afforded by the Selection Board for the promotion to the rank
of Captain (Select Grade). If a Commander does not get
selected within the three chances, then after completion of 26
years of service, he is entitled to be considered as Captain
(Time Scale).

13. We may now deal with the first contention. Are
the communications of 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 in
contravention of the notification of 11.3.2005. It is not
disputed and cannot be disputed that once the President
has sanctioned the condition of service which includes
promotion to the post of Captain (Time Scale), it would not
be open to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to alter, modify
the Policy, unless power was conferred to modify the
same. In Shankar Pandurang Jadhav and Ors. Vs. Vice


Admiral, Flat Officer, Commanding-in-Chief and Others,
(1991) 2 S.C.C. 209, the Supreme Court has been
pleased to hold that a subsequent order issued by the
Navy, inconsistent with the Presidential Order, has to be
ignored as officers in the Naval Department were not
competent to alter, vary or modify a Presidential order.

The question that we are called upon to answer is
whether there was any power in Respondent Nos. 2 to 5
to issue communication of 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 as
contended by them considering the language of the
Notification dated 11.3.2005. Para 3 which we have
reproduced earlier sets out that the promotion is to be
governed amongst others by maintaining the interse
seniority as per naval list which will require to be
protected. According to Respondents this paragraph read
with Para 8 of the notification which sets out the detailed
criteria and procedure for grant of substantive rank of
Captain (Time Scale) is to be notified by the Integrated
Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Navy). It is in
exercise of this, that the communications of 14.3.2005
and 2.11.2005 respectively were issued. What would be
the meaning of the expression “interse seniority” of
Officers as per naval list which has to be protected.
Seniority in the rank of captain is covered by the Para 7
which places the order of seniority as under:

(1)Substantive Captain by selection ;
(2)Acting Captain by Selection.
(3)Captain (Time Scale).

In other words Captain (Time Scale) in the rank of Captain,

will always be junior to those who have been promoted as

substantive captain by selection or as Acting Captain by


selection. If the seniority in the rank of Captain is already
provided, then Para 3 will have to be given a distinctive
meaning and if it has to be given distinctive meaning, then
Par 8 will have to be considered. The feeder rank for
appointment to the rank of Captain (Select) or Captain (Time
Scale) is in the rank of Commander. In the rank of
Commander (Time Scale) are those Lt. Commanders, who
could not be selected as Commander on merit. Appointment
to the promotional rank of Commander (Time Scale) was on
completion of 20 years of service and thereafter there was no
further avenue of promotion. From the affidavit of
Commander Purandare as on the date of notification of
11.3.2005 there were 1300 Commanders (Select List) who
were senior to the Commanders (Time Scale). Commander
(Select List) was by selection and Commander (Time Scale)
on completion of 20 years of service subject to other
requirements. If the Notification of 11.3.2005 has to be read
as Petitioner want us to read, it would mean that all
Commanders (Time Scale) though in the naval list were junior
to commanders (Select) or Acting Commanders (Select) on
account of the new policy by putting in the 26 years of
required service have to be considered for promotion to the
post Captain (Time Scale). In terms of Para 7 of the
Communication dated 11.3.2005, on promotion they would
be senior to Commander (Select) and Commander (Acting).
According to the Navy, if this is so applied, it would affect the
command and control structure in the Indian Navy. Would
this amount to protecting the inter se seniority in the naval list.
On the contrary, Commaner (Time Scale) who were junior
and earlier not eligible for promotion to the post of Captain,
by virtue of the notification dated 11.03.2005 would have to


be considered for promotion to the post of Captain (Time
Scale). This would affect the inter se seniority amongst
Commanders in the Naval List. From the various affidavits
filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the
submissions made, the policy of deferment of promotion to
those holding post of Commander (Time Scale) is that
otherwise, meritorious candidates who had been selected to
the post of Commander will rank junior to the Commander
(T.S.) until they are promoted as Captain. The only question
is whether the notification of 11.3.2005 so permits. Para 6
of the notification of 11.3.2005 sets out that the Officers not
promoted to the rank of Captain by selection may be granted
substantive rank of Captain (Time Scale), irrespective of
vacancies, provided they are considered fit in all respects.
Therefore, such officers if fit can be granted substantive rank
of captain (time scale). The expression used is not “shall” but
“may” . The expression “may” can be read in the context it
is used. It can also be read in the context of Para 3, which
would mean maintaining interse seniority amongst the
officers as per naval list which had to be protected. In Para 4,
it was made clear that the promotions accruing from Para 2
above shall also be subject to officers fulfilling other criteria, to
be notified by the IHQ Mod (N) through policy letters on the
subject. On a co-joint reading of Para 3, Para 4, Para 6 and
Para 8 and on a harmonious construction, it cannot be said
that the communications of 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 are
ultra vires the the communication of 11.3.2005. In our
opinion, the interse seniority amongst the Officers as per
naval list in the rank of Commander will have to be
protected and the two communications will have to be read in
consonance with these requirements. The AVS committee in


its report had left it to the Navy to work out the service
specific requirements. From 16.12.2004 all Commander
(T.S.) will be holding the substantive rank of Commander.
We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that the two
communications issued by the IHQ Mod (N) are not in
contravention of the Government circular/communication of
11.3.2005. These communications are pursuant to the power
which flows from the Notification of 11.02.2005, itself. That
contention therefore, will have to be rejected.

