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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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

Saturday, September 26, 2015

“Forwarded as Received”

Though my last post was also on chain mails, I have realized that irresponsibility on social media and cyberspace is now assuming dangerous proportions with rumour-mongering at its peak which is not only resulting in frustration amongst the military community but also unethical and unmilitary name-calling which can have far reaching consequences on reputations of people and morale of serving personnel and veterans.

While most of us have been forwarding mails and messages in good faith, still it is our bounden responsibility not to put into orbit material which is unverified or which causes unnecessary heartburn, especially amongst serving personnel, or results in slander of personalities. The term “Forwarded as Received” does not suffice and ends up damaging and harming the entire scheme of things as we perceive.

Some very recent examples of immaturity on the net, with mass circulation, can be recalled here:

Forwarding of a message that a senior officer at the Army HQ was responsible for inserting the prohibitory “Pre-Mature Retirement” (VRS) clause in the draft letter for OROP. What could be further from truth? Why on earth would someone do that? Have we ever wondered before forwarding such silly stuff on private and social media!!!

Circulation of a patently false message that a young Major who lost his life in an unfortunate incident during battle inoculation was not evacuated on time because senior officers precluded his evacuation.

Spreading canards about a Colonel whose wife is serving in the Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS). The officer’s reputation has been unnecessarily sullied without even an iota of truth. Even if on hypothetical assumption, the officer’s wife, in her official dealings, may have had an opinion or perception about the concept of OROP which may not have been configured with the actuality, how could the officer be blamed for the same and how could canards be spread about his service life, career and posting profile?

Spreading disaffection about senior officers and how they accepted the ‘Apex Grade’ after the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) resulting in “OROP” for them and how they should refuse to accept the ‘Apex Grade’. Before spreading such half-truths, people should have realized that officers from the Apex Grade are in receipt of OROP by default, not by design. The pension of past retirees is calculated on the minimum of the new pay grade and since the pay grade of such retirees is fixed, the 50% of the minimum in their case results in a fixed pension for past as well as current retirees by default. Moreover, this fixed pay concept is not new and has been in place since times immemorial. For example, during the 4thCPC, it was Rs 8000 fixed, during the 5th CPC, it became 26000 and during the 6th CPC it was upgraded to Rs 80000. This concept was not introduced by the 6th CPC. Rumour-mongers have also not realized that such officers also suffer in a way since on reaching the ‘Apex’ level, they do not get any enhancement of pay in service and their pay remains fixed without any further increment.

Spreading my old oped of the year 2012 by forging the date as 2015 and stating to the world that the Services HQ are still opposing Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) for the military officer cadre. My old oped had merely stated the restrictive view existing at one point of time in the Services HQ. After a series of deliberations, all three Services HQ were firmly of a view in favour of NFU, and still are, and have fully stood behind the concept. Please ignore emails castigating the Services HQ for not supporting NFU since there is no truth in them. My opeds may be sharp but those are meant to move the system into motion by stirring them out of inertia, and not to pinprick. My opinion, which is meant for positive movement ahead, should not be used as a tool to shame.

Spreading mails regarding false and imaginary calculation tables which are either lesser than what is admissible thereby resulting in disappointment or which are much higher than entitlement thereby resulting in raising false expectations.

Chain mails asking people to file individual cases even in those specific matters wherein judicial intervention has already succeeded and universal orders stand issued by the Govt for all similarly placed individuals or where judicial intervention has already failed resulting in a closure of the issue. (Clarification: Here I am only referring to futility of litigation in those cases where the Govt HAS suo moto already issued universal orders after a particular decision. I am not referring to those issues where despite a favourable judicial decision, the Govt has not issued universal orders)

