Monday, October 1, 2012

THANKS GIVING & FELICITATIONS


FELICITATIONS: LEGAL TEAM

IV CPC RANK PAY CASE:30 SEPT 12


The legal team which was instrumental in getting the Armed Forces officers their legitimate dues in the landmark and historic judgment given by the Supreme Court on 04 Sept 2012 pertaining to the IV CPC Rank Pay case was felicitated on 30 Sept 2012 in DSOI Dhaula Kuan by Retired Defence Officers Association (RDOA). Over hundred officers were present.

Welcoming the members and guests, the President of the Association, Col BK Sharma said that it was a proud moment in the history of the Armed forces where a few have mustered strength to fight for the majority and seek a judgment which will benefit all from 1986 onwards.

The operative part of the judgments starting with the Single Judge order passed in the case of Major AK Dhanapalan in Oct 1998 followed by the order passed by the Supreme  Court on 08 March 2010, and the dismissal of appeal filed by UOI and upholding its order of 08 Mar 2010 on 04 Sept 2012 was read out for the benefit of the members by the Secretary RDOA, Col Satwant Singh.

The said order will be applicable to all affected offrs of the AF wef 01/01/1986 to 01/01/2006 across board.  It would also be applicable to all pending cases in various courts and AFT’s across the country on the subject case.

The interest will be applicable @ 6% wef 01/01/2006 and not 1986. This is the only change made by the apex court. The court has also directed that all arrears should be paid within outer limit of 3 months from today ie 04 Sept 2012.

It was explained by the Secretary as to how the pay/pension would be revised with the cascading affect from 1/1/86 (IV CPC), 1/1/96 (VCPC), 1/1/2006 (VI CPC). To this affect the commitment made by the UOI on an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court with financial implications of 1623 crores was also read out to the members.

The President then welcomed the guests, Senior Advocate Mahabir Singh and Advocates on Record Gp Capt KS Bhati and Mrs Aishwarya Bhati. A brief introduction of each of the guests highlighting their achievements and contribution to the case was given to the members. The guests were presented bouquets on behalf of RDOA.

As a token of their commitment and unflinching support to the cause of Ex Servicemen, each of the guests were honoured with an ‘Honourarium’ amount in the form of cheque; which is nothing as compared  to the Services rendered and the legal fees charged by them.  As a reciprocative gesture, Senior Advocate Mahabir Singh donated Rs 50000/- to the corpus of RDOA.

Advocate on Record Gp Capt KS Bhati requested all officers to make RDOA strong and the nodal agency to fight and stand for securing denied benefits to the veteran fraternity.

Col Sharma also welcomed out station officers Lt General VK Oberoi, Air
Marshal Savur, Maj’s NS Gill & Sadana. Speaking on the occasion Air Marshal Savur was delighted at the ‘Perseverance and Gusto’ of the RDOA team in getting the judgment. He came all the way from Bangalore to attend the felicitation.

Lt General Oberoi was appreciative at the ‘Resoluteness’ and brain power shown by RDOA and the legal luminaries.

Appreciations and thanks giving were also given by Cdr Ahuja on behalf of Naval Foundation, Delhi Chapter since Admiral Harinder Singh was out of the country. It would be pertinent to mention that Admiral Harinder gave his complete unconditional support for the case from day one and was always supportive of actions taken by RDOA.

Col Joshipura  Krit, Executive Member IESM; on behalf of IESM applauded the efforts of RDOA in getting the judgment for the benefit of all the Armed forces officers.

Thanks Giving

Team RDOA wishes to thanks all its members in supporting it for the ‘cause’ and for all the congratulatory messages sent/expressed on phone/email.

Team RDOA also wants to thank all others who are not members of RDOA, yet have applauded their efforts and achievements.

The felicitations culminated with a contributory lunch.

Next the battle for implementation instructions of the Court order begins.

 
SECY RDOA

 

 

12 comments:

sl said...

Bravo!

manu69 said...

