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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Four Things….

Firstly, readers must go through BeeCee’s latest guest post on the 6th CPC fiasco currently available on Pragmatic’s blog. For those who do not know, BeeCee is a senior retired Naval Officer who was intimately involved in status and pay issues during the time he was serving. His earlier posts were great eye openers and so is this one. An excerpt :

“The bureaucracy of course had found a simple, ingenuous way of showing that the armed forces were paid more. Unilaterally declare equivalence between the military and the civil services personnel by issuing a memo elevating the junior civil service guy two steps above his logical military counterpart and ergo, the claim that level for level, the military is paid higher seems right. This was the argument followed so far, but when the debate turned nasty this time, the Cabinet Secretary has let the cat out of the bag.”

Secondly, many non-pensioner ex-servicemen such as ECOs and SSCOs have left comments on the blog seeking guidance on how to become members of ECHS. I’ve said this earlier and I’ll say it again - Non-pensioners are NOT entitled to ECHS facilities. Non-pensioner ex-servicemen are only authorised medical facilities in MHs in accordance with a Presidential sanction on the subject but they cannot become members of the ECHS which is a scheme restricted to pension-holders. Just as pensioners are authorised ECHS, non-pensioners are authorised to avail of a medical re-imbursement scheme run by the Kendriya Sainik Board (KSB) wherein expenditure of major surgeries to the extent of 90 % for PBOR and 75% for Officers (which earlier was 75% and 60% respectively) can be borne by the KSB. You may peruse this earlier post for more details on the same.

Thirdly, readers interested in the subject of transparency in administration and / or RTI may want to visit the website of RTI Users’ association http://www.rightto.info/ Let us encourage the association by registering ourselves as members. Basic FAQs on RTI are also available in a fundamental format on the site for people new to the subject. Go to 'click to login' tab on the left side of the ibid site to register as a new user.

Fourthly, Major Surender Singh would like visitors of this blog to visit his newly initiated blog http://www.theindiananalysis.blogspot.com/ You may want to give it a dekko.

Phew…. Thanks

19 comments:

Ramani said...

Dear Navdeep,
A Lt Col with 23 years physical service pre 2006 gets a pension of
23364 whereas a Lt Col with same 23 years service post 2006 gets 34000
So where is the parity with so much disparity??.
I think the CGDA has to revise the tables accordingly if Parity is to be accorded.
Or is it wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep,
Got this e mail from one of the offrs. Request elaborate on it for benefit of all of us.


"SC upholds 105-year law exempting armed forces from toll



Upholding provisions of the 105-year old Indian Tolls Act, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) seeking withdrawal of concessions provided to Armed Forces personnel under the Act.
A Division Bench comprising Mr Justice Ashok Bhan and Mr Justice Markandey Kadju declined to interfere in the directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed a petition filed by a Chandigarh resident, Sanjeev, in May.
Sanjeev had challenged the provisions of the Act on the ground that it was discriminatory, unconstitutional and against the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which provided for equality before law. He had also contended that other central government employees and members of the para military forces are not entitled to such concessions.
The HC Division Bench, comprising Mr Justice H S Bedi and Mr Justice Ranjit Singh, however, ruled to the contrary and had dismissed the petitioner’s contentions. Thereafter, he had filed a SLP in the apex court against the HC order.
Section 3(a) of the Indian Tolls (Army & Air Force) Act, 1901, provides for toll tax exemption on all public or private roads and bridges in India to officers and men of the regular forces whether they are on duty or not. Further civil vehicles and animals moving under military orders, are also exempted from payment of toll tax. The Act also has an overriding clause, which causes it to override all other Acts or directions by any legislature or central or state government in India.
The controversy regarding applicability of the Act began a few years ago, when private toll operators under the Build-Operate- Transfer (BOT) system on various roads and bridges had started refusing toll exemption to defence personnel and in certain cases even to defence vehicles.
The issue had then been settled after Chandigarh-based lawyer, Capt Navdeep Singh, took up the matter with the Central Government in 2004 and instructions were issued by government thereafter that the Act was very much applicable to toll roads and bridges being operated under the BOT schemes or otherwise. The instructions also clarified that the Act was applicable even to private vehicles belonging to personnel of the regular forces.
While the problem of illegal charging of toll tax has more or less been settled with the instructions being circulated all over, sporadic incidents of harassment of defence personnel continue to be reported mainly from the Delhi-Noida- Delhi Flyway and from some areas of Himachal Pradesh."

Col VT Venkatesh(retd) said...

@Ramani
Maj Navdeep does not feel that such a parity should exist since on the civil side there is no such parity.
I have inferred this from his earlier posts.

Anonymous said...

sir,
ref BeeCee post.
The one question remains:
How can we help ourselves with KNOWLEDGE to look after THE AF SERVICES while firstly,not engaged in Ops; and secondly, while engaged in Ops.
A suggested answer:
Enabling Employing Our Service Personnel in Governance at all levels of Civil Governance Cadres, which as BeeCee hints, A BIG HEART to encourage Knowledge gainment and employing them for Service Gains.

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Col Venkatesh

That is just your assumption.

Thank You

Anonymous said...

Maj Navdeep,
Several questions remain unanswered and there is confusion prevailing all over.
Is the OROP through? If so is it for only PBORS and LT Gens or for every body?
Or is it just a ploy to fool poor , cofused simpletons like us all?
Your elaborate answer will be valuable.
Lt Col KP, Retd.

just said...

A sad day for the army And the bitter truth is, we can just wait and watch.

