MoD letters of 26 Nov 12 and 27 Dec 12 in true words is 'to save their own skin'
RDOA is very clear in their mind as to what the letters mean. It does not take 12 weeks to issue a letter of 26 Nov 12 saying that they will comply with the SC order.
Letter of 27 Dec 12 falls short of SC order.
For the layman; The Contempt of Court Act deals with only two types of contempt ie criminal and civil.Civil contempt means, wilful disobedience of any judgment,decree,direction,order, writ, or other process of the court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court.
Every person is at liberty to interpret the way he feels. If the SC has given judgment it is natural that cognisance has been taken of IV/V/VI CPC. RDOA will take action at the appropriate time as deemed fit to deal with the case.
Secy RDOA
RDOA is very clear in their mind as to what the letters mean. It does not take 12 weeks to issue a letter of 26 Nov 12 saying that they will comply with the SC order.
Letter of 27 Dec 12 falls short of SC order.
For the layman; The Contempt of Court Act deals with only two types of contempt ie criminal and civil.Civil contempt means, wilful disobedience of any judgment,decree,direction,order, writ, or other process of the court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court.
Every person is at liberty to interpret the way he feels. If the SC has given judgment it is natural that cognisance has been taken of IV/V/VI CPC. RDOA will take action at the appropriate time as deemed fit to deal with the case.
Secy RDOA
82 comments:
Thanks for the reassurance.
This is old tactics of "Divide and Rule" used by Britishers earlier and now by the baboos. They wanna divide the the defence community as they r dividing the nation.
But Satyamev Jayate...
Regards
Yogesh
@Satyam Never Jayate:"....rank pay is to be deducted from the re-fixation amount has been twisted...."; To my mind, in view of the judgement now delivered, there ought to have been no deduction, for V CPC, of rank pay, old or new. But RDOA can clarify when the time is right.
@Satayam
"Will MoD inform whether there will be an inquiry...."
Sir,
Not an iota of a chance of any such inquiry being held. You knew the answer already BTW, but probably you were seeking reconfirmation of the same. Sorry I had to convey this.
RANK PAY APPLICABLE wef 1.1.1986 ~ NOT with RETROSPECTVELY………
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM, Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-4110570 letter dated 01 Jan 2013 to RM stating that:-
“The MoD letter is applicable to only about 20000 officers who were holding the rank of Captain to Brigadier on 01 Jan 1986 whereas it should have covered all officers who are in receipt of pay or pension or the family pension which should approximately works out to over 80000”
…..is in bad taste
Letter is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/48nda/message/17174
RANK PAY BENEFITS CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE RETROPECTIVELY….i.e..for those before 1.1.1986.
It is quite surprising & extremely shocking about the very SERIOUS & ABSURD CLAIM regarding 80000 affected Officers….
Maj Gen Satbir Singh as Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement, is not properly appraised about the true / material facts which caused him to issue letter dated 01-01-2013 to RM referred above without any iota of truth. In view of the Principles of the Doctrine of Estoppel the same is purely imaginary and invented by him for the purpose of making frivolous claim for 80000 which will be detrimental to those receiving Rank Pay wef 1.1.1986
@sunlit and Harry,
I know MoD not want to find fault with itself. It would mean that the Secy, Addl Secy, Director/Dy Secy, U/S and the Sec offr who wrote the note are all responsible.
As for deduction of rank pay in re-fixation for V CPC - I stand corrected. It states rank pay as on 1.1.1996 is to be deducted before stepping up and then rank pay added. Similar words do not appear in 4 CPC.
As for Maj Gen Satbir's letter and comments of CSV - any one enlighten us?
Anyway, RDOA will determine how and when to take the battle ahead.
The letter of MOD will have to be converted into a corrigendum to the SAI , which will then become applicable to all officers serving on 1.1.86 and commissioned thereafter(less Maj Gens & above)ie from the time 4th CPC became applicable. GOI cannot have two criterias for a similar cadre in terms of P&A.The problem here is that the upper end of the Integrated pay scale has to be increased in order to give adequate number of increments to Cols & Brigs during the applicability of the 4th CPC, which I feel the GOI is chary of as it will upset its applecart in pay fixation in the subsequent Pay Commissions.
Regards
Ravi Rao
@Caba San Veijo, Pensions are revised with each Pay Commission hence Gen Satbir is correct that pensions of those affected will have to be revised since 50% of rank pay applicable will have to be added to the pension.
Regards
Ravi Rao
Gentlemen, when one pay commission has been wronged, while rectifying the wrong will result in change of minimum pension for pre retirees, a positive corrections in the subsequent pay commissions thus effecting all officers,veterans and family pensioners of ranks effected. Thus Gen Satbir's views are legally correct.
@caba san veijo, I don't understand legal terms.
Let me just ask two hypothetical questions - (1) a pre-1.1.1986 Major with x years service gets a pension of Rs 1000. Is it justifiable that a post 1.1.1986 Major with the same years of service gets Rs 1200 because for the latter rank pay has been included in the calculations? (2)Wasn't it the UoI that has stated in its application for extending the 12 weeks limitation for implementation that pre-1.1.1986 officers are also involved? So who is right?
Over to you!
Dear all, seasons greetings.
The babus in all depts of GOI must be laughing their way, seeing the confusion/complexity they created.
I think we should leave it to RDOA to deal with each and every aspect of the issue legally. let us not create more confusion/complexity so that the babus enjoy at our cost.
THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR MISCHIEF.
V.Sundaresan
Juvenile Rape Laws are being re-written to cover 17 year old who raped Para_medico....
Current Juvenile law is 18 years.
If it is made 17 years - IT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO HIM RETROSPECTIVELY……….
So caba san Viejo is right……..
Please read
"PRINCIPLES OF DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL"
from website ~ you will come to know the LEGAL POSITION on this matter.
~ any way for your information ....there is no chance on this matter..
@ Caba San Viejo
Curious id. Reminds me of someone from South America or possibly Spain. :)
" any way for your information ....there is no chance on this matter."
Thanks for putting your stamp of closure on the matter. I sincerely hope you are NOT the hon'ble CJI giving your 'unofficial' verdict in the instant Case. If you are a Sarkari Babu -your questioning of Gen Satbir's very logical and well reasoned letter strengthens my belief that you indeed are one- then your views need not be taken any cognisance of.