Sir,
1. Heartiest Congratulations to the entire team on a hard won Battle.
2, A suggestion for the rally on 01 Dec. Could we have banners and comparative tables comparing:
a. NOT ONLY the vast difference between pre and post 2006 defence pensioners, BUT ALSO
b. the decline in our STATUS and PAY IN the 4th,5th and 6th CPC.
c. the savings made by the govt had our offrs and PBOR served till 60 yrs. etc.

3. i feel the message would be clearer to the general public most of whom would not be fully aware of the enormity of our grievances.

4. COULD WE IMPRESS UPON OUR PVC,AC,MVC ETC VETERANS TO ESPECIALLY ATTEND THE RALLY.

5. WISHING THE RALLY A GRAND AND PEACEFUL SUCCESS.

gentle said...

3 Cheers for the elite team members of RDOA as well as the team of legal luminaries who represented the case before the honorable supreme court ! Let us be prepared for the long drawn fight which the RDOA may have to face to fight the case in the event of the unforeseen developments arising out of bureaucratic scheming of the Govt machinary!!

aaa said...

sir,
we apprecite the work being done by RDOA on behalf of retired as well as serving defence fraternity.

Is it possible for you to put a copy of government affidavit giving out the expenditure of 1600 crore on your blog so that everyone is very clear on how this expenditure has been worked out.

Is it not possible to snub PCDA(O) for being dictative in their interpretation of the hon'ble court judgement. If they were really concerned,they could have brought out that as a first step, they are doing it only for offiers who were captain to brigadier as on 01 january 86 before final government orders on the subject are issued. Rather, they have taken extreme negative interpretation of the judgement, albeit on behalf of powers that may be. Will it not be contempt of the court as it is deliberae misrepresentation of the fact in the guise of being proactive. On much simpler issues, PCDA(O) sleeps for months.

RDOA said...

1 Benefit would also be applicable to those who joined after Jan 1986 or got promoted after 1/1/86 as the basic pay would increase by an amt equal to rank pay.Same will apply to 1/1/96 and thereafter.RDOA is aware of this prob and will ensure it gets resolved.
2. Info being sought as to how this fig of 1623 crores has been calculated
Secy RDOA

Harry said...

Sirs,

Even if the amount is ACTUALLY Rs 1600 plus crore, it is OK 'cos these are our legitimate dues.

Govt is much more liberal in poofing off thousands of crores of public funds illegitimately! (Pls recall Govt spending Rs 1880 crore on treatment and foreign visits of JUST ONE person!!!)

sl said...

"..applicable to those who joined after Jan 1986..";

"..the basic pay would increase by an amt equal to rank pay..."
;

This would be fairly close to the scenario of a "Revision Of Payscale" that had been discussed in this blog post.

If, as a result of the judgement, the pay-scale itself stands amended, there'd be no grounds for denying the benefit of the higher basic to post 01 jan 86 entrants/promotees.

Alternatively, there'd be a need for additional increments to all subsequent promotees as thought of only for initial fixation on 01 Jan 86 here.

The issue with the latter alternative could be that an additional increment would probably be applicable only once, say at the Capt stage, and may not be given at every subsequent promotion.

RDOA may consider enlightening everyone, including myself.

Harry said...

Col Satwant,

Sir,

50% DA was merged as DP wef 1 Apr 2004. And I am told that RP was UNAFFECTED by this step (though I don't have my own pay slip to show it). Govt Order, in this regard (just guess who signed it?)is available at the following link:-

http://pcdapension.nic.in/VTHCPCORDERS/2004/GO010304_1.htm

Col Mohan said...

I sincerely request all those veterans who did not become members of the RDOA but are befitted by the Apex Court Judgement to become member at this brlated stage at least. would add strength to RDOA to fight the hazards in implementing the Court order in time.

manu69 said...

