Indian Military : Service Benefits and Issues

A welcome beginning : Indian Veterans for Democracy

2012-02-10T11:29:00.002+05:30

Col Ashok K Singhhas forwarded me a brief of an organisation conceptualised by him, the ‘IndianVeterans for Democracy’.

According to Col Singh,the IVD is an organisation formed to enable participation of military veteransin the political system of our nation and that too without being affiliated toany political party.

Full details on theconcept and the mission are available on the IVD facebook page which can be accessed by clicking here.

The organisationhas also prepared a detailed awareness note on the election manifestoes ofvarious political parties and their promises to veterans. The organisation canbe contacted at veteransfordemocracy [at]gmail [dot] com

Some of the areaswhere the organisation plans to work on are being reproduced below verbatim,without amendment, for the benefit of the readers of the blog :-

ConstitutionalReforms

1. Carry out constitutional amendments toinclude ‘Resettlement and Welfare of Military Veterans’ in the concurrent listof VII Schedule of the Constitution. Presently our constitution is silent onit. The subject is not even mentioned making it the duty of the state tore-settle veterans which is the norm in most of the democratic countries. Thepassing of such acts and rules will make it an obligatory constitutionalresponsibility of the state (both at centre and state) to ensure resettlementand job security to all ranks of veterans, war widows and depends.

2. Bring required provisions for management of‘War and Peace’ and all other related subjects as mentioned in the first listof the VII Schedule of the constitution. Presently there are no such provisionsin our constitution leaving it totally to the executive of the state withoutany provision for parliamentary interference. Ours is the parliamentarydemocracy where it reigns supreme. Leaving a subject like war (where in very survivalof the state may be jeopardised) totally to the executive without any controlof parliament is just too dangerous a situation. US and other democracies havesuch provisions. Such provisions will strengthen the democracy and bring bettermanagement of war and defence of India.

Legal Reforms

3. Accordingly pass military veteranresettlement and welfare act and rules (on similar lines as USA, UK and othercountries) and implement it at centre and state levels to ensure job andsettlement assurance to all ex-servicemen including short service commissionand woman officers, disabled and homeless soldiers, war widows and dependents.Include provisions for considering military persons at par with central andstate employee for giving jobs to their dependents in case of deaths. Such actsand rules are there in all democracies of the world.

4. Amend Govt Business Rules accordingly andbring the subject under Ministry of Personnel and Human Resources Development.Place DGR under Ministry of HRD with concurrent relationship with Minster ofCorporate Affairs as MOD is not capable enough to plan and implement suchschemes effectively.

5. Better would be to have an independentministry as is the convention in most of the democracies and if not possiblethan create national and state commissions for military veterans on the linesof Minority or SC/ST commission at centre and states both.

6. Promulgate Short Services Commissioned andWoman Officers Acts and Rules. The same shall include their assured resettlementand welfare provisions.

7. In terms of Articles 309-313 of theconstitution, promulgate ‘All India Defence Services Acts and Rules’ on thelines of Civil Services and All India Services Acts and Rules. Presently theseprovisions are in form of regulation (DSR) which have been issued by theministry of Defence and leave lots of scope of misinterpretation causingsufferings. Such sensitive issues needs to be put in form of Acts and Rules interms of Article 312 and 313 of our constitution with proper parliamentsanctions. Such lateral absorption will also save lots of govt financialliabilities by correspondingly reducing civil intake in such vacancies.

Administrative Reforms

8. To keep the armed forces young and fightingfit, soldiers (including officers) retire at early age or are encouraged totake pre-mature retirements. In this case, it is the duty of the state toassure job to veterans up to the age of 60 like in the case of civil employees.Give job security to all serving Officers (regular and short service), JCOs andsoldiers from all three services who retire before 60 years of age, by assuredlateral entry into All India Services, Central Services, central and state govtservices, railways, ordinance factories and PSUs in according to their lengthof service (equating with length of service of all civil jobs) and position.The same is the convention in most of democracies including US and UK.

9. Bring a separate pay commission for armedforces and also give pension based on the principle of “One Rank One Pension”.

10. Provide incentives to PSUs and corporates toencourage them to give employment to military veterans. Certain appointments incertain sensitive areas like telcom, transport, highways and defence industriesby law to be occupied by ex-defence staff.

11. Provide incentives in Govt contracts tocorporates who have formed consortiums and JVs with military owned privatecompanies.

12. Provide suitable relaxations (in terms ofBG, EMDs, experience and size of company) for company owned by militaryveterans to help them bid in govt tenders.

13. Make suitable amendments in company laws toencourage companies to have military veterans as independent directors.

14. Provide invectives to military veteransowned companies in Govt procurement policies.

15. Provide sufficient loans on marginalinterests with relaxed security and repayment terms for military veterans tostart business. Suitable incubators be created to help veteran in starting thebusiness. All military held venture be IT free for first 7 years from the startof the date of the project or 12 years from the date of retirements.\

16. Create veterans homes all across country forthose who are left alone and helpless.

17 Create strong education and training supportsystem in India and abroad (may be credit base as in US army) for servingofficers and soldiers. All military training and education be given dueeducation recognition (Post Graduate. Graduate, Diploma/ certificate)

An important ruling that got lost in the din

2012-02-02T20:33:00.002+05:30

Well, an important judgementof the Punjab & Haryana High Court, that I wanted to share earlier, gotlost in the mix somewhere.

The HaryanaGovernment (and many others States too, it is learnt) had in effect a policywhich discriminated between sons and daughters of ex-servicemen. The saidpolicy provided that for the purposes of employment, married sons not having anindependent source of income would be considered dependants for the purpose ofissuance of a dependant certificate while married daughters would not beconsidered such even if not having any income. This had ostensibly been done bythe Haryana Govt on the pretext that while a married son could be dependent onhis father, a married daughter would not be since she would be dependent on herhusband.

Not finding theabove distinction reasonable and holding it to be unconstitutional, the Punjab& Haryana High Court has struck down the said clause and it has been heldthat both married sons and daughters, if not having independent means oflivelihood, would be considered eligible for the issuance of the dependantcertificate.

Many other strangestipulations of the Defence Services Welfare wing and the Sainik Board of theState of Haryana have in the past faced flak from the High Court.

Social media and the Armed Forces : Need to refrain from knee-jerk reactions

2012-01-27T20:45:00.002+05:30

The Indian Navy’s Facebookincident has again brought into light the subject of serving defence officers andthe use of internet.

Though not infavour of making cyberspace free for uninhibited travel, I feel that the issueneeds to be tackled in a holistic manner by maintaining an adequate amount ofdiscretion but at the same time not losing touch with the necessities of modernlife.

Press reports suggest that some kind of action is in the offing against the naval officersinvolved in the episode. In my opinion, two things need to be examined beforethe Navy proceeds in the matter. One, whether the information shared was such whichwas not already available in any public domain including the net or anymilitary-related publication or journal, and two, whether there was anyintention on the part of the officers to disseminate such information topersons who should not have been privy to the same.

More often thannot, the call for action related to interaction of serving officers over theinternet emanates from over-sensitive and touchy seniors who are not tech-savvy.Usually, such actions are merely knee-jerk reactions which are not in tune withthe reality of the times.

So what is the wayout? I feel there has to be a democratic inter-service debate on the issue andit should be discussed threadbare as to how broad guidelines could beincorporated which bring about a certain amount of cyber security taking intoaccount our requirements of maintaining confidentiality in some areas, but atthe same time not overly imposing an embargo on individual freedom and humaninteraction.

If this report is to be believed, then defence personnel are soon going to be asked not tocomment on government or military policies. This attitude itself, in the past,has led to the constant derailment of military service from the pecking orderas well as the absence of the military from the wish-list of job-seekers. Lack ofdiscussion on issues affecting service-members has direct linkage withignorance further leading to absence of exercise of rights where required and denialof benefits– the Sixth Pay Commission and its aftermath bears testimony to whatI say. No, ignorance no longer remains bliss. If we continue treading thispath, the future is not difficult to predict. Even otherwise, the statutoryrules in this regard are surprisingly not archaic, despite the fact that thesewere promulgated in the 1950s. For example, the only prohibition in the Army isthat, inter alia, service information is not to be communicated to the press orpublished in any book, letter, article or document without sanction of the Govtor an officer specified in this behalf (See Army Rule 21). Hence, there is norestriction whatsoever on discussion of any topic under the sun on any forum,the restriction is only on publication. Moreover, with the advancement of time,discussions on the internet or social networking sites are mere substitutes ofdrawing-room talk of the yesteryears. Times have changed and organisationsmust also march on.

Till the time ourown decision makers (read imposers) become tech-savvy and net-educated, our militaryshall remain embodied in a time-warp. The US Army, which is handling much moresensitive missions domestically and abroad, and which has its fingers in manypies, has constructively used technology for betterment and openness. They havean official Army Blog and so do most of the other arms and services. The US Armyalso has a major presence on twitter while we are mulling banning the entire spectrumof social media.

While writing this,I am reminded of a tweet this morning by a retired officer. He felt thatbanning or curbing social media could become a major demotivating factor foryouth aspiring to join the Army at all levels. This very important aspect is actuallya point currently not even on our radar. We must find a practical and balancedsolution in consonance with the times which would not only ensure personalfreedom but also hands-on adherence to security requirements. If social mediais taken as an enemy of security then so could be normal day to day human interaction,all types of computing devices and mobiles. Would be, or could we ban thosetoo?

OPed : Lokpal and the defence services - case for an inclusive approach

2012-01-21T08:20:00.001+05:30

In continuation of the earlier debate on this blog, I am reproducing my OPed on the subject that has appeared in 'The Tribune' today :

DEFENCE SERVICES AND THE LOK PAL

The Services need to follow an inclusionary approach

Major Navdeep Singh

The reaction amongst the military communitywas euphoric when it came to light that the Parliament had agreed on keepingthe Armed Forces out of the purview of the Lok Pal.

Why the elation, one may ask? The exclusiononly leads to the solidification of the ‘holy cow’ image and a message is sentout that the Armed Forces do not want the cloak of secrecy to be removed sincethere are skeletons to hide, which in fact is not the case at all. Being one ofthe cleanest institutions, the Armed Forces must set an example and welcomeprobity of any kind rather than revelling in the bloated myth of being ‘different’.

National security and operational aspectshave become the much flogged reasons for circumventing transparency not only inthe defence services but elsewhere too, and the gullible public, including thelawmakers, buy it in the name of patriotism. But real patriotism would only bedisplayed when the uniformed forces go all out to embrace the concept of LokPal in line with the national effort.

Pointed out repeatedly is the theoretical plankby the defence forces of historically not sparing the guilty in corruptioncases and the strong in-house mechanisms available. However this approach maybe conceptually faulty. Firstly because the system within the forces is not properlygeared up or attuned to handle even normal criminal offences, and secondly,when the already existing provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act haveneither effectively worked nor resulted in deterrence in the ‘outside world’,it would be otiose to expect that the existing system would augur well for theforces. Yes, the judicial system of the defence services has seen speediertrials and has been quick in convictions but the question whether it conformsto the well-established democratic principles of jurisprudence has alwaysremained debatable. The ratio of the persons tried vis-à-vis those convictedwould establish the effectiveness but not necessarily the correctness of asystem.

The Lok Pal, in whichever format it budsultimately, brings to our country an expert body to handle matters related tocorruption. Except areas of national defence wherein security or operationalaspects are involved, all other zones must remain open to the new system asenvisaged. It is common knowledge that defence deals are a major source ofcorruption all over the world and involve an interplay of military and civilianelements. Keeping defence officers out of it would mean that while civilianofficers would face the probity of Lok Pal and the effectiveness of itsexpertise, the ones in uniform would continue to be governed by existing laws,though the offence would be the same and maybe arising out of the sametransaction. Rather than leading to harmonising of procedures, this would leadto creating utter disarray. It is almost universally agreeable that defence procurement,supplies, contracts and construction require more rectitude than prevalent, andlogically hence it should hurt none if these aspects are brought under the eyeof the Lok Pal.

Being pleased about having been excluded fromthe law of the land which applies to others has a sinister off-shoot. Thedifferential treatment accorded to defence services in such situations is usedas a plank to deny benefits which are available to others. Already, thefacilities and advantages provided to defence personnel have become pinpricksleading to sadistic behaviour amongst the policy-making machinery which in turnstonewalls all progressive proposals for betterment of pay, allowances, statusand pensionary awards to defence personnel. Factors such as availability of subsidisedliquor and soaps from canteens at a rupee less than the market become sorepoints and reasons for denial of progression for serving and retired defencepersonnel. Otherwise who could explain the fact that today when almost everyofficer of the organised Group-A services is retiring with the pay and pensionequal to a Lieutenant General on a non-functional basis even when not actuallypromoted with the additional benefit of virtually ‘One Rank One Pension’through the back-door, most of the military counterparts retire as Colonels.

TheServices Headquarters are focussing more on fortifying the imagery of exclusionof the military from the others and trumpeting operational facets by placingthe future of millions of serving and retired personnel at stake as far astheir status, pay, allowances and pensions are concerned, by blindly towing theline and opinion of non-military officers in important wings such as the‘Personnel Services Directorate’ rather than concentrating on awareness andamalgamation of the military with the mainstream. For example, the creation ofthe concept of ‘Rank Pay’ during the Fourth Pay Commission, and moving awayfrom normal pay-scales as applicable to all other services, was one such stepwhich though established the military as ‘different’, resulted not only infinancial loss but utter chaos and degradation of status of military officers,the after-effects of which are there for all to see with litigation pending onthe subject even three decades later. A Selection Grade Major who used to drawthe pay of a Director of the Central Govt prior to the Fourth Pay Commission istoday granted two steps lower pay which is equal to an Under Secretary to Govtof India, all thanks to the introduction of the ‘Rank Pay’. The differential,and sometimes preferential, treatment also means that most progressive conceptsintroduced for other services are not made applicable to those in the militarysince the defence services are ‘different’. Already the defence services haveno role to play in policy-making or in the Rulesof Business contrary to the system prevalent for their counterparts,already the military’s internal bureaucracy is busy indulging in self-defeatistmoves which are more harmful than external orchestration and where the endresult is that the welfare, remuneration and pension related provisions areunilaterally thrust upon defence personnel all because the energies arefocussed on issues which are more ceremonial or pseudo-operational and lesssubstantial. Thanks to self-imposed exclusionary politics, these are actionsthat may result in great pomp & show and chest thumping within theperimeter of a cantonment, but a slide in the real society from where we all comefrom, that society where Lok Pal shall apply. Moving away from the ordinarypopulace could well lead to alienation.

Being under the Lok Pal would be beneficialand not detrimental to the defence services. There is nothing to fear if thereis nothing to hide. All references in the final Act to Group-A officers mustalso apply to Commissioned Officers, while those to Group-B and Group-C staffshould be applicable to Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranksrespectively. Of course, security, operational and intelligence related aspectsshould be totally excluded and the RTI experience could provide a lead in thatarena. Not only would it show that the defence services have no skeletons inthe cupboard and are open to scrutiny from all quarters, but once the annual returnsof prosecutions are made public after the implementation of the Act, it would alsoprove, reinforce and strengthen that the levels of corruption in the defence servicesare lower than others, and in that sense, the services are truly ‘different’.

Maj Navdeep Singh is a practicing Advocate ofthe High Court. He is also the President of the AFT Bar Association. Viewsexpressed are personal.

Family Pension to missing personnel / pensioners : fresh proactive instructions

2012-01-15T10:23:00.002+05:30

The modalities of grant of family pension tothe families of missing personnel, and the issues concerning the same, have been discussed on this blog before.

Till now, the family pension was only grantedto the wife of the missing individual and not to other members of the family,even if eligible for family pension. Actually, in my opinion, there was nothingin the rules to bar members other than the wife to receive the pension in caseotherwise entitled under the rules, but the Govt had a different take on theinterpretation.

The Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare(DoPPW) has now explicitly clarified that in cases of missing employees orpensioners, the pension can flow to any of the members who are eligible for thesame as per rules, including children.

The clarification has been issued on 02 Jan2012.

Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare unilaterally issues a fresh version of Pension Regulations for the Army

2012-01-08T19:51:00.000+05:30

So there you haveit, the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (sic) (DESW), on 06 Jan 2012, hasissued Pension Regulations for the Army (2008), purportedly approved by the ‘Raksha Mantri’. These Regulationssupposedly supersede the Pension Regulations of 1961. Though the Regulationshave been issued on 06 Jan 2012 and only apply to those who were released after2008, these have not incorporated the drastic pensionary changes made by the 6^thCPC which according to the DESW would be included in the form of ‘insertions’ to be decided by the officeof the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). These Regulationsof 2008 have been jointly drafted by the office of the CGDA and PCDA(P). Itseems illogical that these Regulationsof ‘2008’ have been issued in 2012 and that too without incorporating changesintroduced by the 6^th CPC w.e.f 01-01-2006. What was the tearinghurry? Preliminarily speaking, even otherwise, rather than entrusting such animportant policy-work to policy makers and experts at the govt level, the DESWhas gone by the drafting submitted by defence accountants. But strictlyspeaking, are these Regulations even valid or legal?

I would say, No.

My observations onthis move :-

(1) The mandatefor dealing with general pensionary guidelines of civil, defence and railwaypensioners is of the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW)under the Constitutional Allocation of Business Rules of the Govt of India, andnot of the DESW. In fact, the DESW does not even have staff which canunderstand the fine modalities of pension issues. Hence to issue such‘Regulations’ without the sanction of DoPPW prima-facie appears to be withoutauthority. It also seems that even the Department of Expenditure (DoE) has notbeen consulted.

(2) Manyprovisions which have been quashed, read-down, struck-down or differentlyinterpreted by Courts and Tribunals, including the Supreme Court, find place inthese Regulations of 2008. Not only unlawful, but such an action could bedownright contemptuous, and the fact that the Raksha Mantri has been made to ‘approve’ such a document speaksvolumes of the extent of application of mind prevalent at the DESW. Manyprovisions are also in direct contravention of general DoPPW policies andclarifications.

(3) Manyof the provisions mentioned in the ‘new’ Regulations have been totally doneaway with or abrogated by the 5^th and 6^th CPCs. Some ofthe newly cast Regulations actually take away certain benefits which wereavailable to defence pensioners till date. Through innocuous re-casting of someRegulations, certain very pertinent benefits have in fact been abolished.

(4) As explained above, pensionary provisions ofgeneral nature have always been a subject matter of the DoPPW and have earlierbeen issued after acceptance of Pay Commission recommendations by the Cabinetthrough Presidential sanctions. It seems strange that the DESW has chosen tocircumvent established precedents and has gone about modifying provisionsapproved by the Cabinet and notified through Presidential orders through theselocally issued ‘Regulations’.

(5) According to DoPPW guidelines, constitutionally empowered to promulgatepensionary policies of pensioners including defence pensioners, pensionaryrules can only be changed through a democratic consultative process which alsoinvolves other stake-holders including recognised pension associations. Has thesame been done in this case? The answer is in the negative. Was even the ArmyHQ consulted on this?