@msk - have you read the law in the vodafone case - it is retrospective from 1961; secondly, in the rank pay case, my query remains waiting for a reply;
and @caba san veijo,I have read the estoppel on internet including the Lambertini and Coke illustrations. But my query remains; and now my second query - have you read the UoI vs. Maj Gen Vains case? What is the operative part? Does it mean that I will get lesser total of pay + DA than a Brig whose Rank pay is restored and I cannot speak or sue?
and @Wg Cdr Sunderesan - no babu is laughing; I can send you the waffling on a RTI of Nov 2012 that a colleague sent to the MoD.
Remember that one who laughs las, laughs longest? WE haven't started laughing yet.
cabo san veijo - resort and spa with a reward for loyalty programme.
Reward for loyalty?? Hmm - sounds interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WAIT....WAIT pse.RDOA is seized of the issue and issues.WAIT FOR ACTION OF IMPLEMENTATION BY PCsDA (o &P)for comprehensive action with appropriate strategy.In the mean time all active and intellects can sharpen their tools for action-appropriate active and passive actions. views /comments and counter comments which are infractous can be avoided and apply mind to derive the rightful dues.
@bala, thank God for one optimist in this gloomy season of gang-rape (not of Armed forces), mutilations and decapitations (of Armed Forces personnel), thick fog, BJP and Congress playing their favourite but stale game called tit-for-tat, there is one soul who sees the silver lining on all dark clouds.
Happy Pongal, bala. And thanks for keeping our spirits and chins up!
The PCDA has taken the certificate from us that we will refund any excess recieved by us, this does not protect us from their paying us whatever they feel without consulting us as to how they calculate our dues, keeping in view the current trust levels we should also get an indeminity to get arrears if they make short payment. Will someone guide me as how proceed to rope in PCDA to be careful.
regrds
Col (Retd) Ravi Rao
@Ravi Rao, the PCDA (O) has to provide a year-wise breakdown of the arrears to facilitate IT returns under Sec 89. In that the item-wise arrears (rank pay, DA, etc) has to be intimated.
To make it easy, in case the PCDA (O) does not provide that information, it will be obligated to do so if you write to the CPIO,Particulars of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)- Smt. Rekha Raikar Kumar,ICAS; Addl. CDA; Office of the PCDA (O); Golibar Maidan, Pune 411 001
Telephone No. – 020 – 26401103
Fax No. – 020 – 26453446 office of enclosing an application on an A4 sheet, asking what is the information you require. A request for obtaining information under sub-section (1) of Section 6 should be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. 10/- by way of cash against proper receipt or
by Demand Draft or Bankers Cheque payable to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority (PCDA (O). Please send the application RPAD, retain the counterfoil of the IPO and the Post office receipt. The CPIO has to provide the information within 30 days under pain of a fine up to Rs 25, 000 deducted from the salary of the CPIO/officer who hold the information for a delay exceeding 30 days.
@Satyam Never Jayate;@Ravi Rao: I'm sure you would have already availed the benefit under section 89 when the VI CPC arrears were paid. Now, some of the same past asst yrs will get affected by these arrears as well. One will have to account for the past VI cpc arrears again when making calcs under sec 89.
But, I do think PCDA(O) and PCDA(pensions) will provide a breakdown of yearwise IT liability.
@dhoop, what an irony! We will pay IT @ 20 or 30% + cess on 6% interest from 1.1.2006!
@Satyam Never Jayate: Well, paying income tax is our duty towards society. So, I don't see the irony there. If the interest had been at penal rate wef 01 Jan 86, then too we'd have paid tax at rates applicable. Of course, as a gesture of goodwill and an acknowledgement of a wrong having been done, MOD could have taken up a case for exempting arrears from income tax.
But, the real irony is when one sees businessmen, property dealers, doctors, lawyers on civvie street buying up houses, luxury SUVs (every alternate year?), blowing up sums equivalent to one AF officer's entire arrears on just one celebration at some 5 star hotel and then not worrying too much about their income tax, if at all.
@dhoop, the word irony was used "tongue in cheek." My sense of humor is a yet another irony.
The UOI/MOD had given a figure of about 1600 crores as out lay for Arrears of rank pay , but now with the 27 Dec letter it will not involve more than 500 crores as only about 20,000 officers are affected. This fact should be brought up and interest wef 1.1.86 be demanded, since the Hon SC has been misguided and wrong prayer made by UOI/MOD in their appeal
.Can the RDOE or IESM take it up as it is criminal contempt withintent to cheat/misguide the Hon SC.
Regard
Col (Retd) Ravi Rao
Dear RDOA (Veterans Torch Bearer),
After the GOI MOD Letter dated 27 Dec 2012 is implemented, UOI be asked in REJOINDER to submit to SC ….CASH OUTGO COMPONENT………
……….then RDOA ……..should take the matter forward depending on CASH OUTGO COMPONENT…..
if there is shortfall below 1600 Crores ….
...matter has to be highlighted for MISLEADING SC with entire machinery under command how can they go wrong in calculations... ???
…..WAS IT DELIBERATE to MISLEAD SC!!!
@ Col Ravi Rao (retd)
@ Money control
Sirs,
Damn good point!
But UoI SHOULD NOT be allowed to get by in SC by saying that they(UoI) made a mistake in calculations.
That would be another brazen lie.
Now that the govt letter on implementation is out it is clear that we are not getting what was expected. RDOA planned to put up a contempt of court against UoI in SC. But would it be right ? The reason I say so is that the while the govt may have filed replies on sworn affidavit of taking into account the impact of IV CPC on V and VI CPC it is binding on it to do so if there is ambiguity in the SC Judgement to interpret it differently. It is the judgement which is operative not the arguments or other matters brought before it. If we pursue the contempt course it may be disallowed. We may hence have to go for an appeal. This shall take a few more years to reach its logical conclusion. We may include in the appeal that interest on the reimbursement should be from the date the error in payment took place and not from an arbitrary date in 2006 whose logic is unsound. Writing letters to Service Chiefs and hoping that they shall take it up with the MoD for corrections is not going to yield anything going by past experience. The Defence Minister is going to take the advice of the babus on the court judgement vis a vis the letter by Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh of IESM and would be lead to the same conclusion as they have written in the letter of 27 Dec 2013 for implementation. Waiting hence is futile in my opinion. We should without losing time in fond hopes of a correction file an immediate appeal in SC. It shall be frustrating delay but this is the truth of our country and the times we live in. Lose no time or energy to abuse or curse or write letters to PM , RM or President. Going back to court again with better lawyers is the best and perhaps the only hope and option.
Sir,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM, Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement had written an excellant letter with total depth to our political masters n our chiefs. But our brotherns are critising with knowledge which is a pity. I am extreemly happy to know the clarification of RDOA.
