This update is to counter the views expressed by many on the blog for the benefit of all. Let us be positive. Where we have waited for so long we can wait for little time more. Implementation of the SC order is the commitment made by the UOI in their application.
1 Whatever is happening is for the good of all and should be taken as a ‘Blessing in disguise’
2. Consequent to the application filed by UOI seeking additional time of 12 weeks to implement the SC order, let us wait for till the court reopens in Jan after the winter vacation. Whether the court gives extension or not or imposes further penalty will only be known when the application is listed for hearing. Will the court agree for full 12 weeks extension is also a Q mark? Till that time it’s only speculation.
3. There is no doubt in RDOA’s mind that the arrears will be worked out through IV/V/VI CPC for all as on 1/1/86, 1/1/96,1/1/2006.
4. Pension will have to be revised for all starting from pre 86 through 96 to 2006 ie IV/V/VI CPC. For that the CDAO will have to prepare fresh LPC for all and fwd to CDA(Pen) for payment action.
5.Those who got promoted after 1/1/86, 1/1/96, 1/1/2006 are also affected as the basic pay will change. Eg offr promoted Capt after 1/1/86 would have got Rs2800/- as basic pay. With restoration of deducted amt of rank pay he will have to be refixed at Rs 3000/- plus Rs 200/- as rank pay and DA as admissible. There is no doubt on this. Same holds good for Maj/Lt Col/Col/Brig.
6. Let CDAO/CDAP/AFCAO/CDA (Navy) do their job of creating/updating their records. For once the database of all offrs incl widows would get created/updated so there would be no lapses in future to crediting arrears/pensions. Even Corr PPOs for all will have to be regenerated.If they are asking for info let us provide them. It is for our own good.
7. Service HQs have already fwd the Draft Govt Letter (DGL) long back. Refixation of pay also has repercussions on status of Armed Forces officers which is belly aching the ‘They’ lobby. Sputniks are active.
8. Mind you, all that needs to be done for implementing the SC order is on affidavit and not honouring it amounts to giving false affidavit which can have serious implications. There is no option but to implement SC order in true letter and spirit.
9. Let us wait for further developments.
Secy RDOA
42 comments:
thanks ,RDOA ,the post clears the most discussed apprehensions and advisory is wholesome and beneficial for all enthusiasts.
Col Satwant
Sir,
Thanks for the update, it was badly required and most eagerly awaited by all as despair/frustration/helplessness/doubt could be palpably seen in all the comments.
Wish RDOA and all brethren a very Happy New Year in advance!
warm regards,
- Harry
One question.....will pcda pay directly or Allahabad guys will pay......imp....pl answer.....
Thanks for the Christmas Gift, Satwant and BK.
Happy New Year
1. They should pay to those Officers whose DATA COMPILED and not take further excuse of DATA NOT COMPILED and further DELAY PAYMENT with petty excuse.
2. Rest they should keep paying as and when DATA GETS COMPILED.
3. In any case DATA of ALL OFFICERS 2002 onwards are already available as they have not asked data of these officers - In fact they should have been paid within 12 Weeks
4. Hence, "PENALTY HOLDS against MOD for CONTEMPT of SC ORDER for NON PAYMENT within 12 weeks to OFFICERS released after 2002 as DATA WAS AVAILABLE & NOT PAID WILLINGLY".
5. It is willful defiance of SC order - RDOA please note!
Dear RDOA, Thanks for the update.
any how, we have to be on alert. we can never say what is up to the sleeves in THEIRS' POCKET.
Now AFCAO(OFFICERS) also has asked for details in a format.Hope this is a genuine problem and not delay tactics.
I salute u and ur team for ur efforts in this regard.
wg.cdr.v.sundaresan(retd)
Logically speaking, pay part of the arrears will be paid by PCDA(O)and pension part of the arrears will be paid by PCDA(Pension).
Dear Sir,
Millions of thanks for this POSITIVE update. I have been facing many queries from the veterans of my locality.Now I can answer their many questions.
