|
MoD takes rank
pay tussle to AG | ||
|
By Jugal R. Purohit in New Delhi
| ||
A TOP- level meeting, chaired by Defence Minister A. K Antony and attended by
all three service chiefs among others, decided on Friday to forward the rank pay
matter to the office of the country’s top law officer, attorney general (
AG).
While the ministry of defence ( MoD) sees this as a step towards resolution of the issue, the armed forces and the veteran community have expressed their frustration over ‘ buck- passing’. An MoD official said, “ The meeting was convened after it was pointed out that there were differences between what the Supreme Court ordered and our implementing order. It was unanimously decided at the meet to forward the file to AG, who is the best suited to clarify legal positions.” The move had Antony’s personal push as “ he is keen to sort this out”, the official added. Sources in the MoD said that apart from what will be conveyed to the AG by the ministry, the uniformed services represented by the Integrated Defence Staff headquarters were being advised to forward their own representation to the law officer so as to put up the case in the best possible way. However, the development has cut no ice with the veteran community which has branded it as yet another ‘ delaying tactic’ by the MoD. The genesis of the controversy lies in the MoD’s ‘ selective’ implementation of the SC order of September 2012 in the rank pay case. “ The ministry has not won a single case ( in this connection), be it in the Kerala High Court or the Supreme Court… Today, they feel the need to go to the AG to interpret the SC order! This issue is not about legal clarification at all,” fumed SC advocate, Group Captain ( Retd.) K. S Bhati, who has been fighting this case for the Retired Defence Officers Association ( RDOA). The organisation said Friday’s move will “ further strengthen our resolve in taking MoD babus to the court over contempt”. |
Friday, June 14, 2013
Extract from Mail Today: Passing the Buck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
161 comments:
What is meant by"unanimously" decided at the meeting?
This may show that even the three chiefs are not sure about the issue??and they have accepted whatever babus decided.
JUST A DELAY GAME. IS AG GREATER THAN SC?
RM could have asked SC itself, instead of AG.
In any case one more point for RDOA in the contempt case.
v.sundaresan
@WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD):"..IS AG GREATER THAN SC?..."
Where is the question of greater or lesser?
If Hon'ble RM had followed your advice and "asked SC itself", as you have put it, would he have rung up a helpdesk at the apex court for a clarification on what the judgement meant?
There would be some sort of legal process before the court for obtaining clarifications for which the AG would have to be consulted first. The process would take another few years.
So, kindly, do reconsider your views, which, luckily, would probably not form a basis for RDOA's future action, in any case.
Delay once again!.......by the way I have not received my revised pension and arrears from pnb as spelled in pcda circular dt 17 Jan 2013.What to do? Joe.
@corona8,
dear sir, u seem to be all for RM for consulting AG at this stage. Is this the first time that AG is being consulted? What about SG who represented the Goverment in this case? Is he not a law officer?
What is there to consult? is hon'ble SC judgement not clear that rank pay is to be paid retrospectively wef 01 january 1986? Did the Government not mention the same in their initial orders of 26 November 2012? What changed between 26 November 2012 and 27 Decemebr 2012? Is Government within its rights to ask for a DGL from CGDA when CGDA has brought out in reply to RTIs (as given in Aerialview blog) that it is only implementing authority?
While government can always ask for AG's advice, but the moot question is, is this the time for that action? Does it not clearly indicate deliberate attempt to delay and deny the rightful dues?
@aaa: Your chagrin is justifiable. The issue is not whether I, you or anyone else is/are for or against the Hon'ble RM consulting the AG.
The issue is the Hon'ble RM has asked the defence chiefs to obtain the views of AG regarding their interpretation of the judgement.
That is the process in play right now and there is precious little to be gained by ranting about who is for or against and why things are happening the way they are.
The AG is the senior most legal representative/adviser of our Government and if there is a dispute on an interpretation of a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he is the one the Govt, in this case represented by the three service chiefs, can turn to for the ultimate legal opinion.
Of course opinions of AGs in the past have been set aside by the apex court. But that is how things stand currently. No point in wringing our hands and moaning, "Why O why?"
What sort of an argument is it that because the SG had already given his advice the views of AG should not be asked for now? Its like saying that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had delivered a judgement so the matter should not have gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
I have been saying this for sometime. The Def Sec, CGDA, TRIPAS are all parts of UOI. They can resolve any of their differences on legal matters thro' the advice of AG/SG. What has that to do with us?
RDOA who are the litigants have their own legal team and that's the one needs to be consulted for the next step that RDOA wish to take.
