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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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

Monday, March 1, 2010

Q & A (9)

Readers may send in their Questions through email for a Q & A session with ‘Q&A’ as the subject. For rules, please read this post.

Record Offices have been rejecting claims for grant of enhanced pension to Honorary Naib Subedars on the pretext that the pension of proper Nb Sub for Hony ranks as announced by the 6th CPC has only been granted to those Hony Nb Subs who have retired post-2006. Is this correct ? (Ex-Hony Nb Sub Ravindran)

Hony Nb Subs have been granted notional pension of Nb Subs. There is nothing in the govt sanction letter which states that only post-2006 retirees are covered. The letter simply says that the new orders shall take effect from 01-01-2006 meaning thereby that the pension in accordance with the new scale would be released only w.e.f 01-01-2006. The negative interpretation as pointed out by you is a figment of imagination of our internal (eternal ?) babus.

Is it true that SEs in Border Roads Organisation are now equivalent to full Colonels of the Army in status as per a notification issued by the MoD ? (ABC)

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has already ruled vide a Division Bench decision dated 22-01-2010 that the said notification is restricted only to disciplinary powers to be exercised under the Army Act and that the said notification has no one-to-one bearing on status. The controversy thus stands settled. If we go by such notifications of the purposes of status, then the DGBR should be equated with GOC-in-C in status since a similar notification equates the two for disciplinary purposes.

RTO/RTA staff in some States has been harassing defence personnel for having ‘outside registration’, what is the solution ? (Col S R Patil)

There are States who have been troubling defence personnel and other central govt employees for ‘outside registration’ and non-payment of road tax in that particular state. Most of such complaints are from Maharashtra, West Bengal and some southern States. Many states however have exempted central govt employees from the operation of such rules, it may hence be worthwhile visiting the local transport office and asking them pointedly if there is any exemption in operation in the State in question. If you are unable to get a specific answer then please use the RTI route with the Head Office of the Transport Department in the capital of the State. If there is no such exemption available, then take up the issue with the Command / Area for consideration in the next Civil-Military Liaison Conference (CMLC). We would have to be proactive, mere cribbing would lead you nowhere !.

A Reservist from my Regiment has been denied his reservist pension on the ground that although he had completed 15 years of combined colour-reserve service, he is barred from pension because he had sought discharge at his own request. What is the rule position on this ? (Lt Col Kuljit Singh)

There used to be a stipulation [Para 155(b) of the Pension Regulations] for pre-1968 retirees which provided that reservist pension would be refused to those who had sought voluntary discharge even if the condition of combined 15 years of colour-reserve service was met. But the said stipulation was held to be bad in law in 2008 by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Harjinder Singh Vs UOI. The Hon’ble High Court had directed the govt to release reservist pension to those who had sought voluntary discharge also.

My Pension Disbursing Agency is keen to deduct tax on my disability pension, what should I do ? (Col N S Grewal)

Ask your PDA to go through Para 88.3 of Pension Payment Instructions, 2005, issued by the PCDA (P) to all PDAs in the country including DPDOs and Banks.

15 comments:

Veteran Prabhjot Singh Chhatwal said...

Dear Navdeep,
Regards. It is in reference to Q & A(9).The orders granting enhanced pension of a regular Nb.Sub. to Hony. Nb.sub.,so far issued by Govt. of India,Min.of Defence, are applicable to Post -2006 veterans only.The matter of granting the same to Pre-2006 veterans is under consideration (R) under consideration by the Govt.of India.The same has been clarified by Integerated Hq of MoD(Army),Adjutant General Branch, Addl Dte.Gen. Personnel Services, Sena Bhawan,New Delhi to this organization vide their letter No.
B/3902729(5)MOD/AG/PS-5dt.27-11-09.As such ,orders for Pre-2006 have not been issued yet but likely to be issued soon.
Veteran Prabhjot Singh Chhatwal PLS Retd.
President,Indian Ex-services League Punjab & Chandigarh.

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Vet PS Chhatwal.

The Hon'ble AFT has already ruled that the orders are applicable to all Hony Nb Subs incl those who retired prior to 2006. Further there is nothing in the letter which says that the orders have only been made applicable to post 2006 retirees. Moreover the earlier 6th CPC letter already has a stipulation that the pension of pre-06 retirees shall not be less than 50% of minimum of new post-2006 scales, hence once the new scale has been introduced for Hony Nb Subs, the 50% condition is automatically applicable to pre-06 retirees.

The Army HQrs has sought what had already existed and this is what gives a chance to lower staff at MoD to misinterpret rules to the detriment of vets.

I hope this clarifies.

Thanks

N

Anonymous said...

Maj Navdeep,
Refer your answer to Col N S Grewal's question on TDS on disability pension.
Request publish para 88.3 of Pension Payment Instructions issued by PCDA(P) for general information of all disabiliy pensioners.

JUSTIN said...

@Maj navdeep

The 6th CPC letter has a stipulation that the pension of pre-06 retirees shall not be less than 50% of minimum of new post-2006 scales, hence once the new scale has been introduced the 50% condition is automatically applicable to pre-06 retirees.
THEN HOW COME THE PENSION IS REDUCED PRO RATE TO 33 YRS. PL CLARIFY.