(6) Howcould such an important task be entrusted to CGDA or PCDA(P). These agenciesare neither policy makers nor authorities competent to alter existingpensionary matters and are only accounting instrumentalities. How could ‘teams’of such agencies be detailed to draft Pension Regulations.

In short, theseRegulations are a piece of work by defence accountants forcibly thrust upon millionsof retired defence personnel, who, it seems do not have any say in matterswhich affect their future and also the future of their families. There has beenno spade work by the authorities actually competent to modify or rationaliseexisting provisions and the issue has been dealt with hurriedly, withoutapplication of mind, and in fact without authority.

According to theDoPPW, the list of stake-holders involved for modification or inception ofpensionary policies is as follows :-

“User GOI Ministries / Departmentsincluding CGA, CPAO & CGDA, Pensioners/Family Pensioners, Pensioners’Associations, Banks/Treasuries/Post offices, Serving employees”

Letthe DESW clarify if any of the above were consulted before unilaterallyimposing these new Pension Regulations on defence pensioners and familypensioners? In fact, these are not 'Regulations' but the imposition of the will of a couple of accountants whose limited understanding, drafting and thought-process has been thrust upon pensioners forcibly.

Additional Ex-gratia lumpsum payment to invalided personnel as per Union budget announcement : Implemented for defence services finally

2012-01-05T17:51:00.001+05:30

This is with reference to the blogpost of 09 May 2011 wherein it was informed that as announced by the Finance Minister during the Union budget, orders for a fresh scheme for grant of a lumpsum ex-gratia amount for invalided personnel had been issued on the civil side for Central Armed Police Forces (formerly known as Central Paramilitary Forces).

The said orders have been issued for defence services now, effective from the same date as applicable to civil personnel.

Defence personnel disabled with attributable / aggravated disabilities and consequently invalided out shall now be entitled to Rs 900,000 (Nine Lacs) for 100% disability, proportionately reduced for lesser percentage of disability. The said lumpsum shall be applicable for people with 20% or above disability and the provisions of broad-banding or rounding-off of percentage for purposes of calculation of disability element shall not be applicable for computation of the newly introduced ex-gratia lumpsum.

The scheme is a fresh welfare measure with no connection with the recommendations of the pay commission and hence shall be made applicable only to those personnel who were invalided out / boarded out with more than 20% disability after 01-04-2011.

This ex-gratia lumpsum shall be in addition to the war-injury pension / disability pension / CAA etc and other welfare related schemes.

A very Happy New Year, followed by an important point of debate

2012-01-01T09:58:00.001+05:30

“Those who are at war with others are not atpeace with themselves”

- WilliamHazlett

Once again, here’s hoping for world peace in2012.

A very Happy New Year to all readers of thisblog.

Now on with a very important issue for 2012.

As all of us know, the defence services havebeen kept out of the purview of the Lok Pal, as envisaged. Many serving and former service-members have expressed great happiness over it.

I would like to gather from the readerswhether they feel this move (of exclusion of defence services) is in the overall long-term benefit of the forces or not.

Individual views on the subject may be projectedon the comments section of this blog-post.

Thank You

Navdeep

From the University of Southern California : Drawing Down the Troops

2011-12-27T10:35:00.000+05:30

A self-explanatory message from Ms Jenn Pedde of the University of Southern California :

As I'm sure you know, earlier this year, President Obama announced that our service members stationed in Iraq are being ordered to return home. The MSW@USC (University of Southern California, School of Social Work's online MSW program - http://msw.usc.edu) created an infographic entitled, "Drawing Down Troops from Iraq," to present a balanced view of how many troops have served overseas and the challenges they'll face when they return at the end of the year. For example, there are currently 900,000 veterans unemployed and still over 20,000 troops yet to return. We've highlighted the VOW to Hire Veterans Act and the Yellow Ribbon program, and we hope that you'll share this with your readers to help us support the troops.

Brought to you by USC: MSW Programs

On the chain-mail concerning non-functional upgradation

2011-12-24T09:30:00.000+05:30

Mostof the readers of this blog, and also those concerned with anything military,must have received a chain-mail highlighting the agony of defence officersresulting from the denial of the applicability of non-functional upgradation. Ihave received many requests on the blog, and through email, to clarify whetherthe points raised in the said chain-mail are true. Of course, the points aretrue and the issue has also formed a part of an earlier blog-post titled ‘Are we the masters of self defeat?’. But having said that, some points raised inthe said mail require clarification :-

A. On completion of appx 32 years of service,officers of the civil Group A Services would not get the Grade Pay of 12000 inPay Band-4 as stated in the mail but shall get the much higher HAG Pay Band (Rs67000 – 79000). Grade Pay of Rs 12000 stands abolished and HAG now has aseparate pay band. Also the SAG Scale with GP 10000 would not be attained in 19years but in approximately 22 years by civil officers of the said services.

B. Officers of the IAS are not empaneled asJoint Secretaries to Govt of India in 17 years. The current period isapproximately 20 years.

C. It is not as if the Govt of India hasdeclared Commissioned Officers as non Group A organised services Officers, itis so because the nomenclature of ‘Organised Group A Services’ was never usedfor military officers and the same is a civil concept. Commissioned Officers ofthe defence services, All India Service Officers (IAS, IPS and Indian ForestService) and officers of the Organised Group A Services (formerly known asClass-I services) have historically been equated at the start point. And stillare, in the sense that all of the above services, even after the 6^thCPC, commence in PB-3 with GP 5400, however the nomenclature is mutuallyexclusive.

D. It is incorrect to suggest that Group BServices (equivalent to JCOs) are also retiring as Joint Secretaries to Govt ofIndia.

E. It is absolutely incorrect that even SubInspectors of CAPFs would retire in the pay of Lt Gen. It is not so.

Thegrant of non-functional financial upgradation to all organised Group A Servicesand also to the All India Services, has resulted in almost OROP of a kind atofficer level through the back-door. The pensions of such officers granted non-functionalupgradation to HAG are also fixed at HAG levels and would continue to be fixedas such even after successive pay commissions since pensions are regulated onthe basis of the scale last held (and not the rank / post last held).

Hopefullysomebody would be willing to listen if the COSC takes up the issue with renewedvigour.

The much awaited Parliamentary Committee Report on Military Pensions submitted today

2011-12-19T23:59:00.000+05:30

The Parliamentary (RajyaSabha) Committee on Petitions submitted its report today.

For those who wantto peruse the full report may click here to download the entire copy.

As a keen observerof developments in the field, my observations are as under :

A. The Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare(DESW) of the MoD, with Ms Neelam Nath at the (then) ceremonial helm, and withtwo Under Secretaries actually and practically running the entire show, hasbeen less than truthful with the committee with its inputs. The first proof ofthe same being the figure of Rs 3000 crore per year for OROP projected by thesaid department which tacitly has been contradicted by the Department ofExpenditure which in turn has pegged the annual expenditure for the first yearat Rs 1300 crore.

B. The DESW had put forth the reasons offinancial, administrative and legal impediments in implementing OROP. Whileprojecting administrative difficulties, it was pointed out that the informationregarding pensioners was not available since military documents are weeded outafter 25 years. This, my friends, is a bundle of lies. Firstly, the 25 yearslimit applies to non-pensioners and not to pensioners. Secondly, naturally OROPis to apply to pensioners only and if a person is a pensioner, he or she wouldobviously be in receipt of pension based on a PPO which would contain allrequisite information such as the length of service and rank which is all thatis required.

C. Even the legal difficulties expressed byDESW have no legs to stand upon. The DESW commented that the Supreme Court hadupheld the implementation of cut-off dates in pensionary matters in variouscases. However, what DESW did not mention is the fact that there are many moredecisions in which cut-off dates have been deprecated, including very recentones.

D. The representatives of the Army, Navy andAir Force supported the cause of OROP. A mere reading of the report alsoseemingly indicates that while the representatives of the Services were verymuch present in the initial meetings and very fairly assisted the Committee,they were probably not present during the final meeting of deliberation whenthe Secretaries were again heard on 14 Nov 2011. Perhaps chary of the properand fair assistance provided to the Committee by the Services, the militaryreps were not brought in by the DESW on the penultimate date. This is theimpression that I get, perhaps the Services HQ would be able to elaborate if myguess is correct.

E. The findings of the Committee wereappreciable and pro-veteran. The Committee has observed that the demands ofveterans were included in Election Manifestoes of various parties but not giveneffect. The Committee has also observed that OROP was existing in a way till 1973when it was withdrawn in an ex-parte manner by the 3^rd CPC whichlinked the pensionary system of the armed forces with that of civilianemployees. The committee also observed that there was no comparison withcivilian employees and defence services faced much harsher conditions coupledwith an early retirement age. The committee also observed that given theeconomy of the country, Rs 1300 crore per year was not a heavy figure.

F. However, most importantly, the followingobservations of the committee summed up the essence of the entire exercise :-

“…They (defenceservices) serve the nation with utmost devotion and selflessness but theirdemands are consistently being ignored, not by the heads of the Armed Forces,but by bureaucrats. It’s a typical example of bureaucratic apathy. To continuethis apathy, the Ministries apprised the Committee that if OROP were to beimplemented, similar demands may be raised from civilian employees. Thisargument the committee finds is a baseless apprehension...The defence personnelin the PBOR category retire when they are around 35-40 years of age. Even theofficers retire when they are around 55 years of age. That is the time whenthey have family and social responsibilities to discharge for which they needsound financial support. This is certainly not the case with civilian workforce where the age of retirement is 60 uniformly…The committee is notconvinced with the hurdles projected by the DESW in implementing OROP for defencepersonnel…”

Introducing ‘Forces Law Gazette’ (FLG) : www.lawgazette.net

2011-12-16T01:48:00.003+05:30

This day, 16^th December, is militarily a significant date for the region.

I feel pleased today in announcing the release of the first issue of the ‘FORCES LAW GAZETTE’ – a free, non-commercial quarterly newsletter dealing with law & allied issues related to uniformed services of not just India but other democracies as well. Meant more for general reading than use in Courts, the Gazette would consist of three broad categories – (1) Law related to uniformed services, (2) Developments & Miscellaneous, and (3) Contributions & Articles.

The Gazette would remain available through www.lawgazette.net for free download and distribution in pdf format.

I would like to place on record my gratitude to the Editors and Contributors to the newsletter. I would specially like to thank Mr Eugene R Fidell and Ms Michelle Lindo McCluer, former President and Executive Director respectively of the National Institute of Military Justice, for their support and valuable inputs.

Contributions in the form of articles are welcome and may be sent to me by email for publication in future issues. We hope to effectively sustain the concept with the next issue due in March 2012.

Thank You.

Yet another day, but the hassle sorted out!

2011-12-13T05:47:00.003+05:30

This is in reference to the blog post of 10 Dec 2011 wherein it was pointed out that that NHAI had wrongly written to one of the toll operators in Punjab that toll exemption is only to be provided to private vehicles of defence personnel when they were in uniform.

The issue was accordingly taken up with the concerned authorities and I am glad to inform that the NHAI has communicated to me yesterday that they have taken corrective action and clarified the correct position to the said toll operator. The NHAI has also regretted the inconvenience caused. Since the letter was being flaunted by other operators too, the NHAI has sent a copy of the clarification to all other operators in the region.

The issue thus stands resolved and closed. Wake up my brethren in uniform, it is not every-time that others would come to your rescue !

Another day, another hassle !

2011-12-10T09:44:00.001+05:30

I sometimes feel tired of symptomatically handling the toll tax exemption issue.

Now in utter contravention of the Indian Tolls (Army & Air Force) Act, 1901, directions of the Govt of India and law laid down by the Supreme Court, an officer of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has endorsed a communication dated 24Nov 2011 to one of the private toll operators in Punjab that toll exemption to private vehicles of defence personnel is only to be provided when the person is in uniform.

Needless to say, there is no such legal or statutory requirement and the exemption is actually applicable and available to both on-duty and off-duty defence personnel. And as expected, the letter has virally spread to many other toll operators who are using and quoting it as an excuse to deny toll exemption on other roads and bridges.

While I have taken up the issue for corrective action and am hopeful for early rectification, I feel boggled by the constant requests to tackle this by officers serving in the Services HQ – it in fact is their duty to take this on proactively and without any timidity. Their requests should be directed towards the Movement Directorate and not towards me since I have very limited time on my hands to physically get such issues resolved since it involves personal interaction, liaison and travel to Delhi. I have already in 2008 provided all material on the subject to the Services HQ which is enough for resolution of any related controversy for all times to come. The material can also be accessed by perusing this blogpost of September 2008. Interestingly, the condition of being in uniform had been initially imposed on the Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway also and which was blindly endorsed by the office of ADG Movement in 2007 but the same was effectively tackled, the details of which can be accessed by clicking here.

Will keep readers informed about the progress on this latest goof-up by NHAI.

Clearing misconceptions related to the applicability of the CAT judgement on defence personnel

2011-12-06T10:30:00.001+05:30

This blog had carried a report of a judgement pronounced by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) related to fixation of pension of pre-2006 retirees.

After the judgement, there have been chain mails circulating all around stating that the judgement shall result in enhancement of pension of all military ranks and that the Govt had decided not to challenge the judgement in the Supreme Court. I have also received a number of mails seeking clarification on the said orders.

With an attempt to clarify the issue, the following points are enumerated :

1. The CAT judgement has laid down nothing new for military pensioners and the same subject had last year been adjudicated upon by the Chandigarh and Principal Benches of the AFT for military pensioners on exactly similar lines. While the CAT has pronounced the judgement in Nov 2011, the same had been pronounced by the AFT in Sept and Nov 2010.

2. The CAT judgement has NO, repeat NO applicability on military pensioners since the CAT has jurisdiction over only civilian Central Govt employees / former employees.

3. The Govt has NOT, repeat NOT, taken any decision about challenging the judgement, and moreover, judgements of the CAT are challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court and not before the Supreme Court.

4. The Govt has already challenged before the Supreme Court the verdict in the Majors’ case on similar lines rendered by the AFT. The Supreme Court had issued a notice on the case but no stay has been granted on the AFT judgement.

5. In case the Govt does decide to implement the CAT decision or take a favourable decision on similar lines, then the same would automatically be extended to commissioned officers of the forces also since the interpretation involved is exactly the same.

6. The scope of the controversy regarding ‘minimum of pay within the pay band’ vs ‘minimum of the pay band itself’ has now become wider and directly affects all civil pensioners of the Central Govt and all Commissioned pensioners of the defence services. It does not affect lower ranks of the defence services since the calculation formula of Sepoy to Subedar Major is different than the formula used for commissioned officers or central civil govt retirees.

Is this correct when the SC is examining the issue threadbare ?

2011-12-01T08:27:00.001+05:30

This relates to the blog post published on 23 Nov 2011 related to grant of permanent commission to women in the armed forces.

While the official Press Release makes it clear that the govt has already issued a policy letter on 11 Nov 2011 on the subject, it makes one wonder whether the same could have been ethically done in light of the fact that the matter has already been adjudicated by the Delhi High Court and an SLP filed by the Govt is pending before the Supreme Court and the matter is sub judice. Moreover, the Supreme Court has already made it clear to the Govt that there is no stay on the Delhi High Court judgement. As on date hence, the Delhi High Court judgement is ‘law’ for all intents and purposes and for the govt to issue a policy letter while the matter is still under judicial examination, is a little unnatural. Rather than simplifying the matter, this is bound to bring in more chaos and confusion in the already complicated matter. Another example of administrative egotism ?

Pension enhancement of widows likely. On Sonia’s intervention ?

2011-11-25T09:27:00.002+05:30

People following the subject would be aware that while the service pensions of ranks from Sepoy till Subedar Major were enhanced by the Govt, no such orders were passed for family pensioners. The corresponding enhancement was not effectuated since the top brass at the MoD was briefed by the Pension wing of the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare that the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) which had examined pensionary anomalies, had made no recommendation on the subject of family pension. Ms Neelam Nath, the then Secretary ESW, was also convinced of the logic which actually emanated from Section Officer / Under Secretary level.

Prior to 01-01-2006 (6^th CPC), pension in respect of ranks from Sepoy to Sub Maj was calculated based on the top-end (maximum) of the scales rather than the bottom as was applicable to Commissioned Officers and civilian retirees. After the 6^th CPC, the service pension calculation formula for all ranks and services was changed to 50% of minimum of pay band + Grade Pay (GP) + Military Service Pay (MSP) + X Group Pay (where applicable) while the formula for family pension was 30% of the same above mentioned components.

The CoS examined the issue and came to the conclusion that the edge enjoyed by personnel other than Commissioned Officers needed to be restored and maintained. While it was not possible to grant pension by taking the maximum of 6^th CPC figures since Pay Scales had been abolished and replaced by Pay bands and since the maximum was common for many ranks bunched together, it was decided that the pension of such personnel would be calculated by taking the 50% of notional maximum of 5^th CPC scales within the 6^th CPC pay bands + GP + MSP + X Group Pay (if applicable). The notional 6^th CPC maximum of 5^th CPC scales was calculated by using the universal formula of ‘Old 5^th CPC maximum X 1.86’, the resultant figure was the fitment within the new 6^th CPC scales. Though this definitely resulted in an enhancement of pensions of retired defence personnel themselves, but did not translate into higher family pensions. This new enhancement for service pensions was made applicable from 01-07-2009.

Hence in the net result, with effect from 01-07-2009, while the service pension was being calculated based on the notional maximum of 5^th CPC scales within the 6^th CPC pay bands, the family pension continued to be calculated on the basis of minimum of the 6^th CPC pay bands. As mentioned above, whenever the said anomaly was projected to the MoD, the standard reply was that no such enhancement was recommended by the CoS while the truth was that no such proposal was even examined by the CoS, but naturally it was a logical outflow from the enhancement of service pensions and hence needed to be examined in that light. Since service pension is basically fixed at 50% of the pay and family pension at 30%, logic necessitated that after the enhancement of the fitment, the notional pay for both kinds of pensions had to be the same since both were conceptually similar except the percentage.

It is however learnt that in view of the fact that the Raksha Mantri was personally briefed about the entire issue and even Ms Sonia Gandhi was sounded on the subject, the Ministry is now open to enhancement of family pensions also on the same lines of ‘notional maximum’ as implemented for service pensions. Much credit goes to the IESM for continually keeping this very important subject in limelight. The Chairperson of IESM has been informed about the changes on the anvil personally by the Raksha Mantri. Though time would tell how things shape up finally, but this in-principle acceptance of the rectification of this very grave anomaly is a worthy substantial step in the right direction.

Press Release by MoD on Permanent Commission to women

2011-11-23T20:31:00.003+05:30

Official Press Release by the Ministry of Defence through the Press Information Bureau :

Permanent Commission to Women Officers

Armed Forces were requested to prepare a comprehensive coherent policy paper on induction of Women, which has been submitted to the Ministry in August 2011. The policy paper has been considered by the Ministry keeping in view the role and responsibility of the Armed Forces in defending the nation and protecting the territorial integrity of the-country. Based thereon, a Government letter has been issued on 11th November, 2011 inter-alia laying down policy on induction and employment of women in Armed Forces as under:

(i) Women Officers may continue to be inducted as Short Service Commission Officers' (SSCOs) in Branches/Cadres where they are being inducted presently in the three Service's;

(ii) Women SSCOs will be eligible for consideration for grant of permanent commission along with Men SSCOs in specific Branches in the three Services viz. Judge Advocate General (JAG) and Army Education Corps (AEC) of Army and their corresponding branches in Navy and Air Force; Naval constructor in Navy and Accounts branch in Air Force, as specified in Ministry's letter No:12(i)/2004-D(AG)Pt.Il, dated 26th Septembet,2008;'

(iii) In addition to the above, in the Air Force, women SSCOs will be eligible alongwith men SSCOs, for consideration for grant of permanent commission in Technical, Administration, Logistics and Meteorology Branches.