The interaction between the three chiefs and the Attorney General may also prove to be beneficial as submitted by me previously.
@corona8
let us look into it once again. information through RTI (courtsey aerial view blog) reveals that SG (if i remember correctly) had left it to the Government to implement it without rendering any specific advise on its implications for 5th and 6th pay commissions and also commented that the judgement had to be implemented and there was no other way or words to that effect.
So, what is the point in going back to a Government law officer, albeit a notch higher or in this case the highest in order of precedence and that too at this stage. Agreed we can only wait and watch as this is the way Government is trying to play it.
June 15, 2013 at 3:22 AM
@aaa: You have demoted me. It is 8, not 7. See, I am not calling you @aa :-)
No, seriously, SG was consulted prior to implementation. Now that TRIPAS has questioned the actual implementation, and since Def Sec and CGDA are sticking to their guns, TRIPAS have been asked to obtain AG's views on the TRIPAS interpretation.
It's frustrating, I know, but correct. But let's see what AG says.
If what AG says is not acceptable to RDOA, or if it looks AG may have nothing to say for a few weeks, mionths or years, then, Wham! the legal heavy arty can open up in a week, 10 days.
But its RDOA's call.
@ corona,
well, i had noticed my mistake in typo, but it seems u could read my comments before i could delete it for this reason as you can see above . i must admit it seems u were waiting for me to write back and while my comments were up for a second or so, u could still pick it up and comment on ur so called demotion..unintended though.
The efforts of Chairman COSC and RDOA are indeed laudible to ensure correct interpretation and implementation of SC order on rank pay anomaly in IV CPC. However, one wonders what is the fate of issues / agenda which were being considered by High Powered Committee constituted in June last year under Cabinet Secy Mr AK Seth to resolve glaring anomalies wrt pay & allces of serving armed forces personnel?????? < Harpreet
Three different possible scenarios present themselves, though there could be other permutations and combinations as well, viz.,
(a)AG discharges his legal duties by agreeing that the service chiefs' interpretation is the correct one based on which RM directs MOD to implement TRIPAS DGL. In this case RDOA could still exercise the contempt option {after the enhanced arrears have been paid} on account of the delay caused and the attempted sabotage of the judgement on part of sections of the MOD functionaries and claim damages and/or teach the errant functionaries a lesson they deserve to be taught.
(b)AG opines the implementation by MOD is in order in which case RDOA could either file a contempt petition or accept AG's views.
(c)An attempt is made to prolong the whole process of obtaining AG's views OR of delaying the implementation of an amended govt letter through one means or another, in which case RDOA would need to set a cut-off date for filing a contempt petition in case they wish to do so.
Wont it be appropriate if RDOA also takes opinion of some Legal Expert/ Retired Supreme Court Judge on implication of the judgement simultaneously. One should keep in mind the role played by the AG in the Coal Gate Scam As layman one can understands the difference between "wef" from" and "as on" , also " and consequent benefits" cant the RM & Babus understand what these mean.
Interesting read in http://caravanmagazine.in on Goolam E Vahanvati, the learned AG who will provide the seminal "legal advice" to the MoD.
(It is also available, with acknowledgment of the source but minus the photograph on Aerial View).
@all, MoD as well as Services HQ will place their interpretations for the consideration of the Learned AG. It is not just the Service HQ or the MoD.
The forces on opposite sides, based on Chairman, COSC letter (as per media reports) pits the AS (A), JS (E) & Service HQ on one side and the CGDA on the opposite with Def Secy in the middle and RM being avuncular and smiling that his reputation for honesty and integrity is still intact, as he has always been.
RDOA can take a leaf out of the present case of TN VS KARNATAKA.On the kaveri water issue.
I personally feel there is nothing which the AG can give as advise. the case is prolonging for almost 26 years, courts have given and re-issued their verdict. ONE OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVEN THE ARREARS(Maj.Dhanapalan)ALSO The Govt has given an affidavit also in the SC about the implementation(based on which the SC has given ample time to the govt)
Now what does the RM want? how to further prolong the fight?
The three chiefs could have given a "small "protest at least' before agreeing to the proposal?
RDOA PL KEEP US INF OF THE PROGRESS>
THANKING YOU RDOA
V.Sundaresan
@Ravi Rao:"..RDOA also takes opinion of some Legal Expert..";
Do you mean to say RDOA have been pursuing the litigation with a non-legal expert or a legal non-expert so far??
Suggestions and comments and discussions are fine, but some thought needs to go into what we click on the keyboard.