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Justin

The letter dated 11-11-2006 is very clear. 50% of the minimum of new scale + GP + MSP is for 33 yrs service - to be reduced pro-rata for lesser years of service in case of pre-06 retirees.

@Anony at 4.41

Not required. The exemption letters on the subject are already there on the blog. You may donwload the same from under the head 'Income Tax' or 'Disability Pension'. Or use the search option on top left of the blog.

rajkumar said...

dear maj navdeep
refer Q& A on SE v/s col

can we get the delhi high court oreder

SANTOKH said...

Dear All,
PCDA'S PENSION PAYMENT INSTRS 2005 ARE AVAILBLE AT THIS LINK:
http://pcdapension.nic.in/dpti/DPPI%20Chapters_complete.pdf
Thanks.

Col sks chambial said...

It is not the Record Office Job, any how basing on the letter given by PCDA(P) Allahabad to all the Record Offices including Army HQs and DPDOs only they are giving the reply the the queries raised by the Hony Nb/Subs or Pre 2006. Hamirpur League has already written letter three months back to Govt of India Min Of Def for clarification, but no reply has so for been given.

Col SKS CHAMBIAL

Anonymous said...

The issue RTA/RTO harassing vehicles with 'outside' number plates is a common problem.
It is amazing that the AF has not woken up to this 'job-related hazard'.

Every three years 'faujis' have to change state. So even if they want it is JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE REGN NO. of their vehicle!!! 'Coz (a) it needs going through touts and agents of the RTO where the vehicle was Regd to get an NOC;(b) ditto at the RTO where it has to be Regd again; (c) Pay Regn fees which are calculated on the original price of the vehcile (even though one is entitled to receive a refund from the initial RTO, the hassle and cost is more than the amount you 'may' receive : which till date nobody has received).

Thus, this has to be projected at an appropriate conference.

I am sure one of the many fans of this website is in the hierarchy of achieving this and sooner or later will do this !!!
(P.S. We cannot always depend on a good samaritan like Maj Navdeep to 'bell the cat' always!!)

rishi said...

what are the restrictions on postings and promotion for an army officer who is low medical category P3(permt) for seizure disorder. kindly let me knoow please

rishi said...

what is the policy on promotions and postings in regard to officer in low medical category P3 (permt) for seizure disorder.secondly can the officer apply for posting on medical grounds.

kulwant said...

Dear Navdeep,
wonderfull job done by you.I served as re-employed officer in the vacancy of Captain from 16 Feb 2003 to 05Jan 2008 .I am not clear from the orders I have seen on the subject as to how my pay for the period wef 1-1-2006 from the date of 6th pc is going to be worked out till my final release from re-employment on 05Jan 2008. Although PDA has credited arrears of pension of this period but how about increase in pay of this period .Is CDA(o) doing something on this.NO of re-employed offrs might be affected.
Secondly CDA(o) has wrongly deducted around RS 30000/ from my pension through my PDA stating that encashment of leave was wrongly calculated.I have written to CDA(o)Archive sec No of letters with auth showing correct claim and correct No of days leave saved for encashment but got no reply.Please advise & could you kindly help me out.
Thanks.
Lt Col(TS) KS GREWAL(RETD)

Satpal Singh said...

Satpal Singh

Sir, Is the 6th CPC has approved Hony promotion policy for Havildars only. What about other Ranks. i.e Hony Sub Major granted to Subedar and Hony Havildar granted to Naiks after retirement? Please make it clear.

MadhuBhushan said...

Dear Navdeep,
Regards. I superannuated on 30 Nov 1993. I started Reemployment in Jan 1994 and finally quit on 29 Nov 1998. During this period, 5th Pay commission was made effective and I was paid accordingly. I hung my uniform on 29Nov 1998. In year 2000-2001, I received a letter from CDA(O) Pune informing me that I had been overpaid during my Reemployment and I should Deposit Rs. 32000/= to settle the issue. I got another letter again after 3 or 4 years later asking CDA Pension Allahabad to make recovery from my Pension. I have now received a letter from CDA Pension asking Bankers to recover this amount from my Pension.
I would like to submit, that I was not involved in any financial irregularity or any misconduct , nor any enquiry was going on against me when I Retired. I have come out honourably after serving my time in Army.
As far as I think, Pension is protected and it can neither be attached nor any recovery effected without specific directions of SC and personally ordered by President of India in each case.

Could you kindly educate and put me wise on this aspect with necessary rules on the subject. I wish to inform my Bankers so that they do not make any recovery from my Pension
Lt Col V B Manocha

SatyasaranGhosh said...

I wish to draw your attention maj to the fact that in1955 I joined Indian navy as a direct recruit on a 10 year bond .In 1964 I was released in 1964 as per bond and placed in reservist.i remained as reserve till 1977.Then a meagre pension was allowed.Later bythe rule of min pension,the pension was improved.Till date the same policy being followed.Now my question is why I should be deprived of family pension?
satyasaranGhosh,exLEMR ONO64523
THANK YOU.