The grant of permanent commission will be subject to willingness of the candidate and service specific requirements, availability of vacancies, suitability, merit of the candidate as decided by each Service.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in written reply to Shri Balwinder Singh Bhunder in Rajya Sabha today.

Top 10 Military Academies according to Onlinecollege.org

2011-11-21T20:21:00.001+05:30

Carol Brown, a freelancer who regularly contributes to www.onlinecollege.org has sent in a link related to an article on the ‘10 Most Prestigious Military in the World’ which can be accessed by clicking here.

Here is a brief of the list :-

1. United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, USA

2. United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, USA

3. Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, Sleaford, UK

4. Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, UK

5. The Special Military School of Saint-Cyr, Coetquidan, France

6. The PLA National Defence University, Beijing, China

7. General Staff College, Moscow, Russia

8. National Defence Academy of Japan, Yokosuka, Japan

9. South African Military Academy, Thaba Tswana, South Africa

10. Hellenic Military Academy, Vari, Greece

Rank Pay Case

2011-11-15T23:03:00.004+05:30

Many people keep inquiring about the status of the Rank Pay case which is now fixed for 22 Nov 2011 before the Supreme Court. Since the case is pending adjudication before the highest Court of the land, it is not proper to go into the merits of the stand taken by both parties before it.

However, I cannot help but make the following observations on the affidavit filed by the UOI while seeking a review of the judgement (Sorry, this may be a bit technical) :-

While the Hon’ble Court had only sought information regarding point to point pay fixation with reference to a specific rank during the 4^th CPC, the UOI has gone out to project charts related to 4^th, 5^th and 6^th CPCs showing comparison of the pay being received by Army officers vis-à-vis civilians.

On Page 10 of the affidavit, a Captain during the III CPC has been truly and correctly shown equivalent to the closest corresponding scale of Senior Time Scale, both of which start with the amount of Rs 1100. However on Page 18 relating to the V CPC, a Captain’s scale (starting Rs 10000) has been shown as corresponding to Junior Time Scale (starting Rs 8000) by the UOI which in fact is lower than even the starting of a Lieutenant (starting Rs 8250). Hence, in order to show a skewed pay comparison, it seems that it has been attempted to project that a Captain is getting much higher pay than the closest corresponding civilian scale. In short, while on Page 10 a Capt has been shown corresponding to STS, on Page 18, the same Capt is shown corresponding to JTS. Even the nomenclature of the scales such as JTS, STS, JAG, SG etc has not been mentioned perhaps to confuse the entire issue.

On Page 11, the III CPC corresponding scale of a Major (starting Rs 1450) has been shown as the Junior Administrative Grade (starting Rs 1500) but on the next page, that is Page 12, even a Lt Col has been shown corresponding to the same civil Junior Administrative Grade (starting Rs 1500). How can two military scales be shown equal to the same Junior Administrative Grade ? Even a Lt Col’s scale has been mentioned wrongly on Page 12 (Rs 1550 – 1950) whereas it actually was Rs 1750 – 1950. In fact, the closest scale to a Lt Col was the civil Selection Grade scale (Rs 1800 – 2000) which has not been reflected at all by the UOI. If at all a comparison was to be made, it could have been made between the Lt Col’s Selection Grade military scale with a start of Rs 1750 and the civil Selection Grade scale with a start of Rs 1800. The UOI has tried to compare the pay-scale of a Brig starting from Rs 2200 with a civil scale starting from Rs 2000 rather than comparing a Col (Rs 1950) with the closest civil scale starting with Rs 2000 and Brig with the closest scale starting with Rs 2250. Instead again a higher military scale has been shown alongwith a lower civil scale in an attempt to show that military officers were getting a higher fitment than civilians.

On Page 20, in the illustration of pay fixation, a Major’s salary (starting Rs 12800) has been compared with a civil scale starting from Rs 10000 (Senior Time Scale / Scale No S-19) whereas the actual closest corresponding civil scale was Junior Administrative Grade (IAS) Scale / S-22 with a start from Rs 12750. Hence rather than comparing the fixation of pay between the military scale starting with Rs 12800 with the closest civil scale starting with Rs 12750, the UOI has attempted to compare it with a much lower civil scale starting with Rs 10000 whose closest equal is a Captain who also has a start of Rs 10000. Again the UOI has attempted to misleading show that military officers are getting a much higher pay than civilians.

Again on Page 22, the UOI has tried to misleadingly compare the scale of a Lt Col (start of Rs 15100) with a civil scale with a start of Rs 12000 (Junior Administrative Grade / S-21) whereas the closest possible corresponding scale was that of Selection Grade / S-25 also having a start of Rs 15100. Shockingly, the UOI has attempted to compare the start of Lt Col’s scale (Rs 15100) with a civil scale with a start of Rs 12000 which is even lower than the start of a Major’s scale (Rs 12800).

On page 26, it can be clearly seen that officers from Lieut till Major are in Pay Band -3 (Rs 15600 – 39100) while officers from Lt Col to Maj Gen are in Pay Band – 4 (Rs 37400 – 67000). Similarly on the civil side, it can be seen that officers from S-24 scale (Selection Grade) onwards, that is, pre-revised civil scale with start of Rs 14300 onwards, are in Pay Band -4. However again shockingly, the UOI has tried to show a Lt Col’s scale (pre-revised start of Rs 15100) of Pay Band - 4 as corresponding to the civil scale (with pre-revised start of Rs 12000) of Pay Band – 3 in order to again portray that military officers are getting higher fitments than civil officers. It is actually the civil scale with start of Rs 15100 which is now in Pay Band – 4 which could have been compared with Lt Col’s scale with exactly similar start of Rs 15100 which is also in Pay Band – 4. If we compare these two scales, it can be seen that while the point to point fixation of a Lt Col with a start of Rs 15100 has been Rs 38530 in Pay Band – 4, the exactly similar corresponding civil officer with a start of Rs 15100 has been granted a fixation of Rs 39690.

On Page 29, again the pay of a Captain in Pay Band-3 but with Grade Pay of Rs 6100 has been shown corresponding to a Junior Time Scale officer in Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs 5400 in order to prove that a Captain is getting a higher pay. However this is also totally incorrect since it can be seen that a Junior Time Scale officer with Grade Pay of Rs 5400 can only be compared with a Lieut of the Army who is also in Pay Band – 3 and who also gets a Grade Pay of Rs 5400 as becomes clear from Page 26 of the affidavit filed by UOI. Hence a civil officer with a Grade Pay of Rs 5400 who is exactly equal to a Lieutenant, is being shown corresponding to the scale of a Captain just in order to wrongly prove that the Captain is getting higher pay. Needless to say, if a lower civil scale is shown in comparison to a higher military scale, the total amount reflected in the civil scale would be lower than that of the military scale.

The following was the proper comparative situation of Army officers vis-à-vis civilians prior to 4^th CPC when rank pay was introduced. :-

III CPC

Junior Time Scale (JTS)

700 – 1300

Lieutenant

750 – 870

Senior Time Scale (STS)

1100 – 1600

Captain

1100 – 1550

Junior Administrative Grade (JAG)

1500 – 2000

Major

1550 – 1800

Selection Grade

1650 – 1800 and

1800 – 2000

Lieut Colonel (Selection Grade)

1750-1950

DIG Scale

2000 – 2250

Colonel

1950 – 2175

Addl IG Scale (later merged with IG/SAG)

2250 – 2500

Brigadier

2200 – 2400

Why can’t we ?

2011-11-10T09:31:00.001+05:30

In my humble opinion, extending Short Service Commission from the earlier applicable initial terms of 5 years to the now applicable 10 years (extendable to 14) was a blunder and has had just the opposite result of what it was meant for, that is, attracting better talent.

There are many reasons why I say so :-

A. There is no seniority protection in the civil services for former SS officers anymore, which means that an ex-SSCO starts his/her civil career alongwith civil direct recruits 10 years younger to him/her and atleast two ranks junior to his/her former status in the Army.

B. If joining the corporate world, the ex-SS officer again starts at a point of the ladder where he/she competes with youngsters who already have had a head-start which the former SS officer missed out due to his/her joining the Army.

C. Ex-Servicemen benefits are entitled only on completion of terms of engagement which means that the said benefits which were earlier available after 5 years, are now available after serving for 10.

D. 10% of appointments at Assistant Commandant (Lieutenant equivalent) level in the CAPFs are reserved for SSCOs. There is no protection of seniority. Hence, ex-SSCOs of Major and Lt Col level are expected to join at Lieut level (GP 5400) in the CAPFs which makes the entire reservation redundant.

E. After completing 10 years of service, an SSCO is in his/her 30s and to expect him/her to then look around for a fruitful career, in my opinion, is otiose.

So what can be the solution ?

Well, the Govt has been outright discriminatory with SSCOs in this regard and it seems that even the Services HQ have not been able to see through this or else they would never have allowed the initial terms to be extended from 5 to 10 years.

Why discriminatory you may ask ?.

Because, on the civil side, in accordance with Rule 49 (2) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, civil employees become eligible to earn pension after serving the govt for 10 years, whereas our SSCOs are released without a pension and are only granted a gratuity even after serving 14 years. After the 6^th CPC, civil employees are now entitled to full pension after serving 10 years under the ibid rule (it was 33 years for full pension prior to 6^th CPC). Of course the civil 10 year rule only applies to those who are released or retired after completing 10 years and not to voluntary retirees.

If the govt is so concerned about making SSC attractive, then why not have similar provisions for our SSCOs. This would not be a favour but only placing them at par with civil employees. Why place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis civilians? Not only would this provide them with financial protection, but would also encourage them to become self-employed, self-sufficient and to clamour for better placements in the civil sector rather than opting for junior appointments on the govt side only of the purpose of financial protection or pension. But I’m sure the thought process of some of us would be – If we grant pension to SS officers, then why would they opt for Permanent Commission? Well, losing a dollar while looking for a dime.

Sounding Board : Servicemembers’ Grievance Redressal Bill and Citizens’ Right to Grievance Redressal Bill

2011-11-05T08:57:00.001+05:30

About four years back, I was asked to present a draft on a proposal for a “Servicemembers’ Redressal of Grievances Act”. The outline, alongwith a presentation was also placed on this blog in May 2008.

As expected, it never saw the light of the day and still remains glued to some office table somewhere in our Capital.

However, it is interesting to observe that the Govt has come out with a draft on a “Citizens’ Right to Grievance Redress Act” which reflects an uncanny sounding board to the above idea which was restricted to personnel serving under military law.

The draft of the Servicemembers’ Redressal of Grievances Bill may be compared with the Govt’s Citizens’ Right to Grievance Redress Bill.

The complete post on the issue on this blog posted in May 2008 can be accessed by clicking here. The webpage initiated by the Govt on the proposed Bill can be accessed by clicking here. In fact, the Govt has invited suggestions on the subject which can be forwarded by 23 Nov 2011. Readers are requested to minutely go through the Govt draft and forward points for the consideration of the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances.

By the way, this blog has crossed the 4 million hit mark.

Congratulations to pre-2006 civil pensioners on Full Bench Judgement of CAT in their favour

2011-11-03T05:16:00.000+05:30

The Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has finally allowed the petition by pre-2006 pensioners seeking modified parity with post-2006 retirees. The CAT has inter alia held that the term ‘minimum of pay in the pay band’ would mean minimum of pay within the pay band corresponding to the scale held at the time of retirement and not minimum of the pay band itself as interpreted and implemented by the government through a clarification.

However, it is the following extract which specially merits mention on this blog being a subject much discussed by us here :-

“On the basis of the recommendations made by VI CPC, which stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it has been argued that principle for determining the pension has been completely altered under the garb of clarification. According to the learned counsel for the applicants on the basis of the aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

15. Applicants in para-11 of the Additional-Affidavit have explained how the Note prepared by a junior functionary (at the level of an Under Secretary) in the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare in regard to para-4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 has been given a go-by to the resolution dated 29.08.2008. The Note so prepared has been extracted in this para, which thus reads:

X X X

16. It is pleaded that first the need for such a doubt being raised is not clear as both the formulation of the CPC in para 5.1.47 as well as in Government Resolution dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure A-7 of the OA) is clear that the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (emphasis added). The use of words sum of, and thereon leaves no doubt that both the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay have to correspond to the pre-revised pay scale. Second, without bringing out merits or demerits of either formulation, the lower functionary in DOP & PW incorporates in the clarification against item 4.2 in the OM dated 1.9.2008, the first option about minimum of pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay). What is worse is that there is no application of mind even at the level of Director and Secretary who merely sign the note and the clarification is issued after obtaining finance concurrence and approval of MOS (PP), without going back to the Cabinet for such a modification.

17. The learned counsel has further argued that the resultant injustice done to the pre-1-1-2006 pensioners had even been recognized by MOS (F) and MOS (PP) in their letters to the PM and MOS (F) respectively, copies of which are at Annexures A-11 (page 169) and A-12 (page 170) of the OA. A formal proposal was also sent by DOP & PW to Department of Expenditure seeking rectification but was not accepted by the latter. It was also incorrectly mentioned that the earlier provision in para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 has been issued in pursuance of the approval of the Cabinet granted to the Report of the Sixth CPC and any change would entail substantial financial implications and this was done only with the approval of the Secretary (Expenditure) without putting up the note to MOS (F) who had himself supported the change. A copy of this Note dated 2.1.2009 is enclosed as Annexure 5. “

Proof enough how misleading notes by lower level functionaries can wreak havoc for the public at large.

Are we the masters of self-defeat ?

2011-10-30T09:07:00.008+05:30

In my recent post of October 14, though the main thrust was on the attitude of the instrumentalities of Ministry of Defence in stonewalling benefits for serving and retired members of the Armed Forces, I had also touched the issue as to how our own negative outlook, at times, was also resulting in denial of well deserved and logical service and pensionary welfare linked schemes. To this, many have responded that denial of benefits was never at the behest of, or the result of non-responsiveness of the services and that the perpetrator was always the civilian establishment.

But has this always been the case ? I think not !

The first stage of the problem is lack of understanding the intricacies of personnel related policies by people in uniform and the absence of a standardised and unified response to issues confronting us. Secondly, a subservient mind-set has encompassed us leading us to think that our position is inferior than that of the view taken by the Ministry of Defence, which, in fact, in the ultimate analysis may be the view of only a Section Officer sitting in an obscure office rather than the view of the (ill informed) competent authority in a particular arena. This subservience is also out in open public view in Courts and other fora, where the Services, rather than taking an independent stand or maintaining their own valid or fair viewpoint, tow a line thrust upon them by lower echelons of the Ministry of Defence. This is in stark difference to the approach of other Central Govt departments and even agencies of State Govts wherein different stakeholders or respondents, even if functioning under the same Ministry, do not feel shy of informing Courts, Tribunals, Commissions and other authorities, their own sovereign viewpoint on particular matters without being unduly servile. Thirdly, the legal advisors of the Services have slowly assumed the function of being ‘protectors of govt policy’ rather than playing a fair, non-adversarial, advisory role. In fact, they seem to forget that their duty is to advise the govt in assisting the Courts or other authorities in rendering justice and ensuring fair-play rather than to protect arbitrary or illogical policies to the hilt. The reaction always is ‘this is not as per policy’ rather than ‘this policy is not as per law and requires a change’. An example of the difference in such attitude as compared to the civil set-up has already been amplified by me in the above referred earlier post. The only welcome and positive perceptible change that has been seen in the recent past is in the AG’s Branch which has proactively tried to help out disabled veterans from the burden of unnecessary litigation, at times by disagreeing with the MoD. But to carry the good work forward would not only require people with a positive attitude in the AG’s Branch with the blessings of the Chief, but also a change in attitude in officers manning the JAG Branch and the DGAFMS. They should realise that they are not serving the govt, but they and the govt are together to serve the public and uphold what is actually judicious and right and not what a Section Officer or an Under Secretary thinks is right.

I have digressed. Now back to the question whether it is always the civilian establishment which denies us our dues. The following examples come to mind :-

(a) Grant of higher scale to Lt Gens after the 5^th CPC :- The 5^th CPC saw degradation of Lt Gens by way of placing them below DGPs from the IPS. A case was taken up for the rectification of the anomaly and the Services were offered on a platter that 1/3^rd Lt Gens (other than Army Commanders who were already in a higher bracket) could be upgraded. It was refused by us and our stand was- give us 100% or give us none. Now this had far reaching consequences which are there for all to see even today. Rather than taking the offer and then fighting for rest of Lt Gens, we refused it altogether as a result of which all Lt Gens remained lower in pay than DGPs and were again placed in a lower grade (HAG) than DGPs (HAG+) in the 6^th CPC. And then post 6^th CPC, after much hankering we accepted the proposal of upgradation of 1/3^rd Lt Gens to HAG+. The position would have been much better had we accepted 1/3^rd after the 5^th CPC and a higher figure after the 6^th CPC. Who was to blame ?, Not the MoD !

(b) Grant of Pay Band-4 to Lt Cols after the 6^th CPC :- I haven’t stated this openly before, but the greatest resistance for grant of Pay Band-4 to Lt Cols came from within the Army, but the same was thankfully off-set by a stellar performance by the Air Force and Navy. The objection of the Army was that there would remain no incentive for higher ranks if this were to be accepted. A banal argument in light of the fact that we were ready to face a steep degradation in status and pay vis-à-vis civilian counterparts to ensure an imaginary incentive for higher ranks !.

(c) Higher Grade Pay for Colonel vis-à-vis the rank of DIG :- The pay scale of DIG was traditionally placed between the scales of Lt Col and full Col. After the 6^th CPC, DIG was placed in a Grade Pay equivalent to a Brig. Despite forceful attempts by the Pay Commission Cells of the three services, the ultimate proposal forwarded to the Govt by the Services contained a demand of a Grade Pay of 8800 for a full Col and acceptance of 8900 for a Brig, thereby tacitly agreeing an inferior role for a Col and equation of a Brig (28 years’ service) with a DIG with 14 years’ of service. We did not seek for Colonel a GP higher than DIG and on the contrary sought a lower GP. If we do not even demand, why would they give ??

(d) Non-functional financial upgradation :- In the organised Group A Services, after the 6^th CPC, all officers are now entitled to non-functional financial upgradation till the scale of HAG (equal to Lt Gen) in case they are not promoted in the ordinary course. Hence, innocuously, unknown to our top brass, almost all civil officers irrespective of actual rank or grade, including those of the MES, are retiring with the pay and pension of Lt Gen while we continue fighting on mundane issues and wasting our energies and intelligence debating on the colour of the curtain in the VIP room (Ganga ???) in the Alpha Mess. There has been a silent takeover by the HAG on the civil side without much fanfare. When this matter was raised by the Air Force and Navy at a time when the Govt was willing to listen, it was shot down by the Army component. Realising the joke that we had played upon ourselves by not processing the proposal when it could see the light of the day, we took it up again, but this time it was rejected by the MoD. So whom do we blame ?