In addition to what has already been mentioned by RDOA secy,I feel even the pay on Re-emp will have to be re-worked and paid. PCDA(O),in their format, have also asked for the date and rank in which re-emp with final retirement from re-emp.We must wait and let RDOA handle the case.
Regards and Best Wishes to the RDOA team for X-Mass and Wishing Them Happy New Year.
Dear All,
Pay accounts offices and not pension payment offices, of the services, have asked for furnishing bank account number of each retired officer.
Is it mandatory, that the account number now furnished, by the retired officer, be the same as the pension account number?
The arrears accrued will be
1. Arrears of pay, on account of addition of Rank Pay to Basic Pay, on fixation
2. Arrears of pension, on account of revision of pay, to those retired.
3. Arrears, on account of increase of pay, in leave encashment emoluments on retirement.
4. Probable arrears in death cum retirement gratuity if ceiling had not been reached.
A single account which can accept all these types of payments would be preferable.
Pension accounts now are more flexible and are also joint and even can be operated concurrently as regular savings accounts.
Then should it not be explicitly said, by the pay accounts offices of the three services, that pension account number be furnished by each retired officer?
In the case of officers who are retired/released/discharged/dismissed without pension, the bank account number could be any account number.
I will be grateful for any advice on this query on account number.
Penmil
Dear RDOA Team,
Thanks for regular updates. Your efforts are true service for all of us ex service officers. Wishing every one happy new year. Hope the matter gets settled in the current FY.
Sir,
Firstly, the 12 weeks extension should be from the day the earlier 12 wks ended, i.e 27 Nov.
Secondly, the UOI should produce the govt orders which should have been sent to the pay disbursing offices, or else the cda,s will ask for further 12 weeks as they are the people who need to calculate and make payments.
thirdly the UOI does not need 24 weeks to isssue orders, or do they???
Dear Sir,
I just WISH when the SC resumes hearing (hopefully in early Jan, after winter vacation) of the RDOA's contempt petition over non payment of dues by UoI in stipulated 12 weeks, the hon'ble judges ask UoI as to what action has been carried out by UoI in 12+X weeks (X= weeks beyond 26 Nov and till hearing of the petition).
I'm sure it would be pointed out by the worthy lawyers of the RDOA that UoI is just dumurring and has only 'deigned' to agree to pay dues to the affected offrs (whose definition surprisingly continues to vary as per whims of each est/agency involved despite UoI's clear cut actions stated in its own Affidavit) that too by the last day of 12 weeks i.e. 26 Nov.
It may also be further pointed out to the hon'ble Court that no action was taken by UoI EVEN to publish official notification and give clear cut directions to the respective paying agencies involved despite Services HQ forwarding the DGL to MoD in mid Nov itself. This is the state of Governance when the orders are issued by the Highest Court of the land!!! What can a man on the street really expect? x-(
Finally, seeking penal interest (compounded daily) for each day of delay after 26 Nov may be the only alternative to 'kick' UoI and its despicable babudom into some positive and prompt action.
thanks for the update.
Let us hope that better sense would prevail over those whose only agenda is to downgrade the AFs. Let them realise the wrongs that they have done in past to the AFs and be gracious enough to accept what is legitimately due to AFs.
@karrivr,
1. The Bank account number now furnished, by the retired officer, be the same as where he is receiving pension.
2. Pay accounts offices of the three services, want the account number where the arrears can be remitted.
3. In the case of officers who are released prematurely without pension benefits the Bank account that he is operating now is required.
Discharged/dismissed without pension will receive any arrears before that date in the bank account number being presently operated.
My advice is give the account number that you are operating, which is also recorded with income tax authorities as it will come in handy for Section 89 deductions.
@Satyam Never Jayate.
Thanks.
Yes. Furnishing the pension account number will be preferable.
But the pension accounts opened long ago were simple/single savings accounts in PSU Banks without a cheque book facility.
Though the old accounts are now converted into internet operations enabled, still they are not the regular operating accounts that are registered with the IT Department.
It is possible that whatever account number now furnished to the pay accounts office , will be shared with the pension accounts office . It is preferable to remove confusion, by sticking to pension account.
