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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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, February 25, 2018

Not so good news from the Supreme Court for pre-1996 retiree Majors with 21 years of service

There is unfortunate news from the Supreme Court with respect to the case of pre-1996 retired Majors with 21 years of service who had claimed the pension of Lt Col and whose cases were allowed by various benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The Supreme Court, while hearing certain appeals filed by the Government and others filed by some affected officers, has held that the said benefit is not available to those who retired prior to 1996. It may be recalled that the controversy had emerged from the situation wherein Majors who retired with 21 years or more commissioned service after 01-01-1996 had been granted the pension as admissible to the rank of Lt Col, while those who retired prior to 01-01-1996 with similar length of service, were being paid the pension of a Major. 

The Supreme Court has agreed with the arguments of the Union of India that the stipulation of grant of the scale of Lt Col to Majors with 21 years or more service was only available to those who were in service as on 01-01-1996 as per the Govt orders issued in 1997 and it dealt with pay and not pension and that also the Govt had itself equalized pensions of pre-1996 and post-1996 retirees in the year 1999. The Court has also relied upon an earlier decision in Col BJ Akkara Vs Union of India of the year 2006 in reaching the said conclusion.

I however personally feel that the following aspects were not placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the course of the examination of the issue:

A.    The anomaly did not actually flow from the Govt letter on pay of the year 1997 but emanated from later letters issued in the years 2012, 2013 and 2015 (with financial effect from 2006) wherein it was provided that Majors with 21 years of service who retired between 1996 and 2006 would be granted the pension of a Lt Col while those who retired prior to 1996 would continue receiving the pension of a Major. Hence, the controversy did extend to pension and was not restricted to pay.

B.    The equalization of pension as professed by the Govt of India before the Supreme Court came to an end with effect from 2006, that is, from the 6th Central Pay Commission regime. As on date, the basic pension of Majors with 21 years of service retiring after 1996 is Rs 81,502 while those retiring prior to 1996 is Rs 58,673. Hence the pension equation letter of 1999 cited by the Govt before the Court became redundant with effect from 2006 based upon the above mentioned pension letters issued in the years 2012, 2013 and 2015 which were not brought to the knowledge of the Court. Till the 6th Central Pay Commission, there was no disparity or negligible disparity due to overlapping scales. There has been no discussion or argument on the fact of issuance of letters issued by the Govt at later stages disturbing the equalisation of pension. The net result is the difference of pension, not pay, as reflected by the above figures. The net result also is that officers of the same rank retiring with the same length of service but during different periods have been saddled with a vast difference in pensions.

C.   In Col BJ Akkara’s case, relied upon by the Govt, the Govt had not placed full facts before the Court and the said case was later distinguished by the Supreme Court itself in Civil Appeal 10640/2013 KC Bajaj Vs Union of India decided on 27-11-2013 when the Court came down heavily upon the Govt for its incorrect stand and also for not projecting the correct facts. After this decision, the effect of Col BJ Akkara’s case was then nullified by the Govt itself by issuing letters granting the benefit to affected pre and post 1996 retirees based upon the later ruling of the Supreme Court in KC Bajaj’s case. The benefits were also extended to those officers of the defence services who were earlier refused the same after the decision in Col BJ Akkara’s case. This issue was explained earlier in this blog here. The later decision in KC Bajaj’s case has not been brought to the notice of the Court.

D.   The Court has not been apprised of the similar decision in Civil Appeal 1123/2015 State of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Nath Sharma decided on 01-07-2015 which dealt with a similar controversy of pensioners of the State of Rajasthan wherein the issue was decided in favour of pensioners where also the State was claiming that the benefits were only applicable to pensioners who were in service on a particular date in the State.

The important points as above were argued and considered in various decisions by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, including in the case titled Maj Tarlok Singh Vs Union of India (not challenged by the Govt till now), but were perhaps not before the Hon’ble Supreme Court since the judgements that the Apex Court was examining did not have these arguments or issues on record. As things stand now, the Supreme Court decision is binding on all authorities till the time perhaps the matter again reaches the Supreme Court in other decisions decided in favour of pensioners, as and when those are challenged by the Govt, and when all points can be brought before the Hon’ble Court in the right perspective by those representing the parties.

Also, to clarify, this decision however currently affects only pre-1996 retiree Majors with 21 years of service and not those Majors who retired between 01-01-1996 and 14-01-2000 with 20 years of service and were not granted the benefits of the rank of Lt Col due to late issuance of the Govt letter on 14-01-2000 and who were granted relief on judicial intervention. The said category of officers is not affected by this judgement.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Different Uniforms, Same Flag!