(e) Grant of DACP to military medicos :- When the Govt had approved the Dynamic Assured Career Progression scheme for all doctors under the central govt, there was resistance from our very own PPOC (emanating again from the Army) that this would lead to higher pay to doctors than other officers. It was also foolishly pointed out that military doctors were in receipt of the Military Service Pay also and hence did not deserve DACP. Rather than helping our very own doctors in reaping benefits announced by the govt, we resisted such benefits. On the contrary, we should have smoothly allowed the scheme to be implemented and then could have asked for rectification of other anomalies affecting other personnel. A similar inane bogey was raised in the earlier part of the last century when the Central Govt had introduced Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) for all doctors. This had led to a protest by the Army HQ that if implemented, the doctors would start getting more emoluments than other Arms and Services. A pity, isn’t it ?

(f) Non-grant of AV Report benefits to SSCOs commissioned prior to 2006 :- When the AV Singh Committee report was implemented, it was implemented for all officers serving in the Army as on 16 December 2004. Later however, our very own MS Branch discovered a ‘ghundi’ and observed that the said benefits could not be granted to SSCOs and WSES officers. When later the SSC scheme was tweaked in 2006 and the terms of engagement were changed from 5+5+4 to 10+4 years, the AV benefits were granted to all those who were commissioned under the said scheme or to those who had opted for the new terms. As a result of this, Male SSCOs commissioned prior to 2006 who are in old terms, including those who were in service in December 2004, are being promoted as quasi-substantive Captains on completing 9 years of service and are retiring in the substantive rank of Lieut even after serving for 14 years while their SSCO counterparts commissioned after 2006 are being promoted as Capt in 2 years, Maj in 6 years and Lt Col in 13 years. Similarly, WSES officers under the old terms are being promoted as Capt after 5 years and are not eligible for any substantive promotion after Capt. When there was hue and cry on the subject, our PS Directorate did take up the issue for rectification but recommended that SSCOs commissioned under the old terms should be made Capt in 5 years rather than the current 9 years !. So there you have it, we are not even magnanimous in demanding our rights. Rather than simply seeking that all officers who were in service in December 2004 or who joined thereafter should be promoted to Capt, Maj and Lt Col in 2, 6 and 13 years as per the universally applicable promotion scheme, we ourselves have been misers in demanding what should have logically flown to us without impediment. So who shall give if we do not even demand ?

(g) Placing senior officers on appointments tenable by junior civilians :- Sample this – while we continue placing Lt Cols and Time Scale Colonels as GEs, the civilian establishment sends only officers with GP 6600 or max 7600 on these appointments. On one hand we theoretically claim that a Superintending Engineer is equal to a Lt Col, while on the other we continue sending Lt Cols and Cols on appointments tenable by even Executive Engineers. We send senior Majors from the SL cadre as AGEs which is an appointment held by Subedar equivalent GP 4600 (Group B) and Lieut equivalent GP 5400 officers from the civil side. We have been posting Majors as BSOs which is an appointment tenable by Group B Officers in GP 4600 who are 4 steps junior. And this is our own doing and cadre management, and then we blame the civilians for degradation of status !. Brace yourself for the 7^th CPC.

(h) Grant of medical facilities to non-pensioner ESM including SSCOs and ECOs :- The Govt had allowed limited medical facilities to non-pensioners holding the status of ESM, including released SSCOs and ECOs. While pensioners were entitled to ECHS, such non-pensioners are entitled to outpatient medical facilities in MHs and then if required medical reimbursement by the Kendriya Sainik Board (KSB). In the early 2000s, the DGAFMS had time and again taken up with the govt that such facilities should be withdrawn but the request of the DGAFMS was not accepted. The AG’s Branch had also floated detailed guidelines on the subject authorising such affected non-pensioners to avail facilities from MHs based on medical entitlement cards issued by the Man Power (MP) Directorate. In 2009-2010 however, the DGAMFS on its own issued directions to MHs that they should not provide medical attendance to non-pensioner ESM and should not accept patients based on medical entitlement cards. This also led to failure of the Sainik Board re-imbursement scheme since there was a requirement of a certificate from an MH for availing re-imbursement under the scheme. The KSB scheme interestingly has been promulgated under the directions of the Raksha Mantri. This was ultimately resolved through litigation when the AFT directed continuance of such facilities to such affected ESM. But rather than gracefully accepting the verdict and the already existing guidelines on the subject, the DGAFMS forced the govt into appeal to the Supreme Court since this became a prestige issue for the M-Block. The SC refused a stay on the AFT judgement. This is yet another classic case as to how we are our own enemies. On one hand we are finding it extremely to attract talent to join the services as SSCOs, and on the other we ourselves are filing appeals in the Supreme Court against beneficial policies that we had ourselves initiated, and asking MHs to refuse medical treatment to extremely old ECOs who had been issued medical entitlement cards by the AG’s Branch.

Was the subject line of this blog-post hyperbolic ?

Happy Diwali – Here’s hoping for World Peace

2011-10-26T11:05:00.000+05:30

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind –

Mohandas Gandhi

Limited examination for induction into IPS soon

2011-10-20T14:11:00.001+05:30

Indications are that the Kamal Kumar report recommendations on recruitment in the IPS through a limited departmental / competitive examination has been accepted with certain modifications by the Govt.

Every year, till about 2020, the UPSC would be recruiting officers directly into the IPS through a separate examination which would be over and above the quota of officers recruited through the regular Civil Services Examination.

The QR for the above would most probably be 5 years of service in the Army or the CAPFs at Group A level. It remains to be seen whether the seniority would be protected or not. The age limit shall be 35 years which marks a 10 year reduction from the 45 years recommended by Mr Kamal Kumar.

It is hoped and wished, that the forces would be magnanimous enough in smoothly approving the release of officers who are selected in the said examination.

This is a departure from the earlier reservations expressed by senior police officers on intake of military officers in the IPS. The relevant part of the report signifying the earlier thought process runs as under :-

4.2.7. Strong reservations were voiced against the induction of Army officers too, since many of the above obstacles would have to be confronted in their case as well. It was also pointed out that the Army itself was suffering from an acute shortage of officers which was much greater than that in the IPS, and it would not be prudent in the overall national interest to poach on the Army’s officer strength. The argument against the discharged officers of the Short Service Commission was that apart from the difficulties in imparting meaningful training to them in conceptual and practical skills of crime investigation etc. aspects of policing at their late age, it had also to be kept in mind that those who were not found good enough by the Army for further retention, may hardly be found useful for the IPS.

The difference is in the attitude….

2011-10-14T09:00:00.002+05:30

Why is it that the service benefits of serving personnel and pensionary benefits of veterans continue to get stonewalled even when ordered by the Courts and Tribunals ?

It is a plain attitudinal problem.

It has been discussed here before that unfortunately defence personnel are treated as adversaries, rivals and competitors by junior level appointments in the MoD who do not let logic or truth prevail by way of misleading the senior functionaries who are actually the competent authorities in taking decisions.

A glaring extreme would be the functioning of the Pension wing of the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare of the MoD vis-à-vis the Department of Pension and Pensioners’’ Welfare (DoPPW) of the Personnel Ministry which handles pensionary benefits for civil employees.

Major pensionary decisions are taken by DoPW in a democratic manner by involving all stakeholders and by holding regular meetings with organisations of serving and retired employees, meetings which are at times chaired by the Personnel Secretary and even by the Minister. The Citizens’ Charter of the said department would reveal that the vision of the department is to “ensure a life of security, dignity and respect for central govt pensioners”. The department has totally dedicated itself to promoting welfare of pensioners and ensuring prompt revision of polices wherever required. Time frames for all functions have been conceptualised which are always adhered to. RTI requests are responded to within less than one week and in a very transparent manner. On the other hand, the Pension wing functioning under the DESW of the MoD has not even (yet) resolved certain anomalies existing since the 5^th CPC (and at places even from the 4^th CPC). The attitude is extremely anti-veteran and negative and it seems that anomalies are permitted to flourish in a designed manner. RTI requests are not replied at all or responded with utterly misleading information which could be labelled as white lies. While the DoPPW tries to minimise the effect of cut-off dates after various pay commissions or decisions, its MoD equivalent deliberately brings in cut-off dates in all its letters and policies. A most recent example would be a letter issued by the MoD on 29-09-2009 permitting disability pension to voluntary retirees but making it applicable only to those who retired after 01-01-2006. However on the other side, the DoPPW introduced the concept of Constant Attendance Allowance (CAA) for disabled civil pensioners on the lines of defence pensioners but made it applicable to all eligible civil retirees irrespective of date of retirement with arrears from 01-01-2006. Hence even a freshly introduced benefit has been applied by the DoPPW proactively to all existing eligible pensioners while the MoD has chosen to deny the benefits of an already existing policy to pre-2006 retirees.

Not just on the pension front, even for benefits of serving personnel there is always resistance from within the system specially in cases involving court verdicts. And ironically this resistance sometimes comes from within the uniformed services also as an off-shoot of bitter infighting. To take an example, whenever in cases of pay or allowances a verdict is rendered in favour of an officer by a any Court or Tribunal including the highest Court of the land, the immediate reaction is that of the ‘judgement being against govt policy’ thereby leading to filing of ego-based appeals and reviews in Courts without analysing the entire issue holistically or dispassionately on merits. And when a judgement is finally implemented, it is only done so for the person approaching the court rather than universally. Well, we need to take a cue from the civil side. Here is a circular issued by the DoPT recently extending Special Incentive Allowance @ 15% of basic pay to the non-executive staff of CBI which was ordered on the basis of a Calcutta High Court judgement rendered on 28-04-2011. Three points stand out in this circular – firstly, a judgement rendered for a single person has been very fairly implemented for all, secondly, it was not challenged in the SC in a routine manner, thirdly, the judgment was rendered towards the end of April and has already been extended to all affected in early October. This shows fairness in response and should be emulated by the MoD as also the Services HQ. What is hurting us most is the false sense of pride that some of us get by picking out faults or ‘ghundis’ in positive proposals. I myself have seen officers approaching their seniors with notings reflecting why a thing cannot be done rather than examining ways and means reflecting how it could be done. And such people think as if they are displaying their intelligence by fishing out loopholes. Sorry, but by having such an approach we are continually axing our own feet.

Need to keep our eyes shut !

2011-10-09T10:24:00.003+05:30

I hereby change track.

Let us keep our eyes shut to evade embarrassment.

I’m referring to this IANS report on re-employment of veterans in the Indian Railways.

Six decades into independence and we have not been able to ensure decent post-retirement avenues for our veterans, who, in certain ranks retire 25 years earlier than their civilian counterparts.

Need to keep our eyes open - Part III

2011-10-05T08:58:00.002+05:30

I have been forced into Part III of this post. And I am sub-dividing it into three :

1. Readers would remember this earlier post on UCO Bank. The said bank has again issued an advertisement for Security Officers seeking defence officers with 5 years’ commissioned service or Inspectors (equivalent to Subedar) from the CAPFs. Even Sub Inspectors with 8 years’ service have been made eligible. For the same posts, most of the other banks follow a QR of 5 years’ Group A service in the rank of Assistant Commandant / ASP or above for the same post. The advertisement has appeared on Page 10 of the latest issue of Employment News (01-07 Oct 2011).

2. An advertisement for the appointment of Canteen Manager at Yol Cantonment @ Rs 7000 per month has prompted the owner of a security firm to write a strongly worded letter to local military authorities. The provocation – our very own people have sought retired officers of the rank of Col / Lt Col / Maj for the job carrying a remuneration of Rs 7000. The security firm proprietor, a retired army officer, has pointed out that even security guards are paid more than this and steps like these would lead to degradation and exploitation of our own. He is right !

3. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) has sought officers of the rank of Major (GP 6600) for appointment as Security Officers / Tech (GP 5400) in the latest issue of Employment News on Page 14. The QR for the same post on the civil side is that a civil officer holding a post equivalent to a Lieut (GP 5400) can apply and so can a civil employee with 5 years of service in a post equivalent to a Subedar (GP 4600) or with 8 years of service in a post equal to a Naib Subedar (GP 4200). Hence in the ultimate analysis, a Major is being offered an appointment tenable by his civil equivalent of a Naib Subedar.

I have stated it before in my earlier post referred above, I’ll repeat it again – corrective action is not possible till the time the Services HQ postulate a dedicated cell to keep an eye on such issues.

For those who are eagerly waiting for the promulgation of the ‘status-correction’ High Powered Committee

2011-10-02T05:42:00.002+05:30

Readers would recall that during the rank-equation chaos days after the 6th CPC, the PMO had ordered the constitution of a High Powered Committee to resolve command & control and status issues vis-à-vis civil officers including those of the CAPFs and the IPS. The PMO had not issued any orders related to the members of the committee.

The HPC has not been formulated or actually constituted till date. Many of us remain eager for its formulation in the hope that the HPC would go on to resolve and restore the lost status and sheen of the forces.

I am personally of the opinion that we should not clamour for the committee.

Why you may ask ?

Because, in consequence to the directions of the PMO, the Finance Minister had issued a note to the MoD asking them to constitute the committee, a look at the members directed by the FM would be interesting :-

The Cabinet Secretary as the Head of the Committee with the Defence Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Secretary (Personnel) and Secretary (Expenditure) as members.

Now what do you expect out of a committee which does not even have one member from the actual stake holders, that is, the Defence Services ?

Zilch. Don’t wait for it.

And by the way, what is the locus of the FM in directing the composition of the committee ? Is it even a subject matter of the Fin Min ?

I pick what I like : DoPT

2011-09-25T04:58:00.000+05:30

The central govt touts itself to be transparency and information friendly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a detailed and lengthy recent judgement had upheld the right to access answer sheets. The judgement was rendered in 54 pages.

Though the judgement was landmark in every sense of the term, it is interesting to note what the DoPT - the nodal department concerning RTI, has found from within the judgement.

This latest circular issued by the DoPT, rather than conveying the spirit of the judgment which of course goes against the grain of current official policy, has picked up something which it intends to flog for its own use. It was one paragraph in the judgment that the DoPT found extremely useful and has floated to all ministries and departments and not the entire judgement. Meaning thereby, that rather than bringing the judgment to the notice of all concerned or asking public authorities to follow the judgment and its spirit, the DoPT wants them to only implement one paragraph which says that only that information is to be provided which actually exists and that only those opinions or advices can be provided which actually exist on paper. Actually, this is nothing new and is already well understood and has even been discussed on this blog way back in September 2009.

Anyway, the underlying attitudinal currents of the officers who handle the RTI wing in DoPT become very clear and lucid by way of their latest circular.

Whither transparency !

Revised rates for defence personnel : The Taj Group

2011-09-19T05:42:00.000+05:30

The Taj Group has revised its special rates for defence personnel.

The preferential rates are now applicable to Taj Hotels and Resorts located in Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Chennai, Bangalore, Jodhpur, Jaipur, Coimbatore and Chandigarh.

The special rates, benefits, terms and conditions can be accessed by clicking here.

Thanks to my friend, 'Conscience', for sending this in.

Rank mis-match : some relief !

2011-09-10T05:12:00.000+05:30

"About the only thing that comes to us without effort is old age." - Gloria Pitzer

Since the last two years, Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs – formerly known as CPOs) had been issuing advertisements for recruitment of Ex-Servicemen on a skewed rank equation. CAPFs were seeking Naib Subedars (GP 4200) to join at GP 2800 level and also Havildars (GP 2800) to join at GP 2000 level. The same was pointed out on this blog and also strongly taken up by me separately with the MHA as well as the AG’s Branch.

It seems that collective efforts have borne fruit to an extent. The CRPF is soon going to undertake a massive recruitment drive for ex-servicemen. I have been informed that a decision has been taken to rectify the rank equation as far as re-employment is concerned. Henceforth all JCOs, including Naib Subedars, would be recruited as Inspectors (GP 4600) while other ranks (including Sepoys) shall be recruited as Head Constables (GP 2400). Further, JCOs would be entitled to a handsome fixed compensation package of Rs 54000/- per month while other ranks would be entitled to a fixed package of Rs 34,000/- per month. Recruitment would be offered to those who have done courses related to explosives, field engineering and IEDs and the deployment would probably primarily be in naxal affected areas.

Goes to show that most of our problems emanate from the reason that we do not even want to try. There are people willing to listen but nothing shall move till we speak. Let us not just watch the show, let us engage ourselves with the problems that stare us in our face, and that includes the overall deterioration of our status and standing in the official hierarchy. We need to keep our eyes open, and most importantly it is the people currently in service who need to play a greater role, rather than people like us who are occupied in other professions and can at best maintain a hawk-eye but only from the side of the ring, rather than from bang in the middle of it !

Attributability on negligent handling of weapons

2011-09-06T05:49:00.000+05:30

I was party to a discussion recently wherein a senior officer was directing a junior to change the statement of attributability in a case involving negligent discharge of a small arm while on duty by a Sepoy. It was not a case of self-inflicted injury. The senior officer was of the opinion that such cases should be declared ‘not attributable to service’. He was further of the opinion that such personnel should not be made entitled to pension or disability pension in case of invalidation from service.

Is such an approach correct ?

Not at all. Firstly, such cases definitely have to be declared ‘attributable to service’ since acts and omissions while handling weapons have a direct link and nexus with military service. Would the person have suffered this particular injury had he not been in the Army? The answer would be in the negative. Hence, the correct way to address such situations is to declare the injury attributable to service and also to endorse the element of negligence, if established beyond doubt which may or may not lead to any in-house punishment. Moreover, it is not for military authorities to decide whether such personnel should be entitled to pensionary benefits or not. The right to pension should not be held mortgage to a senior officer’s personal opinion, bias or prejudice. Entitlement Rule 13(a) and Pension Regulation 175 clearly provide that in case of negligence, the disability element of pension can be reduced, but not refused.

A recommended reading on the above subject would be a case decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the year 2009 titled Kuldeep Singh Vs UOI (CWP 9566 of 2008).

But what's in a name ???

2011-09-01T07:52:00.002+05:30

The MoD has again touted the renaming of Services HQ as a major achievement as can be made out from the following report appearing in the Times of India today :

NEW DELHI: The old debate in the Indian defence establishment, about the lack of integration between the bureaucracy and the military, is back - and as expected the civilian bureaucracy has disagreed with the military leadership.

Authoritative sources said the Chiefs of Staff Committee, comprising the three Service chiefs, has complained to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the lack of integration between the ministry of defence and the three Services, saying it was contributing to prolonged delays in procurement and hampering other higher defence management activities.

According to a senior official, Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, who was the chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, in a detailed communication to the PM put forward the military concerns. It was among ACM Naik's last communications to the PM before he retired on July 31.

Sources said ACM Naik pointed out to the PM that the Kargil Review Committee, appointed after the 1999 conflict between India and Pakistan, had recommended integration between the defence ministry and the three Services, and it was duly approved by a Group of Ministers. The Committee had recommended that the "structure and interface between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Armed Forces Headquarters be comprehensively studied and reorganized". Many decisions of the GoM were implemented, resulting in the setting up of the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS), Defence Intelligence Agency etc.