However in my opinion the following is re-assuaring:-
The implementation order SAI/SAFI/SNI of 87 for 4th CPC contained all those relavant material suiting to the anology of reducing an amount equalnt to rank pay. i.e. the pay scale of 2300- to - 5100 and the minimum basic pay of rs 2800/- for 5yrs capt.
Since that rank pay is not to be deducted in total last pay as on 31-12-85 + 20% basic pay of old scale. now the give effect to this judgement, it is a must to re-structure 4th cpc pay scale to ensure that there is no un-necessary stagnation BECAUSE OF IMPLEMENTING COURT ORDER, which was not there before the judgement (i.e. a Brig. with 2 yrs service as on 31-12-85 will be staginating with 2 stag increment and still falling short of last pay by rs 200/- as max 2 SI were permitted. it also violate same order that the basic pay as on 01-01-86 cannot be less that the above formula sum)
Further there is also deduction of new rank pay elment in fitment for 5th cpc. once order is given not to deduct rank pay element while determinning new basic pay-- how can it be implemented in one CPC and voilate in another CPC?
The peacock while openning its feather to dance thinks that it is only smart. But it was actually showing its nude body.
So all those who thought to be smart by inserting some words here and there would be exposed, what is hearting is they use our Govt. for meeting their ego need. It is the goodness of our Govt. who picked up a person from rack and made an idol for aspirant, but background does matter.appo may god bless them with lots of wisdom.
on Saturday, in a talk in Sector 21 in Noida, by Air Cmde A K Patra,the Principal Director, Directorate of Air veterans, Air HQ, he stated
QUOTE
1. Rank pay arrears will be paid in two separate installments. The first installment by the AFCAO consisting of the increase in pay due to rank pay from 1.1 2006 till the date of retirement along with the corresponding DA and the increase in Leave Encashment which is due to this rank pay. The data of the officers whose details Dte of AV has will be published on their website (www.iafpensioners.gov.in) in a week's time. Please check your details in it and get in touch with Dte of AV if there are any corrections required. Dte of AV will be sending a mail to all and will be asking for additional details and a pre-receipt for the amount also. Letters will also be sent to concerned personnel.
2. The second installment will be paid by the bank on instructions from the JCDA or CDA as the case may be. This will happen after the Dte of AV has vetted the details after crosschecking with AFCAO and informed the JCDA/CDA. This will come in respective pension accounts and will consist of increase in pension due to rank pay, the corresponding arrears in DA and the increase in Gratuity. The fixation of 1986 will affect the fixation of pay in 1996 and if required in 2006 also.
As per the Supreme Court this is to be completed by the first week of March and the Air Force is confident of doing this before the end date.
UNQUOTE
Further AFCAO has nominated Wg Cdr Pradeep Mehta Oi/c OPW as the Nodal Officer. His contact numbers are +91 11 25693066 and +919650591865.
You may call this number and cehck receipt of documents. Wg Cdr Mehta is on leave, so other doubts will have to wait till 15.1.2013
@Unknown:"..better lawyers..; That is hardly fair to the able and steadfast legal team that has steered the case through trying situations to a successful culmination.
@Aerial View:"..The first installment by the AFCAO consisting of the increase in pay due to rank pay from 1.1 2006 till the date of retirement.."; Is the year in that date correct?
@dhoop - Quote/Unquote refers. Re-produced from a group email.
Sorry, unable to clarify so request that Pl call those numbers for any doubts.
Is the date 1-1-2006 correct? pl clarify.
thanks for the inf.
v.sundaresan
Hi all having doubts about the date 1.1.2006 or 1.1.1986, please call the nodal officer at AFCAO or call up the PD Dte of AV.
What has been copy-pasted is what was received.
Nodal Officer AFCAO - Wg Cdr Pradeep Mehta, 011 25693066 or 09650591865
PD Dte of AV, Air Cmde AK Patra can be contacted at 011-25683190
AFCAO will probably give an email ID for de-clogging the telephone lines.
@Aerial View: Hope PCDA(O) and Naval Pay Cell follow suit, as well.
@dhoop - taking the relative speeds (IAF 300-900 kmph), Army (30 miles in 72 hours) and Navy (15 kts), may be PCDA (O) and NPO will!
Will watch this space!
Will serving personnel who have joined in 1994 get anything at all. Anybody with clarity is kindly requested to intimate
GOOD WORK DONE.THANKS RDOA
@he, the rank pay is payable to those who were in the ranks of Captain, Major, Lt Col, Col and Brig (and their equivalents in Navy and Air Force) from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.2005.
I hope you will now work out the rest. If you still have doubts, please go the RDOA site and read from the bottom upwards. That is the best clarity that is available on this subject.
Jai Hind
@he
SAI 1/S/87 has been ammended to the extent as in para 6(a) ii, the other parts are operative hence all officers serving and commissioned after 1.1.86 will get the benifit of refixation of pay, since other paras of the SAI have not been ammended/modified.
This is what I infer from the contents of the MOD letter of 27 Dec.
Regards
Col (Retd) Ravi Rao
@he
Sir,
A simple grievance submitted via PCDA(O) website may resolve the confusion/mystery.
Can some one pass me the email ad to communicate with pcdao Pune.The email ad on the website is not functional
@he
@Harry
Some experienced officer can try this remedy also. We do not loose anything by filing a grievance.
@Abe, you need to log in and file the complaint. I would but am not an Army officer.
Col Ravi Rao is correct,The wrong took place for 'in service officers with rank pay as on 1-1-86'. Officers joining AF subsequently got their pay scales and rank pay as per IV/V/VI CPC.
@chwopc, issues for your consideration are as follows: -
1. Rank pay was deducted for all eligible officers from the re-fixation from 3CPC to 4 CPC. Thereby, all eligible officers got lower pay (call it Basic or revised or whatever) to the extent of the amount of rank pay. This needs to be restored for officers in those ranks as on 1.1.1986 and any one who was promoted to Captain and above after 1.1.1986, simply because the same error was committed till 31.12.1995. So would these be part 1 of arrears?
2. There has to be a higher DA for the higher basic/revised pay. Will this be part 2 of arrears?
3. When the re-fixation took place in 1.1.1996 it is a moot point whether (a) what was deducted from the re-fixed amount was the 4 CPC rank pay as recommended by the 5 CPC, or (b) the 5 CPC rank pay was deducted as per SAI/SNI/SAFI 2/S/1997. If it is the latter then all eligible officers should get the arrears to the extent of the difference between 4 CPC and 5 CPC rank pay. Would this be part 3 of the arrears?