My reaction piece in the DNA on the recent stormy exchange between Major Gaurav Arya and Mr Abhinav Kumar, IPS :

Different Uniforms, Same Flag

Navdeep Singh

That the Police and the Army share commonalities, including the somewhat similar structure of rank badges, is something that cannot be ignored. But to expect the Police to be completely militarised or to follow the same ethos or training, or be officered by the military, as professed by some military veterans, in all humility, is an unreasonable idea.

This topic I tend to avoid but there was extensive debate on the subject recently, generated by a strong opinion piece authored by a former Army officer, matched by an equally solid retort by a serving officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS).

The reason for friction
One issue that continually disturbs officers of the military is faster promotions in the IPS and thereby the heavier and at times exaggerated brass on comparatively younger police shoulders. While true to a large extent, historical parities having been unduly disturbed and the military having slid down the pecking order, we still need to give it deeper thought, though no doubt much has been written on it, including by this author. The problem is not faster promotions in the IPS but the much slower career growth in the military due to a variety of reasons, and the solution to which shall remain vexed because of the requirement of maintaining a steep pyramid. Agreed that there is bound to be dejection when an IPS officer of the 2000 batch wears a Major General’s rank badges in 2018 while his military batch-mates are Lieutenant Colonels or at best Colonels, or when it is analysed that while the senior-most police officer in a State was equal to a Colonel or Brigadier at one time but today wears the ranks of a Lieutenant General, but then one cannot blame the IPS for having an optimum promotional and cadre management at par with other comparable government services, neither can one expect police officers to refuse promotions in order to please the military! Rather than such prestige battles, the government and the political executive must be convinced to render serious thought to the massive stagnation in the military and slower than satisfactory career advancement. Of course, certain lopsided recommendations of successive pay commissions haven’t helped. 

Different strokes for different folks
Much has been stated about the desirability of induction of former military officers and personnel in the state police to ‘improve’ it or training IPS officers in military academies or providing the command of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) to army officers. While this appears attractive at the first blush, one has to realise the fluffiness of such broad statements. Firstly, the job of the army and the police is dissimilar. While the former has to destroy the enemy, the latter has to protect the community. The similarities hence end at the ceremonial drill. While soldiers need to operate in groups with competent leaders, state police personnel are expected to work even as stand-alone entities and to apply mind to investigation and crime prevention with certain powers under law being similar for all “Police Officers”- from Constable to the Director General of Police. Moreover, the police involves public-dealing while the military operates on insulated terms. While the police is required to be trained in crowd control and often fires warning shots in the air, the military is trained to fire on target. Hence a military academy is not the apt place for learning skills of lathi charge or nuances of investigation or CrPC and IPC. Ditto for the CAPFs. Though there is certain overlapping of roles in the case of border guarding forces, there is no similarity between forces such as CRPF and the army, these are best officered with their own cadre or from the IPS since they are meant to operate in close coordination with the civil administration.

Turf battles
In the dynamic security scenario of date, there might be shared areas of operation, but that does not take away the core functionality of different forces. It shall be in the interest of all services and forces, who incidentally serve the same flag, to develop mutual trust and serve shoulder to shoulder when required. To be honest, the voices against the police are shriller from the side of some military veterans, who at times, do not realise that for political interference and systemic problems plaguing the police, individual personnel cannot be blamed and those individuals come from the same neighbourhoods as the military and neither are they carrying out less onerous duties. If a newly commissioned Lieutenant has to command his men in arduous conditions, a young Assistant Superintendent of Police has to look after the law & order of a complete Sub Division with multiple police stations, a job not less exacting. To compare with foreign police services is also not in order since in many nations the induction into the police is primarily at only one level, and personnel get promoted all the way up to apex police appointments, while in India recruitment is at four grades. With diffidence I submit that our military community must realise that ‘military training’ is not the magic wand for curing all ills and other professions play an equal role in nation-building. There are many in-house aspects that require honest introspection, than expending energy looking into shortcomings of others.

National interest ordains that all services must work together, hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, to protect the concept of India. The political executive must however ensure that legitimate career expectations and social standing of the men & women in the military are not ignored and decisions on human management policies are taken in a well-rounded manner after due stakeholder consultation.

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Coverage of “Maimed by the System (2018)”

Reproduced below is the coverage by various outlets of the revised edition of my book, Maimed by the System:

Worldwide purchase links, including discounted links, consolidated and listed at www.navdeep.info

Please read the book and ask others too :)