Some aspects specifically regarding the integration between the MoD and the Service headquarters were also implemented, among them being the concept of the single file system. Earlier, the MoD and Service headquarters used to maintain separate files on the same subject, but this was given up. The Army and Navy headquarters have been renamed "Integrated Headquarters of MoD".

However, ACM Naik complained to the PM that the level of integration was not enough, with the civilians in the MoD having overriding powers over most crucial activities of the military, especially big ticket purchases. He suggested that it was high time that the government appointed senior military officers in the MoD, at the level of joint secretary etc, sources said.

In response, the MoD in a recent communication told the Chiefs of Staff Committee that the integration was in fact complete and was visible in several aspects. The MoD cited the single file concept and the renaming of the military headquarters to back its claims.

The Kargil Review Committee had pointed out that India perhaps was the only major democracy where the Armed Forces Headquarters were "outside the apex governmental structure". Thus the Service chiefs have "assumed the role of operational commanders of their respective forces rather than that of Chiefs of Staff to the Prime Minister and defence minister". The committee said the "Prime Minister and defence minister do not have the benefit of the views and expertise of the Army commanders and their equivalents in the Navy and Air Force so that higher level defence management decisions are more consensual and broadbased."

Leave accumulation orders amended and made applicable from 01 Jan 2006

2011-08-27T05:37:00.001+05:30

The orders regarding encashment of leave after the 6th CPC were amended vide Govt of India letter dated 12 April 2010 wherein certain changed were effectuated in the rules regarding encashment of accumulated leave. A system of encashment of accumulated leave without linkage to service length was introduced which was also made applicable to Short Service Commissioned Officers, subject to the overall limit of 300 days.

The above letter was however made applicable with effect from 01 Sep 2008 meaning thereby that it was not to apply to those who had retired / released / invalided / discharged prior to the said date, even thought the Department of Personnel and Training on the civil side had made it effective from 01 Jan 2006 by issuing an amendment.

Now the Ministry of Defence has issued a corrigendum dated 18 July 2011 taking back the effective date to 01 Jan 2006. Officers and other ranks who were released from service between 01 Jan 2006 and 31 Aug 2008 may now apply for encashment in light of the above orders, if beneficial.

Thanks to Maj Avi Sud for his persistent efforts in getting this through from the Ministry of Defence.

Immediate rechristening required

2011-08-23T05:50:00.000+05:30

“Get busy because when the devil comes, the devil comes dressed as light, Maybe they are going to fool the untrained mind, but nobody I know is going to bite. Like a thief in the night, my Lord come and strike, leave nothing but ashes to the left, dust to the right. Holocaust aside, many lived and died, but when all truth is told, would you rather be dead or be sold?” : Prince (Muse to the Pharaoh, abridged)

Regular visitors on this blog would be aware of this earlier blogpost of December 2010 wherein it was reported that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the grant of pension of regular Naib Subedar to pre-2006 discharged Havildars granted the Honorary rank of Naib Subedar. Though the govt had, on the recommendations of the 6th CPC, agreed to grant the pension of a regular Naib Subedar to Honorary Naib Subedars, the same benefit to pre-2006 retirees was kept back due to a negative interpretation of the govt orders. The position was rectified on the intervention of the Chandigarh Bench of the AFT and then affirmed by the Supreme Court.

We thought better sense would prevail. But it did not.

The MoD kept on filing appeals on the same ground before the SC and the rest of the story can be read on ‘Report My Signal blog’ by clicking here. In the ultimate analysis, it seems that even the Solicitor General was not spared by the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare with their dubious and crude tactics.

Now I’ll come to the point. How about renaming the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, how would ‘Department of Ex-Servicemen harassment’ sound ? or ‘Department of Ex-Servicemen hindrance’ ? How about ‘Department of Ex-Servicemen misfortune’ ?

Landmark decision of the Supreme Court on RTI

2011-08-17T07:20:00.000+05:30

There have been a lot of queries on this blog regarding the (much reported) latest judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The lead judgement (alongwith other bunch matters) rendered on 09 August 2011 titled CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhya affirmed the orders passed by a Division Bench of the Kolkata High Court in which the right of a citizen to access examination answer sheets was upheld.

The judgement not only deals with the question of disclosure of answer sheets but also various other aspects involving transparency and the interpretation of Section 8 of the Act. The judgement also meticulously defines the scope of ‘fiduciary capacity / relationship’ as mentioned in the Act, a term which has time and again been used by many public authorities (including by the CBSE in the main case) to deny dissemination of information.

The full text of the judgement can be accessed by clicking here.

In light of the judgement, it would be worthwhile to have a fruitful debate in the comments section of this blog-post on the subject.

Additional Gratuity to pre-1996 pensioners

2011-08-13T05:16:00.000+05:30

There is a letter floating around in veteran circles asking people to fill up a form for claiming additional gratuity in respect of those who retired prior to 01-01-1996. The said letter is purportedly based on a pronouncement by the Supreme Court.

Veterans are requested to ignore any such communication since there is no truth in the same.

Blame Game : MoD style !

2011-08-09T05:30:00.004+05:30

“We believe to err is human. To blame it on someone else is politics" : Hubert H Humphrey

The MoD is unfairly and unnecessarily blaming the Services for non-implementation of Court orders.

People who are familiar with the field of litigation in the defence services would be aware of the fact that most of the cases decided in favour of pensioners, especially disabled personnel, are not implemented in a timely manner and majority of decisions of Courts and Tribunals are implemented only after contempt petitions are filed by affected parties. Even the judgements that are implemented are done so in a reluctant manner with the feeling in the South Block being that the policies framed by the MoD are sacrosanct and that every decision against the thought-process of the MoD should be challenged in a higher Court of Law. Fair enough, since the Constitutional framework provides a right to appeal to every party to a case. But this assumes dangerous proportions when even verdict after verdict on a particular issue, including by the highest Court of the land, the MoD continues to file appeals in similar matters thereby burdening the pockets of veterans and dockets of Courts. This is done with one singular motive – that out of the many appeals filed, even if one succeeds, the MoD would be able to scuttle the move for a change in policy for the better. And this is done being fully aware that veterans cannot afford legal help, especially at Supreme Court level, and hence it is not surprising that in most of the cases where decisions were ultimately rendered in favour of the MoD the affected parties were either unrepresented or were appearing in person, the reason being common – inability to afford counsel fee.

The powers to implement Court orders have been delegated to the Services HQ. It was earlier felt that due to lack of proper understanding, the Services HQ were blindly following the dictates of the MoD, especially in pensionary matters, and recommending appeals even in settled issues and further making no moves to reduce litigation or to bring about changes in policies that had persistently faced flak from the Courts. But this changed in the recent few years when the AG’s branch and the Personnel Services Directorate truly started taking proper interest in these matters with actual application of mind resulting in some proactive policy decisions and also putting it on record that certain imbalanced policies of the MoD which were resulting in a major flux of litigation, required a re-look. It was also now clear that even in certain issues where the Services HQ were of the view that appeals were not required to be filed, the MoD still insisted on challenging the verdicts but publicly projecting that it were the Services which were going about filing appeals against their own pensioners and not the MoD since the powers to implement decisions were vested with the Services HQ. In fact, it was more than once communicated by the MoD on hard paper that they were not the ones filing appeals, but the Services HQ. This statement was, and remains, a sham. It appears that despite best efforts by all stake-holders, the perception in the corridors of the MoD, especially, the Pension Wing, is, that veterans are greedy and do not deserve more than what they are already getting. The efforts of the Services HQ to bring about a change in policy meet the waste-bin in ways more than one.

And now comes another hard to believe master-stroke. Now the MoD has blamed the Services for delay in implementation of orders by Benches of the AFT. It has also been stated before the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Defence that about 303 decisions are yet to be implemented due to the delay caused by the hierarchical structure of the services. The excuse is hogwash and so is the number since there must be well over 2000 decisions as on date which have not been implemented. 303 is a very mild figure and at best depicts an antiquated bolt action gun.

Hence in the ultimate analysis, when the public questions the MoD over appeals being filed against veterans and the disabled, it (the MoD) very conveniently blames the Services leaving the Services HQ at the mercy of public flak and ridicule, and when a Parliamentary committee questions the non-implementation of Court orders, again the Services are blamed for the delay when the actual culprit is the sadist attitude of those manning certain lower level appointments in the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare in the MoD.

The policy making mechanism at the Pension wing is leading to frustration and a sense of great disservice. In-principle decisions taken at the highest level are scuttled by lower staff by misleading file notings. Policy decisions take years to materialise, for example, certain anomalies of the 5th CPC are being resolved 15 years after the date of implementation of the 5th CPC. Rather than taking decisions at the govt level, files are sent to the offices of CGDA and PCDA(P) for drafting govt letters and seeking their opinions, whereas accountants have actually nothing to do with the process of decision making, their duty is to disburse payments based on govt policy and not make the policy itself. Rather than rectifying anomalous policies, appeals to the SC are made as a matter of routine, to take an example, the SC has in atleast 10 cases settled the issue of grant of service element to pre-1973 retirees irrespective of length of service even if the disability falls below 20%, but the MoD continues to file appeals in similar cases and at this particular moment, more than 50 appeals are pending on the subject filed by the MoD against disabled veterans, most of them over the age of 70 notwithstanding 10 verdicts in favour of veterans. In cases of disability pension, till the 5th CPC, the amount for disability element for say 20% disability was Rs 310/- per month and even in such cases appeals were filed as a matter of routine when disability pension was allowed by Courts wherein lacs of rupees were paid to the battery of counsel representing the MoD, the great MoD which has scant respect for the National Litigation Policy formulated by the Union of India, that great MoD which treats its disabled as its adversaries, that MoD which feels that pensioners are a greedy lot, that MoD which would wrongly blame the Army, Navy and the Air Force fully knowing the sleight of hand at play, that MoD whose staffers believe that they are better jurists than the Courts rendering verdicts in favour of pensioners and the proof of this attitude lies in the fact that the MoD has filed a review petition in every single case decided by the Supreme Court in favour of pensioners in the recent times.

The solution :

Solution No 1 : The top brass at the MoD including the RM, the RRM and the Secretary of the Department of ESW, starts taking proper interest in the affairs of veterans by way of initiating democratic decisions by involving all stake holders – the ESW staff, the Services, representatives of recognised veteran bodies with experts in the field. Look at the current lot dealing with the issues involving millions of veterans – An otherwise well meaning Secretary from the IAS who is retiring soon, a Joint Secretary from the Assam-Meghalaya cadre of the IAS who is currently on training and whose tenure under the Central Staffing Scheme ends this year, a Director (Pensions) who is from the Indian Forest Service and knows nothing about pensions and who would soon revert to his parent cadre, two Under Secretaries from the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) who again have no expertise in pensionary matters and who probably rule the roost of the pension branch, knowing that the department is entirely dependent on them, in all probability assuming more air of authority than what their so-called proficiency really warrants.

Solution No 2 : Disband the Army. Period.

CGDA launches monthly pension statement through email / SMS

2011-08-04T05:05:00.000+05:30

CGDA has launched a system of providing monthly pension statements to pensioners drawing their pensions from Defence Pension Disbursing Offices (DPDOs).

Pensioners have to provide minimal details to their DPDOs for receiving their monthly statements through email or SMS.

The format for availing the facility can be accessed by clicking here.

A good step, but what is needed at the earliest is a change in the attitude of those manning these offices. DPDOs remain one of the most user-unfriendly offices mired in complex red-tapism resulting in extreme agony to our pensioners, especially disabled personnel and widows. Even complaints against DPDOs are not promptly attended by their controlling agencies.

A must read : Gopalkrishna Gandhi

2011-08-01T05:29:00.000+05:30

Off-topic, but this my friends is a must-read piece by Mr Gopalkrishna Gandhi.

For the uninitiated, Mr Gandhi served in the IAS before taking up diplomatic appointments which included the Ambassadorship of Norway and Iceland. Of course, he was the Governor of West Bengal too from 2004 – 2009.

Thought provoking indeed !

Leave Rules amended

2011-07-28T07:09:00.000+05:30

Leave Rule 11(a) is reproduced hereunder :

“11(a) : Annual leave is not admissible in any year unless an individual has actually performed duty in that year. ***”

The above Leave Rule stands amended to the effect that the condition of AL not being admissible in any year unless an individual has actually performed duty that year, stands deleted and removed with effect from April 2011.

Juniors getting more pay than seniors : method of resolution

2011-07-24T09:09:00.000+05:30

After the 6th CPC, there have been instances wherein many juniors are in receipt of more pay than their seniors.

While the above is impermissible under service jurisprudence since juniors cannot be paid more than seniors, the PCDA(O) has now advised such officers to take up such instances with their office through the MS Branch (and not directly) with full comparative particulars.

A small flash on the subject is available on the official website of PCDA(O) and a circular on the subject (though pertaining to the 4th CPC) can be accessed by clicking here.

The above is only applicable to those who are in service or those who retired after 01-01-2006.

Sad Sign of the Times !

2011-07-20T05:03:00.001+05:30

Things have come to a dangerous pass.

Appalling already was the scheme of events in our nation, with veterans and the government in a logjam and protests related to pensionary anomalies reaching the streets.

As most of us know, the Supreme Court had recently recalled its orders related to the constitution of the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission. What follows is this official press release by the Ministry of Defence almost celebrating the recalling of the orders, commemorating the victory of the Ministry of Defence over veterans and stating that the poor widow in the case had ‘incorrectly represented’ facts before the Court, while actually there was no such observation of ‘incorrect representation’ by the Hon’ble Apex Court itself in its orders.

Does an official press release such as this behove a government agency ? Is the recalling of a judicial order official-news material, if that be so, then all departments should regularly issue press releases every single day on the hundreds of cases decided daily involving them, this way or that way.

While on the surface, this press release may seem to be innocuous, but lying beneath is a thought process that is thoroughly and distastefully disgusting – the thought process that defence veterans are adversaries of the MoD. It is an MoD Vs Veterans state of mind. Otherwise, why would there be a celebratory official PIB press release on the recalling of an order that was so dear to the hearts of the defence community ? Can this be expected in any developed democracy ? Can we imagine the Department of Defence of the US or the Ministry of Defence of the UK issuing a press release celebrating the recalling of a Court order favouring veterans ?

This simply shows that the Department of Ex-Servicemen (sic) welfare (sic again) is on an auto-pilot mode with no control of the political executive. A celebration like this shows the sick minds working overtime deriving sadistic pleasure every time a veteran suffers. Though not in favour of the commission from the outset, the Defence Minister would never have allowed a press release like this, even the Secretary Ms Neelam Nath would not allow this – but in all probability they do not know what is happening under their noses since running the roost are lower level officials who continue to be jealous of the Re 1/- discount availed by defence personnel on each Hamam Sabun ki tikki from the CSD. And these are the people who remain faceless but dangerously venomous scuttling each and every move made for the welfare of serving and retired personnel – including ones initiated and approved in principle by the top brass of the Ministry.

Once again, Hail the note maker. Hail the reverse pay commission.

The concept of Area Welfare Officers (AWOs), were you aware of it ?

2011-07-17T08:53:00.000+05:30

The central govt has in place a progressive concept called the AWO scheme.

These are officers of the central govt who are tasked with looking after the welfare of central govt employees and their families in designated areas.

More on the concept can be read by perusing this circular issued by the DoPT.

An interesting concept which can prove to be quite beneficial if implemented and executed prudently.

Modalities for grant of monetary allowance related to gallantry awards

2011-07-13T07:57:00.000+05:30

Certain queries are time and again raised with respect to gallantry awards, the most common being as to whether the allowance is admissible to heirs on the death of the awardee. Some of the answers to these oft-repeated queries are :-

A. On death of a recipient, the allowance is transferred to the widow.

B. The widow is entitled to receive the allowance till death or re-marriage. The amount however continues to be paid to a widow who remarries the brother of her late husband.

C. In case of a posthumous award to a bachelor, the allowance is payable to father or mother.

D. In case of an awardee being a widower or widow, the amount is to be paid to children below 18 years or unmarried daughters.

E. DA is not admissible on the allowance.

SC recalls order on constitution of Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission

2011-07-09T07:45:00.001+05:30

Visitors would recall this blogpost of 13 February 2011 wherein it had been pointed out that the Govt had apprised the Hon’ble SC of steps being taken by it to alleviate the problems of veterans. This was in the ongoing petition in which orders had been passed for constitution of the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission thereby hinting to the Court that the said commission was not required.

In the same very case, the SC has now recalled the directions for constitution of the AFGRC.

The relevant part of the latest order of the SC is reproduced below :

“Learned Solicitor General has also submitted that for looking after the welfare of the ex-servicemen a scheme has been put in place by the Union of India, which has been setout in great detail in the application filed in this Court by the Union of India. Under that scheme nodal officers have been posted all through the country and there are special schemes which have been introduced for the purposes of medical benefits and re-settlement of ex-servicemen. In view of the above, we recall the Order dated 15.11.2010 passed by this Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.”

Revised allowances for Pre-independence awards

2011-07-08T08:34:00.001+05:30

The earlier post on this blog on the subject related to Post-independence gallantry awards only.

The allowances for Pre-independence awards have also been revised by the Ministry of Defence as below :

Distinguished Service Order (DSO), Indian Order of Merit (IOM) and Indian Distinguished Service Medal (IDSM) : Rs 4000 per month

Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), Military Cross (MC), Distinguished Flying Cross (Officers) (DFC), Distinguished Service Medal (DSM), Military Medal (MM) and Distinguished Flying Medal (Other Ranks) (DFM) : Rs 2800 per month

Each bar shall carry the same (additional) amount as the original award.

Illegal badges of rank being worn by junior IPS officers of the J&K cadre : Home Ministry takes action

2011-07-05T07:05:00.001+05:30

Regular visitors would recall this blogpost of 10 January 2011 wherein it was pointed out as to how officers of the Senior Time Scale (Grade Pay Rs 6600) posted as district police chiefs (SSPs) in the state of J&K were wearing the ‘State Emblem with Two Stars’ with blue gorget patches on their collars which was in contradiction to the IPS Uniform Rules. The military counterparts of such officers (Majors) and also their IPS batchmates in other states are wearing the State Emblem alone. This illegal action was being allowed to flourish by the State Govt ostensibly to ‘boost the morale’ of such young officers and to ‘aid’ their interaction with senior Army officers and those of the CAPFs.

I had taken up the issue at the highest levels of the Home Ministry and have now been apprised that the MHA has already invited the attention of the J&K Govt on the subject and has directed the Chief Secretary of J&K to take action in this regard and ensure that the rules are followed in letter and spirit. It may be recalled that the MHA had earlier confirmed that no such permission had been granted to officers of J&K to wear higher badges of rank than the ones actually admissible under the rules.

The MHA surely deserves kudos for taking a swift and immediate corrective action on the subject when pointed out the above incongruity.

List of military allowances hiked by 25 % (Flying Allowance included)

2011-06-29T19:18:00.001+05:30

The latest list of military allowances that have been increased by 25% consequent to the DA being revised to 51% w.e.f 01 Jan 2011, can be accessed by clicking here.