@karrivr,
As per Section 285BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 114E of the Income Tax
Rules, 1962, specified entities (Filers) are required to furnish an Annual Information Return (AIR) in
respect of specified financial transactions registered/recorded by them during the financial year
(beginning on or after April 1, 2004) to the income tax authority or such other prescribed authority.
In case of Cash deposits in saving Account (transaction Code 001) and Credit Card
Payment (transaction code 002), whether every entry for the transacting party is required to be
given by the filer?
Ans. No, in case of transaction codes 001 and 002, only the total of all cash deposits or all payments,
as the case may be, during the relevant year will be mentioned. The date column in these cases will be
the last date of the relevant financial year for which transactions are reported, e.g. 31.03.2007 for
transactions in FY 2006-07.
Please see FAQ on AIR in the Income tax website.
TDS @ 20 % without PAN as well as in case of Invalid PAN rate without deductee PAN is Rate provided in the act (normal TDS rate or 20 % which ever is higher . This clause is applicable to all type of deductee .The Maximum TDS rate is applicable in following case. So all will have FD accounts pay TDS and have PAN cards.
Where is the confusion???? Please go to your bank in case you need advice.
If pan is not provided by the deductee .[section 206AA(1)]
If pan provided by the the deductee is invalid.[section 206AA(6) read with 206AA(1)]
we may discuss pros & cons at length but the priorities with govt are clear ie Rank pay pending , OROP pending ,lokpal pending ,women reservation bill pending , coal-gate pending , CWG pending and now fast track court pending.govt administration very efficient?
Dear President and Secretary, could you upload the contents of the affidavit of the UoI on the website. I presume it is no longer sub-judice and we, especially members of RDOA, may be informed.
I entirely agree. Undue pressures will always result in errors and it will be against our advantage.
Col N.R.Seshadri
I think the RDOA is doing a great job it is fdue to your selfless devotion to this case not to forget maj dhannapalan that all of us are getting their dues wish you and your team all the best and a happy new year
Sir,
The 12 weeks sought by UOI is retrospect from 28 Nov 12, impling that even if granted,all payments will have to be made by 21 Mer 13.
In the abscence of any letter affecting payment to Paying authorities by UOI/MOD till date, it is not understood how this task will be achieved. The intention of UOI is questionable under these circumstances.
Regards
Col Retd) Ravi Rao
Dont expect any thing before the next financial year.
12 weeks will be over on 20 Feb 13 and not in March 13 as mentioned by Col Rao
Col Ravi Rai@
There is nothing retrospective. The extension of 12 weeks time will start from the date of decision of Hon'ble SC, if plea of UOI is accepted. Further time of Court holidays are excluded even in case of contempt/review/appeal etc for both the parties. So Sr Advocates of RDOA are well aware and capable. No guess work. One thing is sure that RDOA will get the order of SC implemented in 2013.Wish you and all happy new year.
Maj M R Penghal (Retd)
Sir,
There has to be some instruction/order to the paying authorities to work on but the same from UOI/MOD seems to be abscent till date. It is not understood as to how the payment of arrear will be achieved by 21 Feb 2013.
Regards
Col (Retd) Ravi Rao
Can the Senior lawyers oplease clarify on the remarks of Maj Penghal. If it is indeed this is true then my earlier comment of payment of arrears in the next financial year would be authenticated.
Application of GOI states- "because of the constraints referred above, the implementation may take another twelve weeks.Therefore, this application is made bonafide in the interest of justice to grant further twelve weeks to implement the order dated 04-09-2012"
These words clarify amply that GOI has requested for 'further twelve weeks' which should ideally be counted in continuation with the earlier twelve weeks. However, judgement rests with the H'ble Supreme Court. I also request all to have patience and and not to comment unless you are very much sure.
Heard the GoI letter is out - but only for 1.1.1986. Anyone with latest?
To all readers of this blog. Thought of voicing my observations on the news reports of the recent past.