Ag had given on affidavit al the arrears to b paid incl those of 4th, 5th CPCs and pensionary benefits etc.How can AG now give different advice?
@ramesh sharma: Can you please provide a link to the Affidavit furnished by the Attorney General?
ADD AG IN CONTEMPT PETITION
....Hello RDOA....now donot leave AG ...now let SC sort out AG also...
AG BE GIVEN TIME TILL 30..06.2013 BY RDOA .......OR FACE CONTEMPT PETITION
Hello! RDOA - Issue Notice to AG to clear the Rank Pay Case by 30.06.2013 or face Contempt Petition 01.07.2013...
.....This is to prevent "ALICE IN WONDERLAND" like situation being developed in Rank Pay Case....
I am sure the opinion given by SG also must have been read and understood by the Govt and approved by the competent authority before it was expressed by the SG in the Appex Court.So where is the necessity for fresh opinion?
@Aerial View:"..not the Attorney General.."; My point exactly in asking @ramesh sharma for the link.
@ramesh sharma: Another question for you, did the SG give any opinion on the manner in which the Govt. finally implemented the judgement? If so, could you let us know what it was?
First round in respect of efforts of Chairman COSC goes to MOD. RM has played a googly after almost 5 months and it now depends upon Service HQs how they tackle it. It could be a massive six or clean bowled / LBW. AG's observations are not binding on RDOA and it has to act and safe guard the interest of veterans.
The SG took less than a week to give his Opinion to the MOD. I think the AG cannot but agree to what the SG said. After that, who in the MOD will bell the cat(CGDA)?
I think RDOA's contempt case is the best way to fix all babus and show Mr RM that after the HSC judgement it was only a matter of queen's english rather than a legal matter.
If you read update of RDOA dated 06 Dec 2012 giving reasons for the extension of 12 weeks time sought by UOI,it is evident that MoD knew what all willit involve to pay the legitimate arrears.
@ramesh sharma: When it is, as you say, evident, why has Hon'ble RM asked the service chiefs to get the opinion of learned AG?
But being evident doesn't really answer the question. After the implementation was any view or advice from hon'ble SG or AG put on record? You have been writing only of what happened before the implementation.
There is also the distinct possibilty of the learned AG offering his views on the following lines:
*The Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a judgement.
*MOD implemented it after processing it amongst the different stake-holders within the MOD (including the services HQs).
*Views of the learned SG, prior to implementation, are on record.
*As the judgement has been implemented, the matter ought to be treated as closed and one section of MOD ( i.e. TRIPAS) can't question the implementation or seek a review.
*There is no basis for offering views as the there is no litigation on the manner of implementation.
Of course, the more optimistic view would be preferrable as outlined in my previous comment.
You never know,AG may recommend a "CONTEMPT ON THE CONTEMPT CASE" against the three chiefs , RDOA,. So let the people beware of the ploys
v.sundaresan
@WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD):"...CONTEMPT ON THE CONTEMPT CASE..."
??
How are the service chiefs in contempt of anything in this matter?
I'd be grateful if you could enlighten.
I feel what has not been implemented from the stated position of the SG to the HSC should have been brought out by CoSC to the RM inclear to scuttle his game plan to refer the issue to AG with respective views of babus and Service chiefs.RDOA is/was considering the next action in the right direction.Any how let us wait and watch further developments.
Wait!!! Next the PM will ask for the views of CAG or the Chief Election Comissioner and then RBI That is how the process will go on till eterinity
Ashwani
I think we are mixing up the issues.The HSC has passed the judgement in crystal clear terms for every one to understand & implement.In the course some of the people who matter have twisted the judgement to their advantage & disadvantage of soldiers by subtly changing the grammer.Question is not the correct interpretation of SC judgement but that of twisted version being forced upon all of us .Obviously by referring the case to AG for his comments/interpretation does not in any manner lessen the gravity of error on part of bureaucrats nor does it prevent RDOA to file contempt case at any stage,even without waiting for AG'S remarks.For all you know it may just be a face saver for govt on the wrong doings of Babus.
So nothing to worry,the case definitely appears to be heading in favour of RDOA.How is that all except these babus are wrong in their interpretation.Moreover,if one compares the two documents the differnce will be glaring.
Well done & All the best RDOA once again.
This is just playing into the game of babu's . I wish the chiefs had some spunk to see the babu's game. Nothing lost this is high time if the Chiefs have some guts left they could take a stand with the UPA Govt to agree to their stand or look for alternative in PMF to sort out the present problem in Uttakhand. This may appear anti national but they have left us with no choice
"..I wish the chiefs had some spunk to see the babu's game.."