As enquired by many officers on this blog, Yes, the flying allowance has also been increased by 25% w.e.f the beginning of the current year.

Note : Comment moderation and publishing of new blogposts would be slow for the next few days during the absence of Maj Navdeep Singh who is on vacation.

Dependency criterion for ordinary family pension is not Rs 3500 but is Rs 3500 + applicable Dearness Relief

2011-06-28T09:12:00.001+05:30

Some Record Offices have not been processing the ordinary family pension claims of parents of unmarried personnel who die due to causes declared neither attributable to, nor aggravated by military service, on the pretext that the total earnings of the parents exceed Rs 3500 per month.

This is incorrect. The dependency criterion is now Rs 3500 + applicable Dearness Relief and no longer any fixed amount. The rules were changed after the 6th CPC.

During the currency of the 5th CPC, the income criterion was a fixed amount of Rs 2550 and the DA quotient was not taken into account. However after the 6th CPC, apart from increasing the amount to Rs 3500, the govt further notified that the Dearness quotient would be added into the amount of Rs 3500.

CBI, NIA and NATGRID out of the RTI loop

2011-06-21T21:21:00.001+05:30

The government has issued a notification exempting the CBI, NIA and the National Intelligence Grid from the RTI loop by adding them into the second schedule of the RTI Act.

It is also interesting to note that while the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) were already featured in the second schedule, the same is not true of the defence services. Hence, to exemplify, while the Army is fully amenable to the RTI Act, the BSF is not. Incongruous to say the least.

Actually, it is also not understandable as to why the second schedule is required at all. The Act already exempts information related to operational matters, investigation, national security etc from disclosure and hence any such information can inherently be denied under the Act, notwithstanding the availability of the second schedule. In fact, when the proposal to place the CBI in the second schedule was mooted, there were voices within the govt which favoured the dissolution of the second schedule altogether and for denying information under the relevant sub-clauses of Section 8 of the Act whenever required, which in fact would have been a more just course.

Well, whatever floats the boat !

Note : Comment moderation and publishing of new blogposts would be slow for the next few days during the absence of Maj Navdeep Singh who is on vacation.

Guest Post : BeeCee says more than before

2011-06-18T02:08:00.003+05:30

Regular readers would be aware of BeeCee’s earlier posts on the blog. Well, he seems pretty disturbed by certain issues which he has tried to address through the below reproduced communication to me. Though these are his own personal views and I may not subscribe to all his observations regarding the Services HQ, still his write-up may be an eye-opener about the damage already done. I do however agree that we, in uniform, have been sending conflicting signals to the establishment and have not been magnanimous while placing our demands before the govt or the CPCs. To take an example, when the VI CPC downgraded the ranks of Col & Brig and equated a Brig with a DIG by granting them an equal Grade Pay of Rs 8900, instead of a seeking a Grade Pay of more than 8900 for a Col for retaining the earlier edge (Col had a start of Rs 17100 while a DIG started at 16400 during the V CPC) we as a corrective measure sought a Grade Pay of Rs 8800 for a Col and accepted the Grade Pay of Rs 8900 for a Brig thereby tacitly and incorrectly sending out a signal that we had agreed that a DIG was senior to a Col and was equal to a Brig. Whereas the correct way out would have been to seek a minimum Grade Pay of Rs 9000 for a Col. Only if we ask for it would there be a chance of getting it !. Another example – in many mixed organizations, Lt Cols (V CPC start of Rs 15100) were and are functionally equated with Director level officers (Rs 14300 in V CPC) and at places were even writing ACRs of such civilian officers but our very own office of DGAFMS still has an Army Order in vogue that states that Deputy Secretaries (V CPC start of Rs 12000) can write the ACRs of Lt Cols !!! So whom to blame ? the bureaucracy or our own lack of deeper understanding and reluctance to keep on board people with expertise and rather being satisfied with GD officers who run the show with ‘minute sheet’ culture in all such issues including CPCs.

Anyway, here is BeeCee’s mail and I may again reiterate that these are his own views :

Dear Navdeep,

I happened to speak to some long retired Major/ eqvts fighting for an improvement in their pensions, and to some other officers regarding OROP recently. I was surprised by the extent of damage and it is quite clear that this is not going to be resolved till officers (serving/retired) understand what the real problem is, and find a permanent solution. I am once again reminded of our friend Pragmatic's quote from Chesterton, "It is not that they don't know what the solution is, what they don't know is the problem".

I have been generally following such issues since '95 but am not aware of any occasion between 1987 (IV CPC) and 2007 (VI CPC) except the High Level Committee post V CPC (3 Vice-Chiefs, Def Sec & Secy (Def Fin)) when the Services HQ put up a reasoned case for the arrest of the downslide that started at the IV CPC. Ironically, implementation of this was undermined by another Committee comprising of the Chiefs and the Cabinet Secy. Therefore the most important issue is for Services HQ and retired senior officers to come clean and connect the gap between their public posturing and what has been actually sought from the Govt, CPCs etc. Officers react or offer comments based on the 'public posturing' of such worthies while GOI/ MOD/ CPCs respond to what has actually been asked for by the Service HQ. As long as this gap is not bridged, replays alternating between tragedy and farce will go on. Karl Marx may be out of fashion now, but his remark on history is apt for our pay/personnel issues.

OROP and Major's Pension

Despite a reasonable understanding of pay/personnel issues, I cannot comprehend the on-going OROP theatrics. I may be wrong, but Pension rules providing past pensioners 50% of the minimum of the relevant ‘replacement pay’ in the new pay band actually provide something very close to OROP for all. In any case, the argument that you are progressively getting ‘downgraded in pay' and a demand for old pensioners to get the same pension as new ones do not exactly compliment each other. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect OROP is another red herring and an effort to cover up somebody's monumental incompetence at CPCs and of course at the Bagga/ AVS report. This is starkly evident in the Major's predicament on pensions.

I have seen some blog commentaries, approach papers etc on OROP. Most of them state that the Lt Col is getting too much as compared to the Major, Lt General gets too much over Maj Gen or arguments in a similar vein, by comparing the pensions of different military ranks after Vth and VIth CPCs. I have not seen any discussion that compares the pensions with similarly placed Civilian, CG or CAPF officers. While I too haven't done a full calculation yet for lack of access to specifics, I am confident that such a comparison will not only show where the problem lies, but also expose the dismal complicity of Services HQ in the denial of dues to their own officers.

Take a look at the pension orders for pre-2006 pensioners. In principle, it is the same for both military and civilian officers. 40% increase above 'existing pension,' subject to 50% of the minimum on the 'replacement pay'. Sounds fair and just. But gets absolutely unjust when you look at the actual figures.

A long retired Major and a Director/Comdt(SG) had similar pension and would have similar increase in pension when you do a 40% addition to 'existing pension'. But when you take 50% of the minimum of 'replacement pay', the Major gets 14,100/- and the Director/Comdt gets about 23,050. The civilian effectively gets almost twice the pension of his pre-VI CPC military counterpart. Any surprise that the ‘Civilian’ scoffs at OROP and is laughing all the way to the bank. The Major doesn't know (and doesn't bother to find out) what hit him and as a matter of habit gets in line behind a bunch of guys shouting OROP, OROP making a spectacle of themselves and the veterans community in general. But how did we come to this pass?

It is the Services HQ through Bagga/AVS report that sought the degradation of the Major to 'minor'(from NFSG/Above JAG pay to STS level). This was implemented by the VI CPC. Did they not have the wit to realise that OROP will ensure that retired Majors also would have their pensions reduced to the STS level even though it was earned at a much higher scale?

It is not only Majors, even after the Bagga/AVS instigated downfall, the Lt Col was at par with Director/Comdt(SG), but for some inexplicable reason, Service HQs sought equation of the Col (who was above DIG by pay, service, protocol & pension till the VI CPC) with Director/ Comdt and of the Brig with DIG. This has led to a fall in the pension for all such pre-2006 pensioners and pay/status of officers post VI CPC.

To an observer, the whole situation would be comical. You first have a bunch of guys asking for and obtaining a reduction in pay, status and well earned pension. Then you have them again surrendering their hard won medals in protest because the GOI generally agreed to their own demand of reduction in pay and pension through Services HQ. No wonder the political class is confused and others are sniggering at such displays of incompetence laced with threats of emotional blackmail. Are retired officers so semantically and arithmetically challenged that they cannot see matters for themselves and call those responsible to account?

What the pre-2006 Maj/Lt Col/Col/ Brig should seek is not OROP, but Restoration of pre-2006 pension with the same improvement (in percentage terms) over existing pension as has been given (by the VI CPC) to similarly placed civilians. Do this simple extrapolation (which will exclude the AVS/VI CPC interventions from Services HQ) and see the results. Services HQ in any case do not have the mandate to propose a reduction in the pension of those already retired. I would also suggest seeking some penal compensation from those who brought officers to this sorry state.

I used to call these as self-inflicted damages. But that is not really true. These are damages inflicted by selected individuals against their own colleagues. CPCs, MOD, bureaucracy et al may be complicit in the crime. After retirement, they compound matters by calling for OROP, return medals, hold jamborees at Jantar Mantar and so on to continue leading the credulous up the garden path. But if they claim to speak for all ESM it is an insult to my (and many other veterans') intelligence.

In retrospect, I feel really relieved that the scope of the CPCs and Cadre Reviews did not cover uniforms. Or else, our 'experts' would have proposed 'the Emperor's new clothes' for those serving. May sound funny, but past experience is depressing and indicates that our guys would have not only worn them happily, but strutted about in them like the Emperor in all his glory.

I know these are harsh words. But it is time somebody blew the whistle on these shenanigans that have taken away the financial security and dignity of officers and reduced them to the level of supplicants. Nor does it speak well of the officer corps that the individuals responsible are not shown up for what they have done.

Above all, I do not understand the compulsion of Services HQ to be less than forthright with serving and retired officers. This fudging of the factual situation leads to delusional behavior by some officers, abusing all and sundry and generally making a laughing stock of themselves. What is worse, it is symptomatic of the lack of 'downward accountability' that seems to have become the norm at Service HQs. Services HQ need to merely publish the following data in respect of the VI CPC(include IV & V CPC too if you want to see the full extent of perfidy) to start an informed discussion.

A. Pre VI CPC pay of officers vs corresponding/ nearest civil pay scales
B. Services proposals to the CPC regarding pay grades and equivalence of officers
C. Post VI CPC pay of Service officers and the corresponding civil scales/grade.
D. Pre and post VI CPC pensions of the above officers.

No one needs to take my word on this and I am willing to have a public conversation on the subject and apologise if I am wrong. Hence I am posting it to many who may have an interest in resolving the matter. You may also post it on your blog if you think it's appropriate.

All the best

BeeCee

US Army officially appoints its first Indian religious teacher

2011-06-15T06:42:00.000+05:30

The US Army has officially appointed its first Hindu religious teacher (Chaplain) – Capt Pratima Dharm.

Chaplains in the US Army are of commissioned rank unlike the Indian Army where they are JCOs. There are currently about 1000 hindus serving the US Army.

More can be read about the development by clicking here.

Note : Comment moderation and publishing of new blogposts would be slow for the next few days during the absence of Maj Navdeep Singh who is on vacation.

Handicapped veterans to get priority in Canteens

2011-06-12T07:11:00.003+05:30

The QMG’s branch has issued instructions to all Commands that handicapped veterans would be granted priority while purchasing items from Canteens.

Handicapped veterans would also be allowed the help of an attendant inside the canteen premises.

A welcome gesture for the disabled.

Note : Comment moderation and publishing of new blogposts would be slow for the next few days during the absence of Maj Navdeep Singh who is on vacation.

Bring naval provisions in line with army and air force law : AFT

2011-06-05T16:27:00.001+05:30

In a welcome landmark decision, the Chennai Bench of the AFT has called upon the authorities to consider incorporation of procedural safeguards in naval rules in line with what is provided under army and air law thus meeting the requirements of principles of natural justice. Similar decisions were rendered in the past too.

The same was reported in ‘The Tribune’ recently and is reproduced hereunder :

Amend dismissal Rules, AFT tells Navy

Tribune News Service

In a significant ruling that could set into motion a process to amend certain provisions of the Navy Act, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has held that regulations pertaining to the powers of summary dismissal vested in naval authorities do not meet the ends of natural justice.

Unlike corresponding provisions in the Army Act and the Air Force Act, which bring out clearly the fundamental provision of providing an opportunity through examination of the witnesses and the right to cross-examination by the accused in the presences of an independent witness, the Tribunal observed that provisions of the Navy Act lack requisite inbuilt safeguards.

“It will be pertinent to draw the attention of the respondents (Navy Chief) to the peculiar situation, in which the personnel of the Navy are seeking redressal in High Courts and AFTs, due to the summary powers of dismissal vested in the Navy Act,” said the Tribunal’s bench, comprising Justice AC Arumugaperumal Adityan and Lt Gen S Pattabhiraman.

Disposing of a writ pursued by the widow of a sailor who was dismissed by a summary court martial for allegedly falsifying official documents, the Tribunal set aside the punishment and ruled out that her husband would be deemed to have retired from service and that she would be entitled to family pension from the date of her husband’s death. The Tribunal held the summary trial to be vitiated since it was against the principles of natural justice.

The sailor was dismissed from service in May 2000 and sentenced to 90 days rigorous imprisonment besides reduction in rank. He died in November 2010 during the pendency of the writ filed by him earlier. He had contended that he had not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself during his summary trial.

The Tribunal also directed the Navy Chief to consider incorporation of suitable measures to make the provisions of Regulations 27 and 29 of the Regulations for the Navy, Part -II (Statutory) to be in conformity with the safeguards as built into the corresponding provisions of the Air Force and the Army Acts, since the summary disposal powers of dismissal cannot be treated as an admonition.

Another salvo from the MEA, another hit for military status. Sad, very sad.

2011-06-02T05:25:00.003+05:30

“Don’t make me chase you, even doves have pride” : Prince (When Doves Cry, Purple Rain, 1984)

Regular readers would remember this post of December 2009 where it was discussed as to how the MEA was imposing a self-calculated status equivalence on commissioned officers and also on those of Group A services other than the IFS.

Well, even at the time when the above post was published, the anomaly had already been corrected to a degree vide an MEA letter dated 18-02-2009 wherein equation of non-IFS officers, including military officers and those from the State Govts and Universities, was fixed vis-à-vis IFS officers based on Grade Pay. This was the status equivalence promulgated vide the ibid letter :-

Officers with Grade Pay (GP) of Rs 5400 and above but less than Rs 6600 were to be equated with Third Secretaries.

Officers with Grade Pay (GP) of Rs 6600 and above but less than Rs 7600 were to be equated with Second Secretaries.

Officers with Grade Pay (GP) of Rs 7600 and above but less than Rs 8700 were to be equated with First Secretaries.

Officers with Grade Pay (GP) of Rs 8700 and above but less than Rs 10000 were to be equated with Counsellors.

Officers with Grade Pay (GP) of Rs 10000 and above were to be equated with Ministers.

This in a way checked the anomaly of equivalence as well as allowances since military officers were earlier being granted status and allowances much below their actual standing and service.

But now, on 10-12-2010, the MEA has issued another order in supersession of the above one, reiterating the rank equivalence mentioned above, but with the following rider in Paragraph 4 :-

“The rank equivalence of military officers on assignment or deputation under any programme of the govt of India will be determined on the basis of their military rank as per the existing system”.

So there you have it, while the anomaly stands corrected for all other services, the incorrect status equation remains for the men and women in uniform. In fact, the status in a way has further been downgraded. To take an example, an officer of the rank of Colonel who enjoys a Grade Pay of Rs 8700, and who is actually equivalent to a Counsellor in foreign missions, would remain clubbed with officers with Grade Pay of Rs 7600 (First Secretaries) who are junior even to a Lt Col. There are organisations within the Govt of India where civil officers with the GP of Rs 8700 are reporting to Colonels who are also writing their ACRs, and if hypothetically both such officers were to be deputed to a mission abroad, then the junior civil officer would be equated with a Counsellor while his actual senior in India, the Colonel, would be outranked and equated with a First Secretary while on foreign shores. There are also examples wherein for certain purposes, senior serving Lt Cols and equivalent are being forced with an equation to Second Secretaries who at time comprise of officers with only 4 years of Group A service in case of direct appointees, and even worse, Group B officers (formerly Class II, equal to JCOs) just promoted to Group A with less than even a single year of Group A service.

Why the entire exercise seems more absurd is that even officers of the State Govt have been granted the correct status in accordance with their Grade Pays while the military has been left out.

The services must take this up strongly with the MEA otherwise this would have far reaching ramifications on the already depressed military status. Such undemocratic one-way letters are uncalled for. All such letters must be issued after taking every stake-holder, in this case the military establishment, on board.

Meanwhile, the doves cry.

Proactive measures by the AG’s branch for reducing unnecessary litigation, especially for disabled personnel

2011-05-28T05:33:00.001+05:30

Probably for the first time in history, the current Chief and the AG with his team have taken various proactive steps to bring down litigation involving veterans and their families providing the much required succour to the ex-service community.

It has been discussed umpteen number of times here on this blog that in certain areas unnecessary litigation was being thrust upon veterans and their families and the problem was even more severe in cases involving disabled personnel. Firstly, it had been observed that certain policy letters issued by the MoD were totally devoid of logic and then the interpretation of some other policies by certain authorities was diametrically opposed to the actual spirit behind the said policies. Also it was observed that cases in courts were egotistically handled and taken as an affront to the ‘system’.

Not anymore.

The Army HQ, perhaps for the first time, has identified gaps in pensionary provisions which require correction. Though taking up of such issues had been a continuous process earlier too, the current crop of officers is doing the same with a vigour that was sadly missing in the past and the effort would show better results this time for sure due to the concentrated nature of the zeal being displayed. It is also being ensured that minimal appeals are filed in pensionary matters within the four corners of the powers delegated to the Services HQ. The boldness of action, rightly and justly exercising delegated powers, and pointing out anomalies to the Government is also a healthy sign of an apt democratic decision making process.

The best part of some of the recent decisions taken by the Personnel Services Directorate, and more specifically PS-4 (Legal), is that record offices have been directed to withdraw from appeals and cases in which the law or even govt policy is well settled. The record offices have been directed to process such cases for grant of benefits suo moto on filing of a case by a veteran since such litigation results in wastage of resources of veterans as well as the govt. Some of such issues where litigation has been ordered to be withdrawn are - cases where disabilities were declared as attributable / aggravated by the medical board but rejected by the office of PCDA(P) or administrative bodies, cases where disabled OR and JCOs had been refused grant of disability pension on the pretext of having been ‘discharged at own request’ etc.

Apart from rectifying anomalies at the objective policy level which basically involves the MoD, we need to carry out certain in-house subjective changes as well, especially in the arena of disabled personnel. The well meaning Chief’s declaration of 2011 as the ‘Year of the disabled soldier’ should be taken as a clarion call by the M-Block and the DGAFMS should initiate some proactive, and at places revolutionary, measures to ensure that the guidelines determining attributability and aggravation of disabilities due to service conditions are made more practical, medical, modern and humane. The plethora of litigation in this field is not because of MoD policies but because of a mathematical approach being followed by us which is far removed from the practical realities on ground. We are continuously closing our eyes to the fact that military service does involve more stress and strain than other professions. It is a fact universally recognised and accepted, and India cannot be, and is not, an exception.