14.The next contention is whether the communication of
14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 have resulted in denial to the
Commanders (Time scale), their chance of promotion and
thereby are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The argument is that though the policy of
11.3.2005 confers right to be considered for selection to
the post of Captain (Time scale), the subsequent
communications of 15.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 which delays
promotion would result in denying to the Petitioner and
similarly placed Commanders (Time Scale), the right to be
considered for promotion to the post of Captain (Time
Scale), as the Petitioner like most other commanders, will
retire before they can be considered for promotion to the
rank of Captain (T.S.). The present petition has not been
filed in the representative capacity nor is it espousing
the cause of all persons similarly situated like the
Petitioner. However, if the Petitioner succeeds, that
would result in applying the ratio of the judgment to all
others similarly situated Commanders (T.S.). The policy of
11.3.2005 has resulted in the creation of the post of
Captain (Time Scale) to be considered amongst others


from Commanders who have completed 26 years of
service. If the figures cited and on record are considered,
there appears to be no possibility of the Petitioner being
considered during his service tenure. According to
Respondents themselves, considering the policy, which
defers consideration of Commanders (Time Scale), for
promotion to the post of Captain (Time Scale), the
youngest Commander (Select) would become due for
promotion to Captain (Time Scale) in 2015 if not promoted
Captain (Select). By then, about 282 erstwhile
Commanders including petitioner would have retired and
not be benefited. However, 220 Officers (130 erstwhile
Commanders (Time Scale) and 290 N graded Lieutenant
Commanders who have been listed as Commander
would be eligible for promotion to the post of Captain
(Time Scale). In other words, according to respondents,
deferment is not illusory. According to the Petitioner the
statement that only 282 erstwhile Commanders (time
scale) would have retired by 2015 is not correct and that
the correct position is that about 405 Commanders (Time
Scale) would have retired. It is then merely denied that
130 erstwhile Commanders (Time Scale) or 290 N graded
Lt. Commanders will continue to be eligible for promotion.
An additional affidavit was filed by Commander Kshirsagar
on 28.11.2006 subsequent to the order of this court dated
23.11.2006. It is set out that there were only 295
Commanders (Time Scale) existing as on
11.3.2005.Reliance is placed on the communication dated
17.3.2005. This letter sets out 295 Officers who have
acquired substantive rank of Commander. There is another
list of 17.3.2005 including 38 other Officers. It is pointed


out that out of 295 Commanders existing on 2.11.2005,
about 13 have since retired and as on date, there are only
282 Commanders (Time Scale) existing out of the original
295 and that all these 282 erstwhile Commanders (Time
Scale) would have retired by the time they would be eligible
for promotion to the post of Captain (Time Scale). In so far
as 290 N grade Lt. Commanders, they are junior to the
erstwhile Commanders (Time Scale) including the
Petitioners and may become eligible for promotion to the
rank of Captain (Time Scale) as they might still be in
service after 2015-2016. It is therefore, set out that 295
Commanders (Time Scale) would superannuate before
2015-16 and would not be benefited by the naval policy.
From the figures brought on record, we proceed on the
footing that none of the Commanders (Time Scale) would
be eligible for consideration to the post of Captain (Time
Scale). The fact therefore would be that considering the
Government Notification of 11.3.2005 and the
Communication dated 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 existing
Commanders (Time scale) would be ineligible for
consideration as they would have superannuated and it is
only N graded Lt. Commanders who by virtue of the policy
of 11.3.2005 have become Commanders Substantive by
the same policy, will be eligible for consideration for
promotion to the post of Captain (Time Scale). It is true
that accepting the figures on record, no Commander
(T.S.) will be eligible for consideration till 2015 by which
time all of them would have retired. As however, pointed
out at the same time, the policy requires the seniority in
the Naval list tobe protected. Article 14 abhors
arbitrariness. Is the action of the Respondents arbitrary


and or can it be said to be reasonable considering the
exigencies of the service. The rank structure in the Navy
determines the command and control structure. In the
rank of Commanders, the Naval list provided that
Commander (Select) and Acting Commanders would rank
senior to Commanders (Time Scale) even if Commander
(Time Scale) has put in more years of service as
Commander (T.S.). If on account of the change of policy
they are to be promoted, they will rank senior to all these
other Commanders who in the cadre of Commanders were
senior to them based on merits. The subsequent
communications only protect this inter se seniority in the
Naval List. As the Respondents have pointed out the
subsequent communication was to protect the control and
command structure and the morale, considering para 3 of
the Government Policy. In our opinion, the subsequent
communications are reasonable and in tune with the
policy of 11.03.2005. Once we have accepted that
contention, the challenge on the ground of Article 14
will have to be rejected;