Sir,
1. this blog had a lot of interesting comments on the rank pay and our status http://www.indianmilitary.info/2011/11/rank-pay-case.html
2. an aspect which struck me was Quote "While the Hon’ble Court had only sought information regarding point to point pay fixation with reference to a specific rank during the 4th CPC, the UOI has gone out to project charts related to 4th, 5th and 6th CPCs showing comparison of the pay being received by Army officers vis-à-vis civilians." Unquote
3. The comparison given by the UOI was wrong - as has been brouht out by maj Navdeep. Has this issue been considered in the judgement and has the govt been directed to REVISE THE PAY SCALES IN THE VTH CPC?
4. Although you have clarified that offrs commisioned after 1/1/86 and 1/1/96 are also affected, could you clarify WHETHER THE PAY SCALES WILL BE REVISED.
5. There is a lot of uncertainity in the environment in this regard.

manu69 said...

Sir,
1. In the 5th cpc, i feel there is another anomaly in the 'Bunching' aspect. The first stsge for bunching in Armed forces has been taken as 2500. whereas offrs who were commisioned in 1986 started at 2300. Just because the 2/lt rank was abolished in 5th cpc, they have said that the first stage is 2500.
2. is this correct?

manu69 said...


Dear Sir,

1. At the outset please accept my deep felt and sincere compliments to the RDOA and the entire team who have taken painstaking efforts to bring the Rank Pay anomaly to its rightful conclusion. The same anomaly was applied while fixing pay of offrs commisioned after 1/1/86 in the 5th CPC, which I am sure will be rectified now, after the SC Judgement.

2. Sir, I HAVE ANOTHER OBSERVATION IN THE 5TH CPC and this is in the APPLICATION OF 'BUNCHING' RULE. For quick reference I am highlighting the relevant Para 5(f) of the SAI 2/s/98 which reads as under:-

(f) Wherein, in the fixation of pay under Para 5 (a) to (e) above the pay of officers drawing pay at more than four consecutive stages in the existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such of these officers who are drawing pay beyond the first four consecutive stages in the existing scale, shall be stepped up from the stage where such bunching occurs as under by the grant of increment(s) in the revised scale in the following manner :-

(i) For officers drawing pay from the 5th upto the 8th stage in the existing scale - by one increment .

(ii) For officers drawing pay from 9th upto the 12th stage in the existing scale, if there is a bunching beyond the 8th stage - by two increments.

(iii) For officers drawing pay from the 13th upto the 16th stage in the existing scale if there is bunching beyond the 12th stage - by three increments.

Note 1: If by stepping up of the pay as in Para 5 (f) above, the pay of an officer gets fixed at a stage in the revised scale which is higher than the stage in the revised scale at which the pay of another officer who was drawing pay at the next higher stage or stages in the same existing scale is fixed, the pay of the latter shall also be stepped up only to the extent by which it falls short of that of the former.

Note 2 :- ‘The stage in the existing scale’ referred to in the above provisions regarding bunching, the first stage in the existing scale shall be w.r.t. the maximum pay prescribed for each rank as given below :-

(i) Officers of All Arms and Services except AMC,ADC,RVC and MNS.

Lt - 2500
Capt - 2800
Maj - 3400
Lt Col (Selection) - 3900
Col - 4500
Brig - 4950

3. Since we had a running pay band from 2300- 5100, the first stage should have been considered as 2300 and not 2500. Just because the rank of 2/Lt was abolished the first stage was arbitrarily fixed as 2500. VERY FEW OFFRS WOULD BE DRAWING PAY FROM THE 9TH STAGE ONWARDS AND NO ONE TILL THE 16TH STAGE IF WE CONSIDER THE STAGES AS PER THE RANK STAGES REFERRED ABOVE.

4. This will affect the pay fixation revision for all offrs as on 1/1/96. I hope I am correct and a legal opinion of the same could be taken. If it is correct, then the UOI may have to be apprised of the same for rectification before the new rules post SC judgement is implemented and we are left stranded once again.

With warm regards