With the correct attitude already in place, 2011 may actually lead to some very important positive changes in this area which may be subtle, but absolutely pertinent for the psyche and morale of our former and current service members.

Hail the note maker (pun intended)

2011-05-25T08:41:00.003+05:30

Well, this has been discussed on this blog earlier –

here,

here, and

here.

Mr P Lal, IPS, provides some more insight into the issue in a middle that appeared today in ‘The Tribune’ which is worth reproducing :

The babu and the bureaucrat

P. Lal

IAS officers generally take umbrage at being called babus! They prefer being referred to as bureaucrats.

But who is a bureaucrat? And who is a babu?

As commonly understood in India, a babu belongs to a lower echelon in the official hierarchy. A clerk in an office may be referred to as a babu, and a head-clerk as the bada babu giving the latter a touch of respectability.

Historically, however, bureaucracy emerged as a dominant mode of human organisation in factories, offices and industrial establishments, more than 300 years ago in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. It proved to be an effective tool of management in business organisations, factories and industrial empires. Thus, the bureaucracy was born in the private sector and effortlessly travelled to the government sector where, too, it showed its efficiency, deliverd goods and services and conformed to rules. By doing so, it acquired power. One who held an office in the system came to be known as a bureaucrat.

Thus, the branch manager of a bank or the Chief Medical Officer of a district is as much a bureaucrat as a Deputy Secretary in a ministry or the SHO of a police station.

Max Weber, the political thinker and social scientist, who researched ‘bureaucracy’ extensively in private and government organisations, prophesied its triumph and declared its three important characteristics to be permanence, hierarchy and a division of labour.

The element of permanence led C. Northcote Parkinson to propound, as far back as 1957, his famous law: “work expands to fill the time available for its completion.” He deduced as a corollary that there was little or no relationship between the work and the staff for its execution. Therefore, the rise in work-force would be much the same whether the volume of work were to increase, diminish or even disappear. To prove his point, he showed that the men in the colonial office in London increased from 372 in 1935 to 450 in 1939, to 817 in 1943, 1139 in 1947, and 1661 in 1954, whereas the size of the British Empire shrunk rapidly.

But, who is more important — the babu or the bureaucrat?

‘The law of inverse importance’ is relevant in this connection. According to it: “Exceptions apart, the real importance of a functionary in a bureaucratic organisation in regard to the nature of decision on a case, is inversely proportional to the rank that he occupies in that organisation.”

Thus, a note put up by an assistant, in a majority of cases, would be approved by the competent authority who is mostly an officer-bureaucrat who would just initial the file ( a more practical-minded one may write ‘ not approved’, to be changed, at an ‘opportune’ time, to: ‘note approved’). If the assistant doesn’t put up the note, there is no way a decision can be taken. And, therein lies his power!

A record-keeper clerk is even more important than the assistant, though lower in hierarchy. It is he who maintains the files, puts up the PUC (paper under consideration) and adds the precedent case files. He can make the fresh receipts (PUCs) disappear, make the whole files perform the vanishing trick or only such pages of them as are inconvenient. He can add precedent cases — favourable or unfavourable — depending on which party he wants to favour. After all, the decision makers find it safe to tread the path shown by precedents.

So, officer-bureaucrats (in all bureaucracies), cheer up. There is nothing to crib about being called babus!

Full reservation for wards of military personnel in Army College of Medical Sciences is illegal and unconstitutional : Supreme Court

2011-05-22T04:50:00.001+05:30

This morning does not bring very good news.

In a judgement that may have far reaching consequences, and perhaps a cascading effect on other institutes as well, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that reserving all seats for wards of army personnel in the Army College of Medical Sciences (ACMS), Delhi, was illegal and unconstitutional, and the college, even though run by the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES), shall be amenable to the reservation policy as applicable in Delhi under the relevant statute and, of course, the Constitution of India.

The 164 page judgement covers the length and breadth of the reservation policy under the Constitution as well as the issue whether an unaided non-minority educational institution can have the liberty of admitting students of its own choice. The Court while fully acknowledging the difficulties faced by defence personnel and their wards, has held that notwithstanding such issues, it was not permissible for the ACMS to dedicate itself only to wards of army personnel.

The judgement of the SC would not affect admissions undertaken in the past.

The following paragraph of the judgement essentially explains the spirit of the judgement :-

……If we find that every unaided educational institution can define its own source, then we run head long into a situation wherein the entire field of higher education is carved up into “gated communities”, with each new educational institution defining its own source in whichever manner it may choose to, as long as overt and invidious constitutional grounds of classification are not resorted to. How will the scholars in those colleges interact with people from other communities, other social backgrounds, so that they can perceive and conceive the manner in which they may have to apply what they are learning to solve the problems in the wider social context of India? Where would such classifications stop? Would members of the judiciary, both higher and lower, then determine that they will start many law colleges which will only admit wards of such members of the judiciary? Would Indian Administrative Officers, along with some slightly lower level in the administrative rung then have a similar right? Would the members of the police force also then get such rights? Would NASSCOM or a group of software companies say that they want to start software engineering colleges that will open their portals only to those who belong to NASSCOM? Where will this stop? How will this nation take the burden of such walled and divided portals of knowledge? What will become of the prayer of our national poet laureate, that knowledge be free and where the world is not broken up into fragments of narrow domestic walls? Have we set ourselves on the path to such divisiveness, at the very source of the one force that could liberate us and unite us, and make us a more egalitarian society? If we were to uphold the logic of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, which we cannot under the ratio of TMA Pai, and P.A. Inamdar, but under “complete justice jurisprudence” of Article 142, then we would have set ourselves on a slippery slope, whereby the entire field of higher education would comprise of “gated communes” or some new and perverse form of caste system, where existing advantages, of occupations, social and economic stature, would get ossified only within a small segment of the population. Surely, fundamental rights have been granted to the citizens, to be free and build a better society or at least refrain from actions that would create further walls of social division……

Improved Scales for JCOs and OR notified in March 2010 : More amendments, deletions, additions notified by the MoD

2011-05-19T04:23:00.000+05:30

This is with regard to the new scales notified in consequence to the recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries in March 2010.

The MoD has carried out changes in the said master letter issued on 08 March 2010.

The new letter issued on 15 April 2011 alongwith the PCDA(P) Circular dated 11 May 2011 can be accessed and downloaded by clicking here.

Notably, the MoD has cancelled and deleted Table No 133 which dealt with pensionary entitlements of Viceroy Commissioned Officers (VCOs) granted Honorary Commissions. The enhanced pension rates notified for VCOs granted Honorary Commissions now stand relegated to regular rates as applicable to other Hony Officers.

Most other substantive amendments relate to Warrant Ranks of the Indian Air Force.

US Court of Appeals comes down heavily on the Department of Veterans’ Administration especially in respect of psychiatric disabilities

2011-05-16T05:45:00.002+05:30

In a judgement pronounced on 11 May 2011, the US Court of Appeals has held unconstitutional the sloppy treatment of American Veterans with service-connected ailments and the long cumbersome system for grant of disability benefits.

In a scathing 140 page judgement, the US Court of Appeals has ruled that the Veterans’ Administration (VA), akin to our Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, suffers from ‘unchecked incompetence’. The Court concluded, "VA's unchecked incompetence has gone on long enough; no more veterans should be compelled to agonize or perish while the government fails to perform its obligations."

The Court also came down heavily on the system where the attributability documents are kept confidential and not shown to veterans unless the affected person applies under the ‘Freedom of Information Act’.

The Court also observed that the procedures followed by the system in grant of disability benefits were not neutral and weighed in favour of the government.

On the claim of sovereign immunity forwarded by the US government, the Court remarked that the British ‘King can do no wrong’ principle was not one which could be happily imported into the American system, especially for those who were dying for the nation.

The Court also judicially recognised, perhaps for the first time, that military personnel indeed had a higher rate of suicidal tendencies than the rest of the populace. The Court observed that in the absence of proper safeguards, veterans were 'suffering and dying, heedlessly and needlessly.' It was also recorded in the order that the appeals process initiated by the VA amounted to depriving disabled veterans of their property.

The Court concluded that the US Constitution conferred upon former service-members and their surviving dependants a right to effective care and just and timely adjudication of their service-connected death and disability benefits and that these Constitutional rights were being violated by the VA.

Interestingly, the judgement was rendered by a majority of 2 – 1 with one judge dissenting with the majority view. The opening line of dissent runs as follows :

“The majority hijacks the Dept of VA’s mental health treatment and disability compensation programs and installs a district judge as a reluctant commandant-in-chief…”

The case was filed against the VA by Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth, both non-profit organisations working for the benefit of ex-servicemembers.

Central Paramilitary Forces are now officially known as Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)

2011-05-11T21:36:00.001+05:30

This is linked to the last post.

Central forces were variably referred to as Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMFs), Central Police Organisations (CPOs) as well as Central Police Forces (CPFs).

The Home Ministry has however officially changed the nomenclature of BSF, ITBP, SSB, CISF and CRPF and these organisations shall now be called Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). A letter to the effect has already been issued by the MHA.

The change does not affect other police organisations under the MHA.

Ex-gratia lumpsum payment to invalided personnel as per Union budget announcement : Orders issued for CAPFs, soon for defence services

2011-05-09T05:21:00.001+05:30

As announced by the Finance Minister during the Union budget, orders for a fresh scheme of grant of a lumpsum ex-gratia amount for invalided personnel have been issued on the civil side for Central Armed Police Forces (formerly known as Central Paramilitary Forces).

Personnel disabled with attributable / aggravated disabilities and consequently invalided out shall now be entitled to Rs 900,000 (Nine Lacs) for 100% disability, proportionately reduced for lesser percentage of disability. The said lumpsum shall be applicable for people with 20% or above disability and the provisions of broad-banding or rounding-off of percentage for purposes of calculation of disability element shall not be applicable for computation of the newly introduced ex-gratia lumpsum.

The scheme is a fresh welfare measure with no connection with the recommendations of the pay commission and hence shall be made applicable only to those personnel who were invalided out / boarded out with more than 20% disability after 01-04-2011.

This ex-gratia lumpsum shall be in addition to the war-injury pension / disability pension / lumpsum compensation in lieu of disability or war-injury element / CAA etc and other welfare related schemes.

Message from President Disabled War Veterans (India)

2011-05-07T05:02:00.000+05:30

Message from Col HN Handa, President, DIWAVE :-

A few years ago, when we, representing the Disabled War Veterans, requested for certain measures both in regards Pay & Allowances and the initiating of welfare measures for such categories of personnel, to the Parliamentary Committee, we were rather surprised at MoD & Services HQ indicating to them that they were totally unaware of the number of Battle / War Casualties since no such records were maintained.

You are aware that proper statistics and data would help greatly, especially in calculating the expense to the exchequer to enable any measures getting past the MoD (Finance) and the decision making process.

With the assistance of the Adjutant General Lt Gen Mukesh Sabharwal and Lt Gen B V Nair, DG DCW, we undertook this gigantic task of obtaining and collating data of such personnel. We are thankful to all the Colonels of Regiments, Centre Commandants and Record Officers to have delved into their past records and produced the desired data. This Data, duly compiled in 4 Volumes has been handed over to the DG DCW, MD ECHS and Secretary (ESW) for future planning purposes.

However, our task does not end here. The Data of officers is not fully available especially of those serving, those voluntarily retired from service and others.

This is an appeal to all officers who are known to you or who see this mail that they should send me the data regarding themselves to diwave1@gmail.com

Extension in retirement age : this time it may be real !!!

2011-05-04T05:09:00.000+05:30

Though the rumours have been flying left, right and centre since the past few months, it seems that there may be some grain of truth in the buzz this time round.

Active deliberations are in the works on extending the retirement age of central govt servants by 2 years.

If implemented, as per precedent, even the defence services would be granted the benefit of the enhanced retirement age.

Property details of All India Services and Group A Central Civil Services officers to be online soon

2011-04-30T10:57:00.000+05:30

Property details of All India Service officers (Indian Administrative, Police and Forest Services) as well as other Group A Central Civil Services officers are soon going to be online. The details shall be as they existed on 01-01-2011.

The DoPT has also proposed disciplinary action against those who do not provide their details. The deadline for availability of details has been set as 01-06-2011.

A similar exercise can be expected for commissioned officers of the defence services very soon.

Clarification on seniority of released ECOs and SSCOs re-employed in the civil services

2011-04-26T05:26:00.000+05:30

The DoPT has again brought to the notice of all cadre controlling authorities and departments that the protection of seniority of ECOs and SSCOs granted earlier was only applicable till the year 1974 and not thereafter.

It may be recalled that such officers who joined the civil services after their release from the forces were granted proper seniority by taking into account their military service, a system which was later discontinued.

The clarification can be accessed by clicking here.

A restoration of the system would be much desirable to restore the sheen of SS Commission, but in the present scheme of things, it seems unlikely.

Also, the extension of the initial term from 5 years to 10 years as per the current policy is proving to be a bane rather than a blessing for youngsters wanting to join SS since after release they have to re-start in the civil street with people 10 years their junior which is not only difficult in the age bracket of mid-30s but also demoralizing since one has to start from scratch with people fresh out of college becoming your peers when you have been an officer of a fairly senior rank in the Army after serving for 10 years.

Monetary allowance for gallantry awardees enhanced

2011-04-19T05:34:00.000+05:30

The Ministry of Defence has enhanced the rates of monthly allowance for gallantry awardees.

The new rates shall be applicable with effect from 30 March 2011.

Following are the enhanced monthly amounts :

PVC : Rs 10,000

AC : Rs 6,000

MVC : Rs 5,000

KC : Rs 4,500

VrC : Rs 3,500

SC : Rs 3,000

SM / NM / VM (G) : Rs 1,000

The MoD has already forwarded the letter to Services HQrs.

Ways to observe Memorial Day : Carl Francis

2011-04-16T05:09:00.001+05:30

Carl Francis, who is based in the US and is passionate about Homeland Security, has forwarded this link for the readers of this blog.

The post is on ’15 ways to observe Memorial Day’.

For those who did not know, the last Monday of every May is observed as Memorial Day.

Important notice on downloadable documents

2011-04-13T05:50:00.000+05:30

As all readers are aware, there are many documents and files on the blog that are downloadable. Such documents have been placed on the blog for the benefit of regular visitors and the general service community.

It seems that www.scribd.com which is the site on which most of the documents are uploaded, has started charging for its services for each download.

Since all the documents and files uploaded by me are for free usage and distribution, I would urge readers NOT TO PAY for any document uploaded on the blog. In case any such material is required, readers may email my office (lawoffice.ns [at] gmail.com) with a request and efforts would be made to mail back the same through an attachment.

I would henceforth shift to some other website for uploading / downloading purposes. Suggestions to the effect are welcome.

Committee of Petitions of the Rajya Sabha invites memoranda from the public on ‘One Rank One Pension’

2011-04-09T10:53:00.000+05:30

The Committee of Petitions of the Rajya Sabha has invited memoranda on the subject of ‘One Rank One Pension’.

The committee would undertake consultations with the society before rendering its report.

The Petition on which the Committee has acted upon is available on the official website of Rajya Sabha.

A detailed note has also been issued to various newspapers and the same alongwith other details can be accessed by clicking here.

Suggestions may submitted to the committee within a period of 15 days and may kindly be kept confidential by the persons submitting the same. Veterans and other members of the public may not kindly float the submissions to the committee on the internet on any other public fora.

Off Course !!! (2)

2011-04-06T05:50:00.000+05:30

Every now and then, it is interesting to go off course.

This time it is about an open letter to a young officer (1917).

And about this booklet on ‘Customs of Service’ published in relation to the Canadian Army in 1939.

Thanks to The Regimental Rouge.

Enjoy.

Supreme Court again to the rescue of disabled personnel : A historical watershed moment for disability pensioners

2011-04-01T16:45:00.003+05:30

Call it a red letter day or a watershed moment, call it whatever you may but yesterday marked a very important moment in history for any and every disabled soldier in India.

Blowing every inch of the illegal and illogical stand of the Pension Wing of the Ministry of Defence to pieces, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered a judgement which vindicates and endorses what has in recent times been held by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal and also what has remained a very sore source of discontentment amongst the disabled community.

The 5th Pay Commission, in order to overcome the subjectivity, mistakes and rigid mathematical calculation of medical boards, had recommended broad-banding (also commonly known as rounding-off) of disability percentages for the purposes of calculating disability element of pension. The concept was initiated for all central govt pensioners. The Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW) of the Personnel Ministry accordingly issued an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 03-02-2000 implementing the broad-banding policy initially only for Post-1996 retirees which provided that people with disability less than 50% would be granted a disability element by taking the disability percentage as 50%, those with disability between 50 and 75% would be granted a disability element @ 75% and those with above 75% would be granted the benefits of 100% disability. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) also issued policy instructions with regard to OM dated 03-02-2000 for post-1996 defence retirees vide its own letter dated 31-01-2001. Later however the broad-banding benefits were implemented for pre-1996 retirees also with financial effect from 01-01-1996 vide another DoPPW OM dated 11-09-2001. though it was smoothly implemented for pre-96 civil retirees, the Ministry of Defence however did not issue further implementation instructions related to pre-1996 retirees and denied the benefit to such retirees of the defence services. The MoD also provided in the letter dated 31-01-2001 that the benefits of broad-banding would apply only to those who were ‘invalided’ out of service and not to those who were discharged on completion of terms or retired on superannuation. The letter of DoPPW, a copy of which was sent to the MoD for implementation remained confined to some file and no action was taken on it and neither were senior officers informed about the same. The benefits to pre-1996 retirees were however later granted by the MoD also to pre-96 retirees vide an order issued on 19-01-2010 but these were made applicable with financial effect from 01-07-2009 while for civilians these had already been made applicable from 01-01-1996.

There were hence two grave anomalies in the letter issued by the MoD :-

Firstly, that it only provided for broad-banding to invalided individuals and not to those who were discharged or retired with disability. This was patently illogical since the concept behind broad-banding was that it was to overcome medical subjectivity, a malaise which equally affected both invalided personnel as well as those who were retired or discharged with a disability. This amounted to saying that the medical boards were subjective only qua invalided individuals and not towards discharged personnel. This also led to many incongruous situations wherein, for example, an individual who may have suffered 20% disability was granted disability element @ 50% rates even if he / she had been invalided a day earlier than his / her actual retirement whereas a person who may have suffered 40% disability and retired on his actual date of retirement would have received a lesser disability element despite suffering higher distress. The argument of the MoD that broad-banding was only extended to invalided personnel to cater to their shortening of tenure was also flawed due to the reason that shortening of tenure is taken care of by the ‘service element’ while the ‘disability element’ only relates to the extent of disability. Moreover, it is already provided in the applicable rules that defence personnel discharged on completion of terms or on attaining the age of superannuation are deemed to be invalided out for the purposes of disability pension.