Delhi Police constable Sanjay Tomar passed away while chasing the protesters at India Gate recently. An amount of Rs 18 lacs was announced as relif to the family, any one member of the family which had three children would be given a job in Delhi Police,his family will get full pay till Sanjay Tomar would have retired (he was 46 when he passed away). All this was announced before his cremation. In comparison what do our soldiers get when they die fighting the enemy ?
My submission to RDOA is that when we negotiate with the govt we should bring home by illustrating the disparate treatment issue and demand parity.
Friday, December 28, 2012 From Maj Novjot's blog
Final Govt orders implementing SC’s rank pay judgement issued by Defence Ministry. SACRILEGE.
As everyone would know, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08 March 2010 had decided the rank pay case in favour of commissioned officers of the three services and had ruled that rank pay was not to be deducted from the pay scales of defence officers. The application filed by the Defence Ministry for recalling the order was also not accepted by the Court and the final judgement was rendered by the SC in September 2012.
Clearly knowing that the crude bluff played out on the pay and status of military officers ever since the 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC) no longer remained sustainable in view of the judgement of the Apex Court, the Union of India quickly constituted a committee to look into the financial implications of the judgement, and then in an unprecedented move, approached the Court again with a prayer for recalling the order and hearing the matter afresh.
The above was submitted to the Hon’ble SC through a detailed affidavit filed by the Ministry of Defence which inter alia stated that the implementation of the judgement would involve rehashing of not only the 4th CPC scales but would affect the 5th and the 6th CPCs. It was also pointed out that it would alter payment of all consequential and resultant benefits of officers and their families wherever applicable. Further in a recently filed affidavit seeking extension of time for implementation of the judgement, the Defence Ministry stated that the implementation of the judgement relates to three successive pay commissions, that is, 4th, 5th and 6th CPCs and also affected the benefits of officers who had retired prior to 1986. All this is on record. Notwithstanding the above mentioned affidavits, even logically speaking, naturally the pay-scales needed to be upgraded through the three pay commissions leading to enhancement of the pay and status of defence officers since the deduction of rank pay from the pay scales had been declared illegal.
As is known to all, the contentions of the Defence Ministry were not accepted and the Court stuck to its earlier order of March 2010 with the only modification that the interest component on the arrears would be granted from 01 Jan 2006 instead of 01 Jan 1986.
However brushing all of the above aside and in contravention of the spirit of the judgement and also in utter breach of their own affidavits and statements before the SC, the Ministry of Defence has issued the final letter of implementation today, which basically, in effect, only grants the below mentioned :-
“….and to re-fix the initial pay of the concerned officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force in the revised scale (integrated scale) as on 01-01-1986 as per Para 6 of those instructions without deduction of rank pay appropriate to the rank held by the officer on 01st January 1986….”
The MoD letter also states that no changes would be made in the instructions issued after 5th and 6th CPCs except to the extent of re-fixation necessitated due to fixation as on 01 Jan 1986.
The final implementation order issued by the Govt of India issued today can be accessed by clicking here.
So there you have it. The Defence Ministry totally ignoring the character of the judgement as well as its own commitment before the Court, and perhaps also the draft instructions that may have been submitted by the three defence services to the Ministry for implementing the judgement in letter and spirit. No change in pay scale, status or even the scales after the 5th and 6th CPCs has been notified.
The victory has been rendered redundant.
Are the defence services not a part of this nation, or do they need to continually hanker after their own government for what is rightfully theirs, time and again, while in service and then after retirement and then even after death?
President and Secretary of RDOA, apropos Maj Navjot's blog - what next?
Another few months more of litigation? A few more NoK added and a few more officers deceased?
MoD, Def Fin and MoF not accountable for statements on affidavits, especially the Addl Affidavit in Nov 2011 and the latest asking for a 12 weeks extension?
Pls refer Para 8 of this order,,it clearly says the ultimate truth,,,,,,refixation of pay as per V and VI pay commission also,,,,,,,thanks n best wishes to all
The final implementation order issued by the Govt of India dated 27 Dec 2012 is at - http://www.mediafire.com/?2s4lrnebcbcd5so
@Satyamev Never Jayate
Sir,
Your ID is REVERBERATING in my ears!!!