Also, it is painful to receive messages pertaining to my last post wherein I had attempted to clear the air about pensions of ranks other than Commissioned Officers. It seems that in the melee, affected pensioners have overlooked a very important fact that the new Circulars issued by the PCDA (547 and 548) emanate from a Supreme Court decision stating that pension should not be based on the “minimum of pay band” itself but on “minimum of pay within the pay band” for each rank w.e.f 01-01-2006. It cannot apply to ranks other than commissioned ranks for the simple reason that their pension is based on notional maximum w.e.f 01-07-2009 and hence if the judgement is applied to them w.e.f 01-01-2006, it would result in loss to all ranks since then the pensions would then fall to ‘minimum’ like in the case of Commissioned ranks and all civilians and that is the reason why pensions have been protected for them from 01-07-2009 onwards. They stand to gain only from 01-01-2006 till 30-06-2009 by the Supreme Court decision during which time their pensions were based on the minimum and these new tables would only replace the old tables that were in force from 01-01-2006 till 30-06-2009. If at all there was an anomaly, it was not linked to this Supreme Court decision or these new Circulars and it was on some other issue- it should have been emphasized and taken up that if till 5th CPC (till 31-12-2005) their pensions were based on top of the scales, the same concept should have been extended w.e.f 01-01-2006 rather than from 01-07-2009.

It is bewildering that people are neither understanding the issue nor going into depth of the same and rather sending negative messages to those who are portraying the true picture to them. Rest assured that I am always willing to stand up for our men and women of all ranks unconditionally and that is the reason why this blog has never been officer-specific and neither have been my battles for justice. But I firmly believe in standing up only for causes which are legally sound and also do not believe in circulating sugarcoated mails with trumped-up figures which later cause disillusionment.  

Be careful. Be wise. Let us keep our eyes open. 

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

well said.

digvijay said...

Same ,same , Navdeep ,I have felt so sorry that some of us write such sorry comments .God give them good sense ,that is all that I wish .

ParvezJ said...

THANK YOU, THAN YOU FOR THIS TIMELY POST !

Wg Cdr K M Vijayan said...

Well written. It is high time that all veterans stand together for a common cause and not resorting to boasting and self proclaimed leaders. Any body can give opinion. There is lot of difference between truth and perception.

Vijayan

Wg Cdr (Veteran) Dr K M Vijayan

kirtikey singh said...

Sir pension w.e.f. 1.7.09 was correction of anomalies. As per Navy, Army and AF regulation W.e.f. 1.1.06 other rank should have got notional maximum pay instant of minimum pay in the pay band.

Regards

Unknown said...

Navdeep, thank you. I totally agree that too much of rumour mongering, anger and hate is being shared on various WhatsApp groups and group mails. This is doing no good to either the veterans or the serving community. In fact, it is causing long lasting and I may add, irretrievable harm to all of us. If we continue like this, we may even lose the trust of the people. So, I think your mail is very timely, and we all need to take a few steps back to introspect and not go crazy by default. Thank you again for enlightening us. Keep up the wonderful work that you are doing for our Men and Officers. Commodore Ranbir Talwar

Lt Col Venkat S choudhary said...

Dear Major Navdeep,

Well written and I totally agree with you as well with comments of 'Unknown' that too much of rumour mongering, anger and hate is being shared on various groups and group mails as . I think your mail is very timely. Thank you for enlightening us. Keep up the wonderful job fighting for our rights that you are doing for our Community.

JP Malhi said...

Very true

ranjan said...

Thanks Sir useful info

PBOR said...

i have been trying to make the PBORs in my contact to understand the concept of "notional highest" and that how it is most beneficial to them. But, some nuts are really hard to crack. u may know one of them :-)

Suresh Kumar said...

That is why I had alwyas insisted your humble intervention.IT IS HOLLY WORD FROM BIBLE FOR VETERANS. PSE. KEEP UP THE SPIRIT.REGARDS

Anonymous said...

Dear Major,

1.I have gone through your article and agree with almost all the points except the last one, that is,
"Chain mails asking people to file individual cases even in those specific matters wherein judicial intervention has already succeeded and universal orders stand issued by the Govt for all similarly placed individuals".