4. When the re-fixation from 4 CPC to 5 CPC took place, all eligible officers should have has the 5CPC scale fixed at 4 CPC revised (now after SC's order of 4.9.2012) rather than what was contrived by MoD or CDA (O) or whoever. Would this be part 4 of the arrears?
5. The same applies for re-fixation from 5 CPC to 6 CPC. Would this be part 5 of arrears?
6. Therefore, would pensions be increased and DA paid on the new revised amounts?
7. What happens to Maj Gens pay and pensions when Brigs get the rank pay restored? Please look at the scales and it would strike you that Maj Gens would be affected too. So what happens then?
Jai Hind
@ Satyameva Never Jayate. The whole conspiracy to deduct the rank pay by MOD/CDA during fixation in 4th CPC reeks of foul play in order to bring down the AF in the Warrant of Precedence in subsequent CPCs, which they have achieved. Today a Lt is equated with an Inspector of Police/Accounts Officer , Capt has no equation, a Major is equated with a Higher Secondary School
Principal They have achieved their goal ultimately in the VI CPC even in higher Ranks due to non implementation of NFFU and are not addressing the PC anomalies intentionally due to weakness in the Top Sevices Leadership. The blame utterly lies with the Senior Leadership who only vie for Post Retirement Placements.
Regaards
Col (Retd) Ravi Rao
Dear Friends,
All your posts are inquisitive about who all get the benefit of and rank pay and who all get the arrears. Here is a case of live example. AF Officers are known for better reasoning among any category including IAS and Foreign Service Officers. Hope you agree with me. We decide everything in a fraction of seconds other wise we don’t survive but others take hours, days, weeks, months and years to take decisions. Let us not compare ourselves with those. Hope you all got my mind. Now let us come to rank pay. Consider the following and decide yourselves as to who all get arrears.
• I was commissioned on 20 Jul 1984 with two years anti date seniority for pay. My starting basic pay was 830/- in the 3rd CPC scales of 750/- starting scale for 2nd Lt with 40/- increment. I was commissioned direct into t rank as I got 2 years anti date seniority, hence my starting basic pay was 750+40+40=830/-. On 1.1.86 my basic was 870/-. As I was Lt I was neither getting any rank pay nor was any rank pay debited in pay fixation on 01 Jan 86. In IVth CPC, on 01 Jan 1986 my basic pay was fixed at 2600/- in the pay scales of 2300 to 5100. It was quite correct. I have no claim. But what happened later, keep going ahead.
• On 20 Jul 1988 I was Acting Captain and got rank pay 200/- without involving fixation of my basic pay (On that day I was getting basic pay of Rs 2800/- means with 5 increments including 2 for antedate). Here also I don’t have any claim. Then I became substantive captain on 20 Jul 1991 (in 7 years being PC SL Officer & 9 years with anti date seniority for pay). I was drawing Basic pay of Rs 3200/- (2300 + 9 increments of Rs 100/-) and rank pay of Rs 200 when I became substantive Captain. I don’t have any claim about my rank pay here. Let us proceed further.
• On 01 Jan 1996 Vth CPC recommendations were implemented. But it took two years time for fixation of pay of Vth CPC. See your pay slips for Jan 1998, along with it you got pay fixation sheets and arrears too. Forget about what basic and DA we were getting in the month of Dec 1997, see your pay slip for Jan 1998 and go back to Jan 1996 pay. On 01 Jan 1996 I was given basic pay of Rs 3600 plus rank pay of Rs 200. I as a Captain was drawing basic pay of more than a Major’s basic pay of Rs 3400/- in integrated pay scales of 4th CPC. In Vth CPC (1.1.96) may basic was fixed adding together my basic pay of Rs 3600, unrevised rank pay of Rs 200, DA Rs 5180/- (ie 148@ on max basic of Rs 3500 as per DA slab), IR 1 Rs 100/-, IR II Rs 380 and 40% of unrevised basic Rs 1520, total emoluments worked out to Rs 10980/- and from this amount the revised rank pay of Caption of Rs 400 was deducted and brought down my emoluments to Rs 10580/-, then my basic was fixed at Rs 10800/- in Vth CPC pay scales of Capt of Rs 9600-300-11400/-. Here I have a claim of deduction of revised rank pay from my total emoluments. The Honourable Court’s pronouncements say that the deduction of rank pay from total emoluments while fixation of basic pay was illegal and irregular. The courts judgment speak of irregular and illegal deduction of rank pay from total emoluments on 01 Jan 86, doesn’t it effect such and make such deduction of rank pay in following CPC?. When does this babudom understand this point. If my rank pay was not deducted in pay fixation on 01 Jan 1996 I would have crossed Lt Col’s basic pay in the Major rank and would have got increments when I became Lt Col in Jul 2001 and further it effects my last pay drawn when I retired in Jul 2005. Why don’t the civ crowed understand these irregularities. They needs slaps by courts then only they understand their mistakes. They never learn from their own mistakes. They will continue doing with same mistakes even if they understand what they are doing. Why CDA(O) is now paying rank pay arrears to only those officers who were Capt to Brig on 01 Jan 1986, why not to those who became Capts and holding those ranks as on 01 Jan 1996 as they deducted the rank pay of Vth CPC from total emoluments on 01 Jan 1996.
Contd
Contd from previous post
• On 01 Jan 1996 while re-fixation of our basic pay they added our unrevised rank pay to our total emoluments and then fixed the basic pay and made us at par with our civilian counter parts. Doesn’t it mean that our civilian counter parts were also given the benefit of our unrevised rank pay? Were the civ counter parts entitled for our rank pay? There is so much which does not yet meet our eyes. Drill and exercise your mind, you will come to know. This is just food for thought for all of us.
• I have sent grievances and emails to PCDA(O) but no one cares to reply. Let us wait and see what is going to happen in future.
Dear Veterans,
Aren’t we raising numerous doubts and making unwarranted comments here in various blog-posts? RDOA has already stated clearly as to whom all the rank pay judgment of 04 Sep 2012 applies and since which date the interest is expected, then, why so many doubts.
Some one has posted here that an official from CDA Pune when visited Jabalpur has said that all those officers commissioned after 1.1.86 need not dream rank pay as SC judgment is very very clear. Some one else has posted here that “As per FA (DS), SC judgment is applicable only to officers in service as on 1.1.86 in the ranks of Capt to Brig and the applicable arrears would be disbursed up to a period till 31 Dec 95. Nobody else is affected and no revision of pay as on 1.1.96 and 1.1.06. This has been told to all three Service HQ reps during a presentation in South Block almost”. Let us not go by what the GOI/MOD staff (including CDA staff) says verbally because they were the people who cheated us in IVth & Vth CPCs by deducting our rank pay from our total emoluments. Let them give us in writing as to what they say verbally, will they do it, No they cant.