Hope some strong protest is lodged by our chiefs. Hope some sence prevails.

just said...

As per Article 26 of Indian Order of Precedence, Jt Secys and Maj Gen of IA or equivalent rank hold the same place. Other civil equivalencies are not mentioned.

My question is, then How IG becomes equal to a Maj Gen ?

Also if a Squadron can be commanded by a Wing Commander and Flight by a Squadron Commander, then what stops a Maj Gen to command a Brigade or Lt Gen to command a Div ? (when a DG is managing a small force of few thousand men).

Why should AF officers not be allowed to sit for IAS exams like all other govt services ?

Why we consider ourself the best of the best when we dont have suitable persons who can prove the same beyond questioning in the civil world ?

Anonymous said...

Bee CEE analysis is best and absolutely true.A simle adm letter issued and then show that AF are paid more.-tricks by babus.
With judicial pronouncements, awareness by fauji,esm agtations and contributions of in depth analysis by dedicated intellectuals , we are at present stage of Govt actions.
Gen SATBIR has adequately expressed about our future course of action.
esm should support and participate for everybodys good.
About Nks,Havs,Majs, Lt Cols,Lt Gens...those anomalies and disparities have to be resolved and esm have to pursue.

Ramani said...

@col venkatesh,
I think your statement re-Navdeep is not right In spite of being a part time officer, he has been espousing the cause of ex and servicemen ever since the last two years.He has been the first to give us the good news(and also the not so good).regarding parity etc, only the person wearing the shoes will know where it pinches.

just said...

sorry, I forgot to add...
Even if IG and Maj Gen are equivalent, Why Addl DG, Spl DG Asst DG and what not are not equivalent to Maj Gen ? Is that because they wear rank badges of Lt Gen or because they have a 'DG' added somewhere in the ranks ? If that is so, how Dir IB is not equivalent to the Chief as he wears similar rank badges.

Anonymous said...

hello everybody,
It would be in the fitness of things not to pass any negative comments about Maj Navdeep. I think he has been of immense help to thousands of serving and retired officers and men...despite his busy schedule and commitments he has been devoting a lot of time to pass on valuable inputs to all of us.......yes there may be differeces with him over perceptions on certain issues like even I had....but then that is democracy ! Let's appreciate his good work.

Col VT Venkatesh(Retd) said...

@Ramani
I have requested him to answer your query regarding parity.
That post is yet to be published by the moderator.
You/we will get his answer only when he posts a reply to your query.
If he accepts your contention then I take back my post with a big sorry to him
Till then I stand by what I had posted

Anonymous said...

Sir,
BeeCee's post is truthful in the reporting of admission by the Cabinet Secy of unwillingness in granting parity to AF cadres. That at least allows us to concentrate to achieve the second best i.e. to get paid as the Group'A' services are getting paid; ofcourse our "Rank Performers willing". Or else wait, until the "PEN" realises its own vulnerability in weakening of the "SWORD", to its detriment. Await a Desh ka Sankat, perform and "Get our Dues" by "JAN-adesh" rather than by "BABU-adesh".
Let us TEAMup or PERISH.

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Col Venkatesh

Firstly, this is not a forum for personal grinds and though I have been posting some comments with personal slants, it shall not continue, rest assured.

Secondly, the beauty of blogs is the freedom of speech and expression and please leave this 'acceptance or rejection of contentions' out of this. You are most welcome to disagree but you cannot expect the moderator to publish all comments left by visitors, neither can you ask the moderator to reply to any particular comment which the moderator feels has been adequately addressed or discussed in another post which may be more relevant to any issue in question. I have not answered Ramani since while we know that there is disparity in many areas, it is not for me to answer 'Why'. Ramani understands this and he also understands that due to paucity of time in my profession it is difficult for me to monitor all queries and comments on my blog.

Hoping for some more sensitivity from your side.

Thanks

Navdeep

Col VT Venkatesh(retd) said...

@Hoping for some more sensitivity from your side .Maj Navdeep
I do agree life is tough for a blogger specially related to AF
Freedom of expression is a double edged weapon.
ESMs are waging a battle to get OROP including offrs& I fully support the cause.
I did find that some posts of yours seem to be against OROP specially for all offrs(as per my perception) & hence i am countering it.
You are fully justified in not publishing my comments if you feel like it.
I have nothing personal against you since i consider the blog as a public debate.
I hope i have clarified my position

major said...

dear MAJOR Navadeep singh
are ?TA non pensioners included in the persidential Sanction on limlted med facility at MH like SSCO
A TA offr with equal or more EMBODIED service ;-,ACTIVE & REGULAR is not considered at par with SSCO?

moreover Term ESM in TA -is more defined to only pensioners & not for NON pensioner
are the open disprity of TA pers

major said...

dear MAJOR Navadeep singh
are ?TA non pensioners included in the persidential Sanction on limlted med facility at MH like SSCO
A TA offr with equal or more EMBODIED service ;-,ACTIVE & REGULAR is not considered at par with SSCO?

moreover Term ESM in TA -is more defined to only pensioners & not for NON pensioner
these are the open & existing disprity with TA pers

Maj Aman said...

Dear Maj Navdeep.
In a recent article in newspaper, the defence minister has been quoted for issuing directions "not using the sepoys for menial jobs". At first, this is a good thinking, but on the contrary,many VVIP/VIPs have 05-06 police personal placed in their houses for security purposes, staying in tents, without even having basic facilities and as we all know, doing all kind of menial jobs. So why always the defence forces are targetted upon?