I have never come across any such issue. At the same time I may not be knowing certain speicific cases. Hence, I am not challenging you. I mean I may be ignorant of few case.

But, One important issue I would like to bring to your knowledge , that is, the broadbanding of disability pension to disability pensioners who came on retirement on completion of terms of engagement. As you know the Honourable Supreme Court has given its verdict on 10 Dec 2014 to implement the same within six months. If my source of information is correct, so far, the MoD has honoured only to the applicants. What about other similarly placed cases? It is more than 10 months over. No order has come for those non applicants who are similarly placed. Obviously people will go and ask others to file suit.
So in this aspect the Govt is at fault?

Anonymous said...

I think what it meant by the last point of 'universal orders' is those cases in which universal orders HAVE BEEN issued. Such as the recent fresh tables from January 2006 on orders of Delhi High Court upheld by Supreme Court. The above post is rightly discouraging people not to file individual cases where govt. has already issued such orders. The blog is not saying that cases should not be filed in those instances where despite a judgement the universal orders have not been issued by govt.

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Anony at 4.49.

The comment was limited to those issues where after Court orders the Govt has itself issued directions for all similarly placed individuals. The most recent example is release of arrears from 01 Jan 2006 for all, petitioners in the case, or otherwise.

I have not stated so about issues where universal orders have not been issued by the Govt or where the Court has not made its decision applicable to all similarly placed individuals.

Anonymous said...

Sir, I truly hope you are fighting for the just cause for defence Doctors as well regarding the DACP case. Regards.

Abe said...

Dear Maj Navdeep, Could you throw some light on retired NCO / JCO/Officers who took left service due to them placed in low medical category after their return fro Leh/ Siachen tenure. Are they also considered for any disability pension.

Dharam said...

Dear Friend
1. Kindly refer to CDA(Pension) Allahabad circular No 433 dated 25 Mar 2010 on VRS. Kindly advise to OROP team to understand the meaning and drop the point if found legally correct.

2. Refer to appendixes of 1(11)/2012/D(Pen/Pol)dated 17 Jan 2013 and PCDA circular No 547 dated 11 Sep 2015. The pension scales has been reduced for nearly all the PBOR and if implemented by banks large number of NCOs and JCOs have to pay from their pension. Probably I may not have understood the complexities but it does need good interpretation.

3. In Feb 2014 FM P Chitambram has allotted Rs 500/- for OROP for year 2014-15. I also vividly remember that it was to start from 01 Jul 2014. If it was stated then that point should also be dropped by OROP team at JM. People believe your words

DP Badsra(Retd)
Col

Anirban Datta said...

Dear Navdeep, Thank you so much for this post. It is indeed timely.

Pawan Shandlya said...

Absolutely right. It damages our image and the cause we are fighting for.

Anonymous said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

Yes! You are right. Also thanks for your further clarification.

Balasubramanian Ramachandran said...

dear major sir what is the cause for non issue of government notification on OROP.veterans are eagerly waiting for it.There is also doubt that the time is taken for making some confusions like premature retirement.Atleast the government shall issue clarifications about the mentioned VRS while announced by honourable Defence minister on 5th sep 2015.Now it is the doubt that all minimum pensionable service veterans.please throw some light on yhis subject please

Col MS Raju said...

Dear Maj Navdeep, your are true and doing well for the armed forces fraternity.

Can you kindly tell me how can a Lt Col with 38 years of service retired prior to 01 Jan 2006 ( just five months prior to 6th cpc) is getting a basic pension of Rs 26265/- pm, whereas a Maj/Lt col col drawing 13500/- basic per month in fifth cpc ( while I was in service only) is also getting same pension in just 13 to 20 years of service. Does it mean a 13 years officer getting Lt cols basic of 13500 with 7 years ranks service gets same amount of pension what a 38 years Lt Col gets? Have you ever expected this.

mohan said...

Chain mails attempting to sully the reputation of senior officers is one of the many indicators of distrust between senior officers and other officers.

kulwant said...