A game can be seen without spunk. What's spunk got to do with it?
That's even more off-beat than the normal zingers one comes across.
1.CDAO PUNE so for not updated form AS 26 while it is mandatory on their part to update it by 31-5-2011 for FY 2012-13 (AY.2013-14)
2.The last date of filing IT return is 30 june2o13.
3 All four contact phone no 919561770266. 02060401138 020601100 020261356 of CDAO are ineffective. ihave been trying to contact them from last one month.It is mostly not attended ",if at all attended then set reply "you are in Q pe. wiat or call later"
4.I requet one shall really question the working of CDAO .
The matter has been refered to AG only to save the skin of the babu's (from the contempt case) so that the MoD can say that as we could not interpert correctly hence the delay in clearing the dues to veterans... Alternatively, they think that chances are there that AG may make a comment saying that " There is a bone of contention or doubt of interpretation" which would surely help the babu's from contempt case.
@Aerial View: Sir, extremely valid caution, though the way I'd reasoned was that as there are expert legal teams on both sides, there is very little they would not have already worked out and that the amateur speculations of most of us merely provide a kind of heap of rubble of ideas which might, by a chance of one in a million, yield a gem of an idea or two to RDOA.
But, it's doubtful if their legal team, or the one at the disposal of learned AG's empire, could expect to learn anything in the comments section of these blog posts.
This is just a farce being played by the Babus in MOD they are expert in circumventing any thing which may be advantageous to the services It is a shame that after more then 60 years of Independence where in the soldiers have given their best the soldier has to fight an un ending battle with Babudom. Wish all of them be made into a bundle and made to fend in the Saichen Glacier for some time.
1. The BABUDOM must have some loophole which is being exploited and taken advantage of in denying us our dues despite the dagger of "contempt of court" hanging over their heads.
2. The loophole which I perceive is the manner, circumstances and the original judgement of Kerala HC in Maj Dhanapalans case. The Hon'ble SC has upheld the Kerala HC ruling and the catch words are:-
a. "--similarly placed offrs--". wrt Maj Dhanapalans petition which was for deduction of rank pay during fixation in 4th CPC. I do not know whether the petition by NK Nair & others included the deduction of rank pay in 5th CPC. If it was not done for 5th CPC then the BABUS are probably justifying their stand that they have honoured the SC judgement fully by granting rank pay to offrs who were capt to brig as on 1/1/86 and have correctly revised their pay wef 1/1/86.
3. QED our contention that SC judgement to grant rank pay wef 1/1/86 to all offrs is being contested tooth and nail by the babudom.
4. Even the affidavit by the SG stating that pay will have to revised across 5th and 6th CPC stands good as per this logic.
5. Does this imply that we are going wrong somewhere? Maybe!!!. This would be best known to the RDOA legal fraternity.
6. Our approach for the attack has been stalled repeatedly. Our teaching has been to never reinforce a failure.
7. Do we need to adopt a new approach with the details now available thro the RTI replies?
8. Will the advice by the AG meet our expectations or will it be in line with the stand taken till now?
9. The Babudom would be fully aware that a contempt of court petition is in the offing. So are they shivering and shi---ng bricks? They don't appear to be doing so.
10. We may need to analyse the proceedings and outcome till date in a logical manner instead of emotional reactions.
11. Without any Malice to anyone I would say that ANDHA KANOON hai aur babus BAAL KA KHAAL UKHAD RAHE HAIN.
without knowing what is going on, we seem to be taking pride in self doubt??????
Just because the judgement has not been implemented correctly, some of us are willing to believe that babus have something up there sleeve?
Just a food for the thought>> if this was so, they would have said a big NO in first place?
better would be that self doubting thomases do not share their views or better still keep it to themselves and wait for RDOA to take action as deemed fit.
@aaa - Sanction to share views is what democracy is all about.
19.6.2013
Refer Matter AG!
--------------------------------
Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 04/09/2012
4th CPC Rank Pay Arrears Payment vide the GOI MOD Letter dated 27 Dec 2012
--------------------------
Hello RDOA! Kindly ADD FOLLOWING PARA IN CONTEMPT PETITION……..
------------------------------------
Why did not they refer to AG before issuing letter dated 27 Dec 2012?
“GOI MOD, was not properly appraised about the true / material facts which caused them to issue letter dated 27-12-2012 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 GOI MOD for the purpose of making frivolous arrears assessment against AFV’s wef 01.01.1986.