@Harry,on this blog and
Manmohan Singhji, Antonyji, Shashikant Sharmaji, Priti Mohantyji not on this blog,
2G, CWG, Hanji, Nahinji, Soniaji, Rahulji, Diggy Ji but never Jai Jawanji or Jai Kisanji.
No more lest that Section of the IT law come home to disturb my New Year.
Sir,
We have to blame ourselves (Army Pay Cell) that during the fixation of py during 4th CPC a Lts pay was brought down to that of a 2Lt. During 3rd CPC a Lts starting was 850 and not 750 where as in case of Civ A gp the starting was 700.
The whole battle was lost at that stage for which we have been suffering due to devaluation of all ranks by one stage, which is now amply being reflected in the 6th CPC. Not only Officers ebven JCOs have been csaled down.
Is there any remedy to this anomaly at this stage?
Regards
Col (Retd) ravi Rao
Dear All,
Can some one clarify the case of an Officer who was Capt as on 01.01.1986 and got promoted to the rank of Major on 01.01.1988. On removal of Rank Pay, his basic Pay was added with Rs.200 as on 01.01.1986, when he became Major on 01.01.1988 his basic Pay became Rs.3400 should his Rank Pay of Rs.600 be added in to his Basic Pay and thus revised Basic Pay would become Rs.4000 with additional rank Pay of Rs.600. Please through some light on to this issue. Such case is applicable to many Officers in the span of 01.01.1986 till 31.12.1995.It has happened with me. I am going to fight a case on this issue. My Email ID is jps_tel@rediffmail.com
With regards.
Sqn. Ldr. J.P. Singh(Retd.)
Mob: 9310551374
Dear All,
Can some one clarify the case of an Officer who was Capt as on 01.01.1986 and got promoted to the rank of Major on 01.01.1988. On removal of Rank Pay, his basic Pay was added with Rs.200 as on 01.01.1986, when he became Major on 01.01.1988 his basic Pay became Rs.3400 should his Rank Pay of Rs.600 be added in to his Basic Pay and thus revised Basic Pay would become Rs.4000 with additional rank Pay of Rs.600. Please through some light on to this issue. Such case is applicable to many Officers in the span of 01.01.1986 till 31.12.1995.It has happened with me. I am going to fight a case on this issue. My Email ID is jps_tel@rediffmail.com
With regards.
Sqn. Ldr. J.P. Singh(Retd.)
Mob: 9310551374
Dear All,
Can some one clarify the case of an Officer who was Capt as on 01.01.1986 and got promoted to the rank of Major on 01.01.1988. On removal of Rank Pay, his basic Pay was added with Rs.200 as on 01.01.1986, when he became Major on 01.01.1988 his basic Pay became Rs.3400 should his Rank Pay of Rs.600 be added in to his Basic Pay and thus revised Basic Pay would become Rs.4000 with additional rank Pay of Rs.600. Please through some light on to this issue. Such case is applicable to many Officers in the span of 01.01.1986 till 31.12.1995.It has happened with me. I am going to fight a case on this issue. My Email ID is jps_tel@rediffmail.com
With regards.
Sqn. Ldr. J.P. Singh(Retd.)
Mob: 9310551374
Dear All,
Can some one clarify the case of an Officer who was Capt as on 01.01.1986 and got promoted to the rank of Major on 01.01.1988. On removal of Rank Pay, his basic Pay was added with Rs.200 as on 01.01.1986, when he became Major on 01.01.1988 his basic Pay became Rs.3400 should his Rank Pay of Rs.600 be added in to his Basic Pay and thus revised Basic Pay would become Rs.4000 with additional rank Pay of Rs.600. Please through some light on to this issue. Such case is applicable to many Officers in the span of 01.01.1986 till 31.12.1995.It has happened with me. I am going to fight a case on this issue. My Email ID is jps_tel@rediffmail.com
With regards.
Sqn. Ldr. J.P. Singh(Retd.)
Mob: 9310551374
Post a Comment