As far as payment of interest is concerned, rules already exist in our regulations. Non payment of any pensionary benefits beyond 6 months from the due date (retrospective date) will have to be paid with interest from the retrospective date.
Doubt about as to who all affected by the rank pay judgment
Grade Pay and MSP were introduced in VIth CPC wef 01 Jan 2006. Just understand the logic as to how they were made applicable to those officers who retired prior to 01 Jan 2006. Pre-1.1.2006 retirees are entitled and paid grade pay and MSP wef 1.1.2006. Similarly, pre-1.1.1986 retirees became entitled for rank pay wef 01 Jan 1986.
The rank pay was deducted from the total emoluments worked out while fixation of pay of officers of the ranks Capt to Brig not only in IVth CPC but also the same mistake was done by the CDA in Vth CPC too. The Honourable Court’s decisions contained in judgments become legally acceptable pronouncements for all similar cases occurred either in the past or in the future. Many laws are made by such pronouncements only. Then why not the judgment on rank pay of IVth CPC applies to Vth CPC also in which the same mistake was repeated? If any CDA reps or FA reps make any verbal statements, they should be immediately asked to give them in writing.
The UOI in their application to the Honourable Supreme Court of India in reference to their judgment dated 04 Sep 2012 has already committed about the work load involved in re-fixation of pay of affected officers in IV, V and VI CPCs.
So far things are moving in our favour even if UOI has applied for additional time. While the application of the UOI for additional time is being heard, our legal team must insist for the progress of the work done in last 12 weeks wef 04 Sep 2012 and the delay report showing day wise actions initiated by all concerned in implementation of the judgment of 04 Sep 2012. In this review we have a chance to get the interest on arrears right from 01 Jan 1986/retrospective effect of arrears becoming due till date of payment of arrears.
CDA(O) Pune has earlier posted flash news on its web site and also posted letters and application forms for officers who were in the ranks of Capt to Bring on 01 Jan 1986 and later they removed the flash news and replaced it by saying no Govt orders have been received. If it was the case then how come CDA (O) has posted the flash news when they say no Govt orders have been received? It means CDA (O) is doing all these and making unwarranted statements verbally at their own without Govt orders which can not be taken as authority.
@Col MS Raju: What you have stated about fixation at the time of IV cpc could have a totally different outcome for someone with a slightly different seniority situation. Suppose, a Captain was promoted to Major in June 1986. He'd certainly get the advantage of the rank pay judgement for the rank pay relating to the rank of Capt as on 01 Jan 86. But, what basic would he be fixed at on promotion in Jun 86 in light of the GOI letter? Compare that to the basic fixation of a Major who had been promoted a little prior to 01 Jan 86 and as on that date was still short of his first increment in the III cpc scale.
The effect would be drastically different.
1. RANK PAY APPLICABILITY: Ref to post by Col MS Raju and all doubts raised in this blog.
2. The Govt orders have been issued on 27 dec 12. Maj Dhanapalan had filed the case wherein FIXATION OF PAY was wrong and was questioned. [The revised pay scales and wrong pay scales fixed for Armed Forces was not questioned by Maj Dhanapalan.]
3. Para 1 of 27 Dec 12 clearly states "-- and to say that Para6(a)(ii) thereof, while 'PROVIDING FOR FIXATION' repeat 'PROVIDING FOR FIXATION' of initial pay in the revised scales, --
4. Para 6 of 27 Dec 12 clearly states " Accordingly in compliance with the aforesaid order----- which has also directed that the order shall govern ALL SIMILARLY PLACED OFFRS repeat ALL SIMILARLY PLACED OFFRS----"
5. Para 7 of 27 Dec 12 clearly states " EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF MOD OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN Para6(a)(ii) OF THE AFORESAID ARMY INSTRS--- RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF RANK PAY ----"
6. Para 8 of 27 Dec 12 clearly states "---IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGE IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL INSTRS OF ARMY---EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF THE NEED FOR RE-FIXATION repeat REFIXATION OF PAY AS ON 1/1/96 AND 1/1/2006 NECESSITATED DUE TO REFIXATION OF PAY AS ON 1/1/86---"
7. If these above lines are analysed it is amply clear that after 1/1/86 no arrears are going to be paid EVEN TO AN OFFR WHO BECAME A CAPT ON 2 JAN 1986.
8. The crux of the 27 Dec 12 order is that the case was for deduction of rank pay DURING FIXATION from 3rd to 4th CPC ONLY and not RPT NOT for REVISION OF SCALES. In this regard see para 7 line 5 "--which is in complete compliance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements----"
9. NO CASE WAS FILED FOR WRONG PAY SCALES GIVEN IN 4TH CPC AS WELL AS 5TH CPC and WRONG STARTING PAY FOR EACH RANK. Hence the "complete compliance" in para 7 line 5.
10. Unless the SC raps the UoI on its knuckles for REVISING THE SCALES and not repeat not THE FIXATION carried out for offrs from 3rd to 4th CPC, the stalemate continues. We can interpret in our own way the SC Judgement, and its applicability for post 1/1/86, but we will be given nothing.
11. UNLESS THE PAY SCALES OF 4TH CPC ARE CHANGED, It is also immaterial whether the orders are applicable "AS ON-- or With Effect From ---".
12. A comparison of IPS and mil starting scales for each equivalent rank from 3rd cpc onwards should clearly bring out the difference.
@Col Ravi Rao, how many of the seniors have been appointed compared to their civilian counterparts? The 3 Chiefs presented a case after the Sixth CPC (and earned diatribe of an editor who wouldn't walk this talk).
That is the past. We now need to see that justice, complete justice and nothing but justice is done. If PCDA (O) does not reply, file a RTI application and you have to get a reply within 30 days.
@Col MS Raju- a friend of mine has filed a RTI in the MoD (Pay/Services) and has received a reply that he has to inspect the files and earmark what he wants from the files about the Rank Pay matter. He received that reply within 27 days.
Give the RTI route a try and you will see the Rs 25000 fine if they don't respond acts like a whip.
Dear Sir's of 3 Services on Board,
Let us not blindfold ourselves and start describing elephant, touching different part.
Govt. rules n regulations are framed based on rational n logic. an adhoc decison by some ill-informed babu cannot make such order implementable. if that happens, the Govt. instead of day to day business, would be only replying to the RTI, if the scales n minimum service n minimum pay for each rank in 4 n 5 cpc is not adjusted / corrected.