I think stage has come where we all ESM need to have knowledgeable co-ordinators who can explain to us the correct picture on any order passed by the Govt regarding any ESM benefits.We should not mind funding that org by contribution .This way all mischievious words/letters created by any Govt dept are exposed in time and brought out in media/ESM.

HARDEV said...

The reference Letter dated 11.11.2008 along with fitment tables is used in circular 547 while the letter OM F No 38/37/08 P&PW(A)dated 30.1.2013 issued after judgement complying or exceeding the judgement order & same must translate into the Circular.

The tables in Annexure A,B & C are only hedge since the pension mentioned there in is the minimum guaranteed pension, the actual could be higher.The banks acting as PDA find it confusing too since they are not used to interpret the orders/ circulars but to pay as per the calculated tables.

Was it not better to tabulate the calculations in form like in circulars 430 & 501..!

Bibhu Mohanti said...

I am surprised how the service chiefs who were sitting by the side of the RM on 05 Sep briefing on OROP were not privy to the issue of so called VRS.If they feign ignorance then its sad.
This may not be pertinent now but I would request you to find out who gave the latitude to the Delhi Police to behave in such an uncivil manner on the veterans on 14 Aug at Jantar Mantar.

Ranjeet Singh Chordia said...

An excellent reminder for all of us to be aware of the long term implications of our posturing on social media. What has been a painful awakening for me is to read the resentful and even hateful posts from PBOR. While it may be facile to dismiss these as rantings of malcontents, a saner course of action would be to tackle the underlying factors.We are a good force only when we are united in spirit and divided by rank

NS GILL said...

My dear NS, I was thinking on these lines about the people writing and send e mails from one corner to another without knowing truth. Lot of thanks high lighting in detail and make people know the truth of Govt policy of 6th CPC. One more point is wandering in my brain, which is fixing min pension of each officer rank (major's and above) without bothering their seniority of particular rank. In case at that time average pension would have been fixed like maximum of JCOs ranks, there have not been now delay in finalising OROP at the maximum scale for officers(Majors to Major Generals/equivalents) and Other Ranks(Sepoys to Havildar/equivalents). It was said by Peter Drucker that 20% of the points/demands/issues are raised by 80% employees and these should be tackled first so that 80% employees are satisfied and remaining 80% points/issues raised by 20% employees can be settled subsquently. Main/serious issue are Sep to Hav and major's pension and should have tackled first instalment and remaining in second instalment and naming it Military Pension to avoid present OROP crisis by other departments serving upto 60 yrs age.

Rajender said...

Dear Sir, My question is little out of context here. Pls excuse. My Dist sainik board in Tambaram, is not properly treating the ex-servicemen who have come from other states and settled here. Recently the AD of the board (who is an ex army colonel(lady)) asked me why i am settled here and don't know the local language. The benefits and scholarships notification are hidden to non-state ex-servicemen. How to go abt this. Pls advise.

Dayanidhi Patnaik said...

Dear Major, what you said regarding ROTCOs(ranks other than commissnd officers) that instead of 1/7/09, the same (notional maximm pro-rata pensions) should have been come in to effect from 1/1/06, here of course we ROTCOs could have been benefited to certain extent in comparison to present circular 547.

The ranks of commissnd officers (ROCOs) r given with 50% of minimum fitment as per Circular 500 wef 24/9/12 which shall be applicable wef 1/1/06 would bring a good amount of arrears to most of the ROCOs, other than the ROCOs whose consolidated pensions as per 11/11/08 r more than the Circular 500. But here take a case of a group X Sgt (15yrs QS + 6yrs pensionable service as weightage= 21yrs) as for example - his consolidated pension was 4277, as on 1/7/09 - 5519 & as on 24/9/12 with 02yrs more weightage - 6374 these are given as per notional maximum fitment but non of the above is still benefited as of now than the 50% of the minimum fitment which would be either 7445 or 7750 right from 1/1/06 to till now.