Secondly, the letter issued by MoD was also anomalous since it did not extend the same benefit to pre-96 retirees. This amounted to saying that the medical subjectivity of boards only came into effect from 01-01-1996 and the boards conducted earlier were perfectly objective. This also did not stand the scrutiny of law since similar benefits under the same very pay commission had already been extended to pre-96 civilian retirees from 01-01-1996. It had already been held by the SC in the famous Common Cause Vs UOI case that separate cut-off dates could not be prescribed for defence and civil pensioners.

On both the above points, the Chandigarh Bench of the AFT had rendered separate judgements. In Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi Vs UOI, it was held by the AFT that superannuated or discharged personnel would also be entitled to broad-banding at par with invalided personnel. And in yet another judgement pronounced just yesterday, the AFT had held that pre-96 retirees were also entitled to broad-banding benefits as granted to post-96 retirees.

But yesterday, the Hon'ble SC, by way of a judgement in a case which was already pending before it (Capt KJS Buttar Vs UOI), and which, though unrelated, in effect endorses both the conclusions rendered by the AFT mentioned above, has inter alia held the following :

A. Broad-banding would be applicable to pre-1996 retirees also with effect from 01-01-1996. The cut-off date of 01-01-1996 by which the benefits were denied to pre-96 retirees has been held to be arbitrary.

B. Personnel who are released on completion of terms would be treated as invalided from service and would also be eligible for broad-banding benefits.

Though this settles the issue once and for all and would also help in unburdening the dockets of Courts from the plethora of litigation on the subject, one can only hope that the pension wing of the MoD is wise, fair and humble enough to apprise the senior officers of the correct position in law. It would only be in the fitness of things if the MoD suo-moto rectifies the anomaly and issues universal orders on the subject rather than forcing litigation on affected personnel.

Q & A (14)

2011-04-01T05:09:00.000+05:30

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.

After introduction of revised formulae of casualty awards as placed by you on this blog, what is the minimum liberalised family pension now admissible to the widow of a Lt Col who had died prior to 2006? (Capt S Murugan)

Rs 51,400 per month + DA.

What is the amount of minimum service element and minimum disability element admissible to defence personnel ? (Ex-Hav Joginder Singh)

After the 6th CPC, the minimum amount of service element is Rs 3500 + DA and the minimum amount of disability element is Rs 3510 (for 100% disability – proportionately decreased for lower disability) + DA.

Why are Lieutenants, Captains and Majors of the Army (Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of 5400, 6100 and 6600) being posted as Barrack and Stores Officers (BSOs) which is an appointment tenable and routinely held by Group-B (Class-II) Civilian officers in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs 4600 equivalent to a Subedar ? (ABC)

Well, nothing repeat nothing can stop us uniformed services from the path of self-destruction, is all I would like to say on this one !!! Not only this, Time Scale full Colonels and Lt Cols are being routinely posted on GP 6600 appointments, and Majors are being routinely posted as AGEs which are appointments tenable by officers with GP 4600 and GP 5400 despite orders by the AFT deprecating this practice. Sometimes senior Majors are being posted under civilian officers who are actually their juniors. But rather than maintaining our dignity or complying with Court orders, we like to continue with an adhoc bandobast while listening to civilian staff in the Services HQrs who misguide us no end to ensure in turn that military izzat loses the little shine that is left by the 7th CPC. Don’t wait for 2016, you shall be thoroughly disappointed !

Is additional pension on attainment of 80 years admissible to family pension cases also ? (Lt Col P K Malhotra)

Yes.

What is the qualifying service requirement to earn a pension for a Short Service Officer with pre-commissioned service ? (Ex-Capt Deepak Kumar)

12 years.

Detailed implementation instructions issued for revised casualty / disability / war-injury awards for pre-2006 retirees based on post-2006 scales

2011-03-28T14:28:00.002+05:30

This has reference to the Govt of India letter referred in this post dated 24 February 2011.

The PCDA(P) has now issued detailed instructions for the implementation of the revised awards. The said circular has already been mailed to all concerned including banks.

The circular can be downloaded and accessed by clicking here.

Consider disabled CPO personnel for alternative employment within the force

2011-03-26T05:30:00.000+05:30

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court, in Constable Gajendra Prashad Vs UOI, has directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to frame a rehabilitation policy to retain disabled personnel in less exacting duties which do not involve active combat roles.

Following are some excerpts from the progressive judgement which would have far-reaching consequences in all uniformed services :

“It is not in dispute that the medical disability of the petitioner which was opined in the year 2001 continues to be the same and there is no deterioration in the physique or the health of the petitioner. In fact, we must confess, that when the petitioner stood up in court on 4.3.2011 when we heard arguments in the writ petition, we saw him more smart in his turn out vis-à-vis other constables of para-military forces we see in court, who appear before us as litigants, but even as the security personnel deputed in the Delhi High Court complex. Not an inch of fat or flab on the stomach; a slim and trim jawan with a perfect body stood up when we wanted to see the petitioner. Indeed, learned counsel for the respondents was constrained to admit that notwithstanding the loss of a limb, the petitioner has kept himself more than physically fit and we are informed that the petitioner joins the morning drill at the Unit and ensures that his sedentary duties do not make him either dull or a flabby person.”

“The petitioner suffered the disability which placed him in Low Medical Category while performing duties in a hostile condition and there was logic and reason to let the petitioner serve, if he could, on a job where the department lost nothing. Since constables perform duties of a company clerk, why would it be that a physically fit jawan be made to do said duties and not a physically handicapped jawan. It would be a win-win situation. Physically fit jawans would be available for combat duties and those with disabilities, but not of a kind to render them totally unfit, could be accommodate on desk duties. This win-win situation would be in harmony with the concept of a welfare state, which India proclaims to be.”

“We find that the medical board opinion qua the petitioner rendered in the year 2007 continues to be the same as it was in the year 2001. The physical health or the condition of the petitioner has not deteriorated. The disability continues to be the amputation of the right lower limb above the knee and amputation of the left greater toe. If, on the same disability the petitioner was found fit to be adjusted against a lighter duty, we see no reason why he should be boarded out after 6 years. We highlight that the medical board opinion in the year 2007 does not certify or opined that the petitioner was in such Low Medical Category that he could not even perform the duties of a company clerk. Now, jawans are needed to perform wide and varied duties. These may be actual combat. These may be duty as a Sentry at a post. These may be duty in a recreational room. These may be duty as a telephone operator. These may be duty as the dak clerk. Thus, it stands to logic and reason and hence would be a part of fairness in action, a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution, to be observed by the State, that a lowly paid constable at the lowest rung of a Central Para-Military Force who is rendered physically disabled while on active service should be retained in service unless found unfit for any kind of job assigned to constables.”

Pension to families of missing personnel : Wait decreased to 6 months from the previously applicable One year

2011-03-23T06:05:00.000+05:30

The issue was discussed here on this blog on 14 February 2009.

Families of missing personnel, including those faultily declared deserters but whose whereabouts remain unknown, are eligible for grant of family pension. The family pension in such cases was supposed to commence after one year of lodging of ‘missing report’ with the police under currently applicable orders. This period was however decreased to 6 months by the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare after the 6th CPC and the same has now been separately notified by the MoD also. The latest orders to the effect for defence personnel can be accessed by clicking here.

It is however another story that most of our Record Offices remain blissfully unaware of such provisions and continue to deny pension to affected families on the pretext of desertion and ex-parte dismissal under the 3 year / 10 year desertion clause.

Write-Ups / Articles invited for upcoming journal on law related to uniformed forces

2011-03-20T05:44:00.000+05:30

A new journal on the ibid subject is in the offing, the first volume of which should be out towards the middle of this year.

Besides other sections, the journal would have a separate part called ‘Opinions’ which would feature write-ups and articles contributed by an array of varied personalities. The journal would also feature international articles and judgements related to uniformed forces.

Readers of this blog are welcome to contribute their thoughts. The opinions section would be broad-based and not just strictly related to law and hence contributions on topics concerning the uniformed services (including the Police and other uniformed organisation) that may be ancillary to law, for example, administration, service benefits, policy etc are also welcome. Strategic and operational subjects however would not be covered. Case studies or structured articles are also welcome.

Contributors may send in their write-ups to my office email : lawoffice.ns [AT] gmail.com

All contributors may send their full name, address, telephone number, email and brief bio alongwith their write-ups. Those who are serving with government organisations may enclose a scanned self-attested certificate that they have taken the requisite permission / sanction for the same.

The contributions would be liable to be edited and the decision to publish or not shall solely be that of the Editors. Contributors of all featured write-ups would be acknowledged in the journal. There shall be no compensation for the contributions since it is more of a public-oriented project by the publishers.

Punjab & Haryana High Court passes strictures and imposes a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Govt for misleading the Court in a disability pension case

2011-03-16T07:59:00.003+05:30

Shocking would be too light a word to describe the extent to which our Record Offices can go to defeat claims of our own disabled soldiers. And 2011 has been declared the year of the disabled soldier !!!

A petition filed by a boarded out disabled personnel, Sukhjinder Singh, was allowed by a Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court which directed the release of disability pension to him.

The Union of India, as expected, however filed a Letter Patents Appeal (LPA) before a Division Bench challenging the order of the Single Bench and also alleging on affidavit that the Invaliding Medical Board had declared the disability ‘neither attributable to, nor aggravated by military service’. A copy of the board was however not produced before the Court.

The Division Bench asked the Union of India to produce before it a copy of the Medical Board which was done on the next date of hearing and which consequently left the Court aghast. The Medical Board had in fact clearly declared the disability as ‘aggravated by physical stress and strain of service’.

Clearly perturbed by the conduct, following are the excerpts of the order finally passed by the Hon’ble Court :

"...The aforesaid record now produced before us would show that on the first date of hearing while obtaining notice of motion, there was active concealment and even misrepresentation of facts from the Bench..."

"...Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the original record, we are amazed at the conduct of the appellant and its Officers. The instant appeal has been filed through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi; Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New Delhi; the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad(UP) and couple of other Officers. A perusal of ground No. 7 of the appeal shows that a false plea has been set out which is simply against the record. In para 13 of the original proceedings of the Medical Board, it has been categorically found that the disease of 'Manic Episode F 30' is aggravated by military service whereas the proceedings of the Medical Board have been misquoted in para 7 of the grounds of appeal to say that the Medical Board had opined that the disease Manic Episode F 30 is not aggravated by military service..."

"...It is well settled principle of law applicable to equitable jurisdiction that when the facts are actively concealed or there is a misrepresentation then the party seeking to hear the appeal becomes disentitled to it. Such a conduct has been repeatedly condemned by the Courts. In the case of a private citizen filing a writ petition, a Full Bench of this Court in Chiranji Lal and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 1978 PLR 582 has held that when there has been a mala fide and calculated suppression of material facts which if disclosed would have disentitled such a party to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction or in any case would have materially affected the merits on the interim as well as ultimate relief claimed then such a party by their own conduct would forfeit the right of relief which they seek to claim. When such a conduct is adopted by the Central Body and its Officers, as is evident from ground No.7 of the Memorandum of Appeal, it assumes further seriousness. The Public Authority always file pleadings after due verification of the record. However, in the present appeal all that has been completely forgotten. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs..."

"...There is another aspect of the matter because the instant appeal is an illustration of frivolous litigation initiated at the instance of Union of India and its Officers. The appellant-Union of India has framed the National Litigation Policy which has been reported as (2010) 6 SCC J-17. The aforesaid policy has been completely overlooked by the appellants..."

"...Accordingly we find that the appeal is frivolous and a misuse of the process of the Court. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the writ petitioner-respondent by the Union of India but the same shall be recovered from the Officer or Officers, who pleaded a false ground after holding an enquiry and fixing the responsibility..."

Another clarification on LTC-80 fares

2011-03-13T09:31:00.002+05:30

Though I had placed this on the chat-box, many people seemed to have missed it.

The Finance Ministry has issued another clarification on the LTC-80 fares which can be accessed by clicking here.

It has been clarified that one can claim reimbursement of air fare on Air India even if it happens to be lower than LTC-80. Some departments had been objecting to reimbursement of AI fares which were lower than the ones notified under AI's LTC-80 scheme.

US Army overhauls its PT system

2011-03-09T08:13:00.000+05:30

In a marked departure from the traditional PT system, the US Army is on the verge of introducing the ACRT – The Army Combat Readiness Test, with Yoga too reportedly on the table.

More details (and comments thereon) can be seen by clicking here.

Military Medical Boards : Mathematics or Medical science ?

2011-03-06T11:27:00.002+05:30

The following appears in this month's 'Salute' magazine.

(Copyright : 'Salute to the Indian Soldier')

Military Medical Boards : Mathematics or Medical Science ?

Navdeep Singh

Disability benefits in the forces are contingent upon the declaration of a disability being either ‘attributable to, or aggravated by’ service conditions. Detailed Entitlement Rules promulgated by the Government further determine the question of attributability and aggravation. However, non-adherence to the ibid rules and a purely mathematical approach, as opposed to the desired medical one, is resulting in denial of benefits to the disabled and also overburdening judicial fora.

So who decides attributability and aggravation? Based on an artificial over-reliance on various judgements of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the opinion of medical boards has to be granted due weight, the system wrongly seems to believe that medical boards are supreme in this arena. They actually are not. Attributability and aggravation are determined under the rules and the boards are supposed to work within the four corners of these rules with proper application of medical and scientific procedures, not mathematical formulae. Primacy of medical opinion does not definitely imply that it would hold field even when rendered in contravention of the statute or when prima-facie perverse. Despite our progress, attributability of disabilities is still decided on primitive guidelines which reflect a strong disconnect with practical realities.

While the unpredictability of military service is universally appreciated, the Guide to Medical Officers published by the office of Director General of Armed Forces Medical Services, still prescribes that stress related disorders cannot be service-related unless a person spends a specific length of time in a field area and unless the symptoms arise within a period of some months after being posted out of field. Ignored is the fact that a solitary stressful incident in a single day can also trigger stress without any reference to length of service in a particular area, and as modern psychiatry has established, there can be a delayed onset of symptoms even 5 years after a stressful event. Then for example the requirement that the symptoms should manifest themselves within 3 months of being denied leave in case of the death of a parent when the individual happens to be the ‘only’ son. Would not a person be affected if he is not the ‘only’ son or if the symptoms arise after four months rather than the mathematical guideline of 3 months? What could also justify the basis of determining heart diseases on the basis of the ‘14 days charter of duties’ ? The service-connection of complicated heart problems in the Indian military is determined by activities a person had indulged in the last 14 days prior to the onset of the disease? It is common knowledge that heart diseases manifest over a long period of time, isn’t it time to shun these outdated practices and deal with such situations with a more scientific temperament on a case to case basis ?.

Claims of attributability and aggravation are rejected by one word terms such as ‘No’, ‘Constitutional’, ‘Unknown’, ‘idiopathic’ whereas the rules clearly stipulate that if the causes are unknown then presumption operates in favour of the claimant and attributability, or atleast aggravation, ‘shall’ be conceded.

In defence, naysayers harp on the argument that stress and lifestyle related disorders can happen to civilians too and thus have no link with military life. How wrong they are. Can one compare the stress levels of a soldier leading a strictly regimented life away from family under a strict disciplinary code 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, at times under the shadow of the gun, with a civil employee living with family, working from 9 to 5, enjoying weekends and holidays. Even seemingly trivial issues such as admission of children, property disputes and insignificant family rows can have a stressful impact on our soldiers especially those deployed away from families, irrespective of whether in peace or field, and to ignore such incidences of service as unrelated to stress related disorders would be the greatest disservice. Not may are aware that civilian employees have the protection of Section 47 of ‘Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995’ which provides that if an employee gets disabled, even when not on duty and due to own negligence, his or her service remains protected and if the said employee is not able to work, still he or she is kept on supernumerary strength and paid full pay and allowances till the age of 60 and pension thereafter. This protection is not available to defence personnel who can be invalided even for minor disabilities, and who, at the lower ranks, even in normal circumstances anyway do not have the protection of employment beyond their 30s.

It is a quivering double jeopardy for disabled soldiers. On one hand, our own medical boards follow a self-defeating hyper-technical approach, and on the other, the protection of employment as guaranteed to all other government employees is unavailable to defence personnel. In theory, 2011 may be the year of the disabled soldier; it remains to be seen how it works on ground.

Major Navdeep Singh is a practising Advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

US Supreme Court comes to the rescue of a military reservist fired by his employer

2011-03-03T04:57:00.001+05:30

Vincent Staub, an angiography technician serving a civilian hospital, was supposedly fired from his parent employment due to the fact that he was a reservist with the US Army Reserves.

Staub’s embodiment (mobilisation) in 2003 in Iraq resulted in his dismissal from the hospital in 2004. Litigation however led to an unfavourable decision with the Federal Appeals Court upholding the action of the Hospital.

The Supreme Court however overturned the Federal Appeal Court’s ruling by holding that the employer was liable under the federal anti-discrimination law for members of the military. The court also awarded Staub about $ 58,000 in damages.

More can be read about the above here.

Even in India, Territorial Army (TA) reservists have at times faced similar problems with their employers. Apart from private entities, there are instances when TA reservists serving in civil government departments have also faced difficulties despite the fact that the Territorial Army Act, 1948, provides full protection to the parent employment of TA volunteers when mobilised for military duty, whether voluntarily or compulsorily in a national emergency.

Incorrect pension to families of Lt Cols : Clarification issued

2011-02-27T10:06:00.000+05:30

As discussed earlier, the Ministry of Defence, in its letter dated 15-11-2010, had incorrectly mentioned the ordinary family pension in respect of Lt Cols as Rs 8760/- per month whereas it should have actually been Rs 15420/- per month.

The PCDA(P) had also floated a circular to all Pension Disbursing Agencies (PDAs) with the same incorrect amount.

However now, the PCDA(P) vide a circular issued on 22-02-2011, has clarified the following to all PDAs :

“There shall be no change in the entitlement of the rates of minimum guaranteed family pension for the rank of Lt Col (TS) / Lt Col (S) which had already been notified as 15420/- pm under VI CPC vide MOD letter dated 21.05.2009 and circulated vide this office circular No. 412 dated 26.05.2009”

Affected families can now breathe easy !

Revised letter on casualty / disability / war-injury pensionary awards for pre-2006 retirees based on 6th CPC scales issued

2011-02-24T17:44:00.003+05:30

As reported here earlier, the letter on modified parity for casualty awards has finally been issued. Casualty awards from now onwards are to be calculated based on 6th CPC scales.

The letter can be accessed and downloaded by clicking here. Please do not mail me individual requests for the same, such requests shall not be replied to.

In brief, this shall be the fresh entitlement with effect from 01-01-2006 :

Special Family Pension : Would not be less than 60% of minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable) corresponding to the rank held.

Liberalized Family Pension : Would not be less than the (100% of) minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable).

Disability Element : Would not be less than 30% of the minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable) for 100% disability, proportionately reduced for lesser disability.

War Injury Element : Would not be less than 60% of the minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable) for 100% disability proportionately reduced for lesser disability in cases of retirement / discharge and 100% of the minimum of 6th CPC pay band + Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay (wherever applicable) for 100% disability proportionately reduced for lesser disability in cases of invalidment.

Other finer modalities can be seen from the letter.