Thats why RDOA stated that let them pay first.
to site an example:- a train was moving slowly n a dog was walking prowdly before the train in between the tracks presuming that ' I am only pulling the train'.
It is just a matter of time we would come to know every thing. till then we should write to our supreme commander (President), PM, n all our political masters who have total soft corner to us. i heard repetedly media also saying so.
regards
Dear Sunlit, Manu & Satyam Never Jatey,
Don’t you think we are mixing several issues? Yes we are doing it. I have clearly brought out in my posts above, about the legal pronouncements. The honourable court’s pronouncements are applicable to past, present and future cases of similar nature. The Honourable High Court of Kerala and the Honourable Supreme Court said in their judgment that the rank pay granted to AF Officers in IVth CPC was in addition to basic pay and deduction of rank pay from total emoluments was illegal and irregular. The rank pay introduced in IVth CPC was continued in Vth CPC. Then how come the rank pay deducted in Vth CPC was in order, it has become illegal and irregular. This is what I mean. Though the Courts have given judgment in the case of Maj Dhanapalan with special reference to IVth CPC, but the judgment that “the rank pay granted to AF officers was in addition to basic pay and deduction of rank pay from total emoluments while fixing basic pay was illegal”. Hope you all understood what I want to say.
Now the second point is of fixing of the basic pay. Let the babudom first understand the legal implications involved in the Courts Judgments. Be strict to one thing first “ ie the rank pay granted to AF Officers was in addition to basic Pay and its deduction from total emoluments while fixation of pay was illegal” Let us explain to babudom as to what is the meaning and implications of this legal pronouncements”. When deduction of rank pay from total emoluments in IV CPC was illegal, the same thing repeated in Vth CPC was also illegal”. Many laws are incorporated and repealed by courts pronouncements only. The courts judgments in this present case are sufficient to book any one who says deduction of rank pay of AF officers in Vth CPC was in order.
Again, the pay of those officers who were Capt to Brig on 01 Jan 1986 is being fixed afresh in IV, V and VI CPC. If it is so why not to re-fix the pay of those officers whose rank pay was deducted from total emoluments in Vth CPC. How can the babudom rule us saying that the old officers pay will be re-fixed on 01 Jan 1996 without deduction of rank pay and in the case officers commissioned/promoted after 01 Jan 1986, their rank pay can be deducted from their total emoluments. Re-fixation of basic pay need not necessarily involve re-fixation of pay scales of each CPC. Within the same pay scales the increments need to be hiked. Hope I could clarify what I want to say.
Again am quoting something for “food for thought”. Today an officer (Lt Col) with 13 years commissioned service having 7 years rank service (total 20 years service) is getting same pension as that of an officer of the same rank with 26 yrs to 40 yrs service. Where is the justification?
Let every officer on becoming Lt Col in 13 years and having 20 years total service including rank service apply for retirement at own request. What will happen? Even for that matter every regular officer with 20 years service retires at own request he gets pension of 50% of average emoluments of 10 months before retirement, He gets pension more than previously retired Lt Col. An Officer who became Lt Col in Dec 2005 with 13 years service and retires in 2012 on completion of 20 years service, he gets 7 years increments in pay band 4 and gets half of the basic as pension. Now you calculate yourself. Who will take up all these cases, is it the onus of retired Officers? Are we meant for that? We always look after our men but who looks after us. What our ACR graders are doing. Isn’t their responsibility? What are the Chiefs doing, they always tell their officers to look after the men but are they looking after their men those who are looking after every one? No point talking about babus, the weakness is within us.
As far as rank pay is concerned first let every one of us understand that deduction of rank pay from total emoluments is illegal irrespective of whether it was in IVth or Vth CPC. Once this anomaly is sorted out our basic pay automatically raises because of stagnation.
We have wise counselors amongst us who have advised that we should wait for another week or 10 days when the pay slips and break-up of the arrears will be available with every serving Lt Gen (who was Major in 1986) and equivalent and serving Maj Gen (who was captain in 1986).
Then we will know how PCDA(O) has implemented the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders. We will also know how NPO and AFCAO have interpreted the GoI/MoD letter of 27.12.2012.
Then I am sure the legal team of the RDOA will take a decision on the way forward. There is no other way but to face up and surmount the hurdles posed by MoF (Dep of Exp, Def/Fin etc.
Apropos Col Raju and his strong statement - it appears that MoD, or maybe Def/Fin or even Dept of Exp wants a clarifications. For them it is not sufficient that murder is defined as wanton taking of another life; they want Orders to be made stating that murder wanton taking of life by shooting, stabbing, bludgeoning, etc etc.
That could be the reason that they pretend not to understand that The Hon'ble Supreme Court has said "Rank pay is in addition to pay." They want probably to be told "Rank Pay is in addition to pay in the tenure of the 4 CPC and 5 CPC not just on 1.1.1986."
Can any one who knows about Civil Services recruitment claarify , wheter IQ test is carried out during recruitment of the aspirants?
Regards
Ravi Rao
WHAT BUSINESS Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM, Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement has to write to RM, Service Chiefs etc?
If he feels so strongly about 80000 affected officers,
WHY IS HE SO QUIET?
WHY DID HE NOT FILE CASE AGAINST UoI????
or
RESIGN from Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement.....
Dear Ravi Rao,
The psychometric tests to check IQ levels are only for those who have to take quick decisions within a fraction of a second. Those tests are not required for these babus and politicians as they are never expected to take such quick decisions. Just recollect a poem in KG lessons “Baba baba black ship have you any wool, yes sir yes sir three bags full” but when that wool was needed the civil services say it is over in last promise. They never say no for anything, they always say yes for every thing but they never keep their “yes”, this is what their IQ. Thanks god the govt has not given them the responsibility of holding ammunitions. If it was given to them we face bullets but we never get bullets. The civil services exams are in three phases, Prelims (objective type), Mains (subjective) and interviews in which they are judged in subjective matters (I mean all academics) and all their answers can be found in books and syllabus not like us who are required to face Psychological, GTO tests, Command tasks, Group planning etc. I will quote an example here, a civil services aspirant was asked a question “if you drop an egg on the floor, does it crack”, 99.99 percent people will say yes it cracks. Now the word “it” is used once in question and once in answer, but what does it denote, does it denote floor or egg? Has the interviewing officer asked the aspirant whether egg cracks or floor cracks? Another example, in civil services interviews the interviewer asks the candidate by showing exactly half cut sweet lemon as to how does it appear, 99.99 percent candidates say about its looks and geometrical sizes but interviewer expects the candidate to say it was looking like the other half of the fruit. The civil services think that this is how IQ is tested. Sorry, these are the questions which one has to manage with his cleverness. In our organisation we don’t want people who are clever like babus. Clever itself is a negative word. We never believe in clever ness and smartness but we believe in IQ level, where as in civil services they test cleverness and smartness and not IQ levels. Hope I could convince you. There is so much if I continue about the civil services. Why I said the word clever is negative, just go back to your young age studies, you must have read a story that a wolf falls into a well and unable to come out, a goat goes to the well and sees the wolf. The wolf says hello friend what are you doing in the hitching heat yaar, see how best am enjoying the cool weather inside well, the goat then jumps into the well and wolf takes this opportunity of using the goat as a lift and comes out, this is what cleverness. One should never be clever or smart but he should be intelligent enough to handle the situations. Our babudom is so clever and smart but not intelligent like us. Let us not discuss more Ravi. I think this is enough. But don’t take this is a joke, what I quoted here it is happening outside our organisation. The intelligence of a babu can not be compared even with our NCO leading a section what to talk of babus leading the Nation.