Please try to understand why ROTCOs are giving adverse comments

shivmangal mishra said...

Navdeep sir thank you very much for informing us that all of us (the junior/superceded officers) are wrong in each and every beliefs of ours and all Colonels and Generals are "dhoodh ke dhule and they are never wrong"

Anonymous said...

Dear Major,

Yes. You are right. Thanks for further clarification also.

MANGTA SINGH SIDHU said...

Very true and well explained.... thanks please

PRABHAKARAN M said...

Sir, the crux of all these alleged discrimination against Ranks other than commissioned Officers arose because of the simple reason that they remained unrepresented in all decision making bodies. Everything happened at their back and they could not take up the anomalies at the right time for rectification. The need of the hour is to provide adequate representation to the ranks other than commissioned officers in all the decision making bodies and processes. This will facilitate timely rectification of anomalies and will prevent further mistrust between officers and others. After all the group that constitutes 96% of the community is rightfully entitled to such representation. How can 4% of the community is said to represent the entire community, even if their intentions are noble and honest? Sir, kindly suggest to GOI to make suitable provisions for inclusion of PBOR representatives in all committees and decision making bodies of MOD.

Sgt MPKaran
Bangalore

Anonymous said...

Dear Major Navdeep,
I feel that these mails and messages thrive in an any atmosphere of "Non-Transparency". A regular update or quick rebuttal by govt agencies concerned can scotch rumours most effectively. The need to be the first or fastest in spreading new information is not limited to the media and the TRP quest. It is a basic characteristic of most social behaviour. I call it the " Pata hai kya hua??" Factor in social dynamics.
A nice and timely post from you sir.
Regards
Deepak

Capt. N. Chidananda Poojary (Retd.) said...

The enhancement of pension for pre 01 J an 2006 retirees is in accordance with the fitment formula of 6th CPC recommedations. However, the enhancement of pension with notional top of the scale in respect of JCOs and OR wef 01 jul 2009 is in accordance with the recommendations of Committee of Secys appointed by the GOI. The further enhancent of pension for NCOs and OR wef 24 Sep 2012 is by the Govt appointed Committe. But, for offrs incl hony commissioned offrs is in accordance AFT and SC rulings. Hence, the improved pension wef 24 Sep 2012 for NCOs and OR may not be applicable from 01 Jan 2006 as it is not in accordance with the fitment formula of 6th CPC. Hope, I may be correct.

Ashok Batra said...

Sir,
Circular Nos 547 & 548 issued by pcda should cover LFP & SFP as it is just family pension but the PCDA itself awaits separate letter for revision of LFP &SFP w.e.f.1-1-2006. MOD and competent authority must take immediate steps.
Ashok Batra

s ana said...

Respected sir I was discharged with pensionfor 15 years on 29/02/1988. Am I eligible for benefits under circular 547 and 549 of PCDA since I am a pre 1996 retiree.

Anonymous said...

You point is right Navdeep, but I beg to differ with you on a point of principle.On the issue of PMR applicants not being entitled to OROP and this being attributed to some person in service HQs, you say" why on earth will somebody do that?"
Surley sir, that is no argument!
Why does anybody do anything? Because they suffer from biases. Why on earth were our some of our senior officers oppossed to the idea of junior officers being provided military phones at their residences in the 90s? Why on earth do many senior officers feel that inclusion of Lt Cols in PB-4 was a retrogade step?

I do not mean to suggest that somebody at service HQ was actually responsible for such a stand (I have no idea!), but to simply brush it off saying "why on earth somebody would harbour such a thought ", is , I feel slightly naive!

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep,

We all are quite appreciative of you and the cause that you serve which address concerns one and all in forces.

Regards

Harry Walia said...

Well written article.But,can somebody simply tabulate the revised Pensions post OROP for ALL Ranks.I'm currently quite clue-less with all this legal jargons on Commissioned Officers Rank/Yrs of Service/Entitlement of Arrears & Pensions.