15. That brings us to the last contention as to whether
on the two other services having granted promotion to
corresponding ranks, can it be said that the action of the
Navy in not considering the case of the Commanders (Time
Scale) for promotion to Captain (Time Scale) can be said to
be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. We have earlier referred to the various affidavits and
that it is an admitted position that the other two services
have granted promotions. Can that by itself be a reason to
hold that the communication of 14.3.2005 and 2.11.2005 are


arbitrary. Firstly they belong to two different services, in
other words, two different classes.
It is not a case of posts within the same cadre, where one
group of Officers are being considered to the exclusion of the
other. Secondly, the respondents have set out the reasons
as to why they have deferred the consideration for promotion
of Commanders (Time Scale) immediately. The policy
decision of an authority normally would not be interfered with
as the Employer is the best person to evaluate his
requirements and judge his problems. This court only
interferes if the policy is either ultra vires or violative of the
constitutional mandate. Judicial review does not concern itself
with merits of the Act or action of the manner in which it is
done. It also cannot be said that the action of the respondent
is arbitrary or violative of Article 14, in as much as reasons
have been stated as to why it was not possible for them to
follow the principles followed by two other services. Once
the policy confers powers on the respondents and the
respondents considering the over all policy have laid down a
criteria which is within the constitutional frame work, it will
not be possible for this court to interfere on the ground of
arbitrariness as admittedly the two other services have their
own chain of command and control different from the chain of
command and control in the Indian Navy. In our opinion, this
challenge also is not sustainable.

16. Considering the above, there is no merit in the
Petition as filed. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as
to costs.


Anonymous said...

dear pals as i read yr comments i understand that the acting col will b in pb - till 20th yr of his service where as the col(ts) will b in pb-4 . i really do not understand what n where r we heading for why create a confusion why promote ppl in 16 yrs why should the command b not given to time scale offrs. other wise also we r worst then paramil forces now let them harm more hum hi kyun hanuman bane hain if they 9burocrates) feel that they dont require us fine relax. why ask any thing. But tell u truth we r week ppl u n me r weak.pls wake up this is no way to fight bhik mat mango if they donot give u any thing u also refuse certain things to them. have strength. dont b weak n i would request u stop maligning yrself good luck

Anonymous said...

The naval jokers are at it again.They always put a spoke everywhere.

Anonymous said...

By creating a separate "HQ Corps" we would create a corps of Babus in uniform like the civilian babus presently in the Service HQ who have no exposure to the field units and have an "imagined" view of the ground situation like the "sprawling bungalows" of VI CPC fame! We already have a minimum 5 yr tenure at Service HQ unless you're stepping on too many toes - only thing required is an overlap of.. say 3 months. The problem in doing that is that there is no reserve of offrs to do that - the field units will be starved on an offr till the guy from HQ goes to the field (if he doesn't manage to get it cancelled in those 3 months ;-) ). Perhaps first we need to increase the strength of offrs so that one offr moving out of a field unit does not create a crisis. Then we can create an overlap. The Accounts and the Logistics Branch of the IAF also do tenures with the other branches at all remote and HQ stations so they really aren't a "HQ Corps" - more like ASC and Army Ordanance Corps and the Navy "Logistics" rolled into two IAF Branches. Coming back to my original argument - But to increase the strength - one must get offrs for the peanuts that the govt is doling out to us.

Lt Col C.Venkataraman (Retd) said...

1. I am a Lt Col (TS) - infantry - proceeded on premature retirement in Oct 1993 with 23.5 years of service.

2. There have been few softwares/ calculators being spread through the net on calculation of arrears of defence pensioners of all ranks -

3. As per them every defence pensioner is entitled to get a mind boggling arrears amount-

3. Every pensioner is entitled to get some more arrears to the arrears already paid in Dec 2008 (40% of total arrears)- [as per these softwares the arreears is equivalent to the amount already paid in Dec 2008 !!]

4. Can anyone clarify ??

5. If need be I will send the softwares to anyone for analysis.

5. My email ID is colvenky@yahoo.co.in

Lt Col C.Venkataraman(Retd)

Anonymous said...


Though the idea is pretty good on the lines in US. The likelyhood of misuse will become anotehr issue to deal with.
For example a large number of GC's after training, would like postings only to ASC, AOC etc being tenable in peace station with support from those in uniform hanging around permanently in Delhi.
There are father-in laws and fathers entrenched in Delhi who make sure that key positions at AHQ is taken up by their relatives leaving no chances for merit or competence.