@Hirak Sen
Well... you sure are entitled to your opinion, regardless of its merits.
"WHAT BUSINESS Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM, Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement has to write to RM, Service Chiefs etc?"
What is wrong in it? He is just flagging a point and making a reasoned representation to the people who are at the helm of affairs. Whether they ACT on it or IGNORE it, is entirely different matter for which Gen Satbir can't be held accountable, isn't it?
"WHY IS HE SO QUIET?
WHY DID HE NOT FILE CASE AGAINST UoI????
or
RESIGN from Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement....."
He may well be giving time to the powers-that-be to mull over the representation and take corrective action as deemed fit. To my mind he has not yet got a reply from RM.
Going to the Court...well...don't you know how justice gets subverted/delayed in this great Country? Incidentally this representation is about subversion of SC's order by MoD in first place. You must be either totally naive (if you are a fauji) or 'a part of the babudom' to suggest the same.
Finally, if resignation of Gen Satbir would help sort out all pay, pension, status parity issues of Servicemembers/veterans I'm sure HE WOULD DO IT IMMEDIATELY.
Hey Hurry,
Dont fire with empty gun like Beaurocrats.
Let chairman RDOA take time and then find solution
Our case has come to this state because of RDOA
Dont shoot now
A peaceful advice to all those who are posting blogs here must disclose their identity, then only we can march in one path leading to sucess. We the AF Officers are success oriented not like any others
Dont copy and follow people nit compatible with our orientation
Hope you understood
Hai every one
pardon me, going out on certain assignments
will certainly log in and tell you difference between cleverness, smartness, intelligence and honesty.
We the Af officers fall in last two categories
Just catch my mind. Lets all become one.
I have been cheated. What for should I wait
RDOA is doing very well, let us support them.
Thanks to every one and sorry to say just wait.
@Col MS Raju
Thanks for you note
@Col MS Raju:"..must disclose their identity.."; Are you running the RDOA blog now? If not, I suggest you apply to RDOA for admin duties so you'll be able to direct and control how others should participate, discuss or make comments. There's an annonymous Captain of a Group floating about the web who is of a similar bent of mind. Maybe, he could be invited also to join hands on this blog oversight committee.
As for me, and a few others I'm sure, it's enough we lot learn to keep our traps shut and learn some basic blogging and online norms before venturing to tell others what or what not to do.
Incidentally, RDOA, who control this blog do know how to run things here.
@Col MS Raju
Sir,
Do you think my comments are hampering decision-making at RDOA? If that be so I will politely apologise to RDOA. But may I just point out to you that I have not said a single word about RDOA (in my last comment). Hope you did not get mixed up between RDOA and IESM (both are DIFFERENT, BTW).
Lastly your 'YANK-STYLE' addressing me as 'Hey Hurry' (OK may be Hurry, rather than Harry, was a genuine typo) was pretty amusing! :)
Dear Harry,
Thanks for your response to my blog.
Two Issues that you raised about RDOA and IESM. I think both are raising voice for same interest and cause. Why do we create differences within our brother organizations. Let them keep doing it, it is for our betterment only. Let us support them.
Next point is about addressing you as "Hey", please donot get offended. It was not to create any differences. Hey is today's cyber address of greeting specially those whom we donot know, for those the common address is Hey. Please do not get offended. Hey is a cyber style of addressing unkown friends. This is what my interpretation, but I do have no other intentions in addressing you as "Hey Harry". If you got hurt kindly pardon me.
@Col MS Raju
Dear Sir,
Thanks for educating me. I have been scrounging cyberspace for decades but never knew this cyber-style addressing technique which you taught me. I'm grateful! :-p
This is in reference to my post of 18 Jan 2013.
We encounter problems every day. There are two ways of encountering the problems. One is finding its solution and solve the problems so that it does not bother us once again. The second way is manipulation which involves delay tactics among other techniques.
People with reasonable intelligence having average IQ levels and above do find solutions for every problem and they solve it, this shows their honesty. There are other category of people who don’t find solution to the problem but manipulate them to avoid them for the time being.
Solution needs certain IQ levels whereas manipulation is done with cleverness and smartness which do net help solving the problems. One’s cleverness and smartness put others into troubles; this is neither called intelligence nor honesty. Straightforwardness and the IQ levels always help solving problems.
Rest you decide yourselves as to who all can solve the problems and who all manipulate them.
This is how I see cleverness, smartness, intelligence and honesty. In my view the cleverness and smartness are negative words and no one should encounter the problems with these techniques and thoughts. It won’t help but it puts others into troubles and it is not called straightforwardness and honesty.
@Harry......
i strongly object to Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh,Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement shooting letters to RM, Service Chiefs etc.....
.....ON A MATTER WHICH IS SUB-JUDICE AT SUPREME COURT OF INDIA...
.....knowing fully well IT IS A SUB-JUDICE MATTER.....
....& he is not supposed to REACT to SUB-JUDICE MATTER...that to of SUPREME COURT....
....Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement should ......IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW HIS LETTER WRITTEN TO RM, SERVICE CHIEFS etc....
....BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR HIM.....
@Hirak Sen
" I strongly object.....sub judice"
I thought the hon'ble SC has already given its verdict on the matter and that is how Govt letter of 27 Dec has come about, isn't it.
As regarding matter being sub-judice, it is just the UoI's petition for granting extra time for disbursal of arrears. RDOA has still not filed any contempt case so far my info goes.
You may pls calm down and getting so badly agitated on Gen Satbir's letter is totally unwarranted. There are plenty of reasons to get agitated (if you are a fauji) this is certainly NOT one of those!
Dear Hirak Sen,
It appears that you are not from AF fraternity.
Kindly disclose your identity before objecting to a Gen's letter and before asking to withdraw it immediately.
Hope you are not an alien.
Kindly disclose your identity.
If you are really an AF Officers of India's Defence, who stops you to write letter direct to the Gen to withdraw his letter. Don't you have courage to do that. Why are you approaching his subordinates here in this blog.
Please don't try you can manipulate anything in the blogs.
If you are really an AF Officer kindly disclose your identity then I will tell you what to do.
Tell me why should Gen Satbir withdraw his letter immediately.
Don't act cleverly and smartly, we are not as clever and smart like you but we are honest to our nation and out people. Rest when I get your clear identity.
Don't fool others on the net.
@hirak sen and the counter-fire! Quite amusing, if it wasn't pathetic.
Hirak sen - it is every one's prerogative to write what he/she feels on this blog. Your views have been accommodated by the same blog owner as has been the named Maj Gen's. Let us respect the views and leave it at that.
@Col MS Raju, please don't dilute your very cogent and detailed expression of why (h)armed forces were taken for a ride in 1987 onwards. Please continue refreshing our memories whilst you apply balm on our wounds with your posts. It helps us to divert our minds from this hurt and humiliation.
@harry - what happened to that car in your profile picture. Looked quite handsome - the car I mean! LoL
@Air Martial
Sir,
That was a UN issue vehicle (Toyota Land Cruiser Prado) wasn't mine for keeps.
Anyway I had got bored of it now, so decided to have a new beauty between my legs! :-p
When we have clear cut policies and SOPs to look-after the entire country, what policies and SOPs do the baboodom have to look after the administration. Can’t we get those policies under RTI Act? No instructions signed by them become a policy, remember it. When I said about their policy, they must be having some SOP (not signed by them, but by a resolution). When baboo dom issues instructions and policies, it should have been covered & supported by already existing policies. Do they have such policies and SOPs, have they consulted those policies and SOPs before signing Army Instructions for deduction of rank pay in IVth and Vth CPC pay fixation of the armed forces that are looking after their safety and security? Baboo dom is doing everything at their sweet will and wish. No one in the country has got that right to function as per his own sweet will and wish. Not even THE KING OF THE COUNTRY CAN DO IT.
If every one making a party and breaking the nation into pieces, why not disciplined defence retired officers & solders can do it. Is there any restriction that defence retired officers can't make into a party and rule the nation. We can rule better than any one else. We don't need these baboos to rule. Even if retired defence officer becomes the leader, the baboos become his chellas. This is what the state of baboos. Baboos have no SOPs to deal with the issues. They are acting impromptu as per their sweet will and wish. In rank pay case the officer who signed the implementation letter to implement the Honourable Courts judgment need to be arrested immediately for not honouring and respecting the Honourable Courts Judgment. Then only the baboo dom will understand as to what all offences they are committing. Baboos and politicians are already behind the bars for many scams, and disregarding and downgrading the defence is also a scam. We the armed forces are asking for justice not begging any one for money. When we are fighting for justice why should we stay behind? Let us proceed further.
@sunkiranalu
RTI Act 2005, Section 4 (1)(b) is designed to ensure that public authorities disclose certain information which are important to the public voluntarily at every level of operation. It is to be noted that, if implemented properly, Section 4(1) (b) will reduce the workload of officials and public authorities with regard to the requirement of providing information on request. This is because the information which is regularly needed by the public can be accessed by them without the need of going through a process of making specific request.
You may apply on plain A4 sheet, attach a IPO of Rs 10/- and send to the Under-Secretary-CPIO (Pay/Services), Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
Best of luck.
@Styam Never Jayate,
At this stage it appears to me that it is all collective conspiracy by the baboodom to downgrade the AF fraternity. Isn't it so.
Honourable courts have given judgment. The babudom did not obey the judgment in the required time. It is a case of contempt.
Honourable Courts have given judgment. The babu who signed the implementation letter of 27 Dec 2012 has twisted the judgment and made the judgment redundant. He committed an offence towards the enforcable law. In normal course, an FIR is lodged against the offenders.Why cant an FIR be lodged by RDOA against the babu who signed the implementation letter. This will lead to investigation in which the conspiracy will come out. Let us all give a thought to it. This proposed FIR will be in addition to contmpt case.
@Sunkiranalu,
I do not write on behalf of RDOA. But I presume, wrongly may be, that the RDOA (1) is waiting to see what the pay slips of the serving officers indicates; (2) is watching what the 3 Services Chiefs have written to the RM (who is away in Australia)and how the RM will respond; (3) has consulted the legal team that got us the victory on 4.9.2012 on contempt of court proceedings both for delay in payment as well for solemnly affirming on oath the additional affidavit which stated that arrears and re-fixation on 1.1.1986, 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006.
We have waited for 6 years of TP (C) 56 of 2007. Maybe a few more weeks would help RDOA file a consolidated case when the UoI's plea for extension comes up.
This is my guesswork.
The subject is "MOD letter of 26 nov and RDOA" s WAIT/SILENCE.comments on the issues and the subject-naturally welcome/expected/awaited.
As a visitor to the blog,today i had patiently read over everything ,incl comments and counter comments.
Instead of getting involved in counters or contradiction of some view, it would be better if efforts ,ideas,feedback...etc can be channelised for furtherance of the cause and resolution of issues.
I would like to say,-as on today disparities in pay & pensions are being widened with increasing anomalies with issue of every letter by DESW/MOD.
Many bloggers have come out with charts/tables,projecting the data.They are glaringly visible.
Individuals,associations,groups,......etc ,therefore,have to pursue their efforts and actions to derive legitimate dues/Rights by several approaches and methods.
THE GREAT ASSET IS- WE HAVE THAT JUDGEMENT/ORDER/DIRECTION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE NATION.consequence of legendary DHANAPALA's initiative and effort-real Adjutant General of the AF,where all past AG"s have not rectified those glaringly visible anomalies/denials/evasion/fauxpass/cheating...perpetuated since 1.1.86
Application of that judgement in fixation of pay wef 1.1.86,not only on the integrated pay & RANK PAY,but also on associated and related issues from that date to 5 ,6 th CPCs and leading to 7 th CPC have to be taken. Catch the bull by horns and take.
Seeking further adjudication on that issue or every other issue/related issue/associated issue is ONE way,but there are also several other approaches,routes and methods.
Therefore stretch your mental faculties and go, go,go.....
Post a Comment