It is open Loot of AFV’s.
We AFV’s stoutly deny entire arrear assessment vide GOI MOD letter dated 27-12-2012 as arbitrary, unreasonable, baseless, bad and injurious ….”
--------------------------------------
Kindly add the above para in Contempt Petition
--------------------------------------
*"..BABUDOM must have some loophole.."
*"..self doubting thomases do not share their views.."
*"..Sanction to share views is what democracy is all about..."
*"..Why did not they refer to AG before issuing letter dated 27 Dec 2012?"
Right!
I rest my case.
RANK PAY CASE : APPOINTMENT WITH AIR CHIEF
Ref the trailing mail of 16 Jun, I tried to seek an appt with the Air Chief on 17 Jun to discuss the rank pay issue further with him. The Air Asst to the CAS said he will get back to me. But he did not . On 18 Jun AN I again contacted the CAS' office to enquire about my appt. I got thru to the AA and enquired about it. He asked me to hold on while he asked the CAS. However the CAS himself came on the line and said the following during his 15 min conversation:-
a) He is very concerned about the delay being caused in implementing SC orders. Because even though it was to be a mtg with Vice Chiefs he said that as he knew the subject backwards, he will attend.
b) He is determined to solve not only this issue but also the other issue of revision of pensions following 6th CPC, which also is being delayed.
c) It was the RM who had suggested that the matter be referred to the Attny Gen as there was a stalemate in the discussions. When I mentioned that the AG will have to face an accusation of clash of interest and his reputation is also not very admirable, he said that he was aware of it and that is why he insisted on a time bound reference. Accordingly MOD will submit papers to AG within 2 wks. He felt that the AG should not take more than a fortnight more.
d) CAS was emphatic that he will see the matters thru as he knows that they not only affect the current veterans but also future generations.
e) I asked him about the Services seeking a separate Pay Commission. He was against it saying that Services should know what the others are seeking but we must have a representative in the commission to present our case.
Satish Bahri
Contd...
TRAILING LETTER
From: Satish Kumar Bahri
To: CAS
My dear Chief,
Your letter to the RM was like a breath of fresh air as for once the Chiefs Of Staff were taking a firm stand and calling a spade a spade. We are aware of the meeting the three Chiefs had with the RM and some others on 14 Jun 13, where it was decided that the contentious matter of rank pay orders issued by the MOD be referred to the Solicitor General for resolution in light of the Supreme Court orders. Have the bureaucrats been able to pull a fast one on us once again? The SG and AG had been responsible for the delay in resolution of this matter in the courts for 12 years by arguing as per the briefs of the MOD. When the Supreme Court could not be deterred from its decision they caused more delay by being deliberately absent from the court and delayed the matter by another 2 years.These two law officers have been fighting the case on the briefs given by the MOD so how can they be expected to give an opinion which is contrary to their earlier stand?
Maj Navdeep Singh, who has been analysing the motivation and the shenanigans of the MOD, aided and abetted by the entire civilian hierarchy for some years now, has explained it very well in his Op-ed attached below as to how we are being diddled and cheated by the civil servants over the years. Largely, I dare say, due to the naivety of the men in uniform who do not see through the machinations of the crafty civilians till it is too late. May I suggest that we get rid of all civilians in the personnel branches and employ only servicemen and specialists on contract basis who can deal with our pay and allowances effectively. Being fooled for 40 years ie., from 3rd CPC onwards, by the civilian establishment does not speak well of our ability to look after the interests of our trusting soldiers.
I would suggest that the Chiefs jointly withdraw from this proposal of referring the matter to the law officers and file an appeal to the SC to give directions for setting up a separate panel to see that the SC orders are carried out in letter and spirit. The SC has a precedent of establishing SITs for investigating tricky cases where the govt has not been keen on doing the investigations diligently. Why not the Services, as an institution take up the case with the apex court to see that its directions are carried out to the last T. I feel there is a strong case for the officers to demand factoring/indexation being applied to their arrears to cater for the loss in value, specially when the govt has pleaded successfully to deny the 6% interest for 20 years.
May I request urgent action on this by you all as the armed services are paying the price for being too efficient in a sea of chaotic and self serving govt institutions.
With warm regards
Lt Gen SK Bahri (Retd)
A3/502 World Spa East
Sector 30/41
Gurgaon 122001
Tele 0124 4143180/181
Mob +91 981000 2800 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +91 981000 2800 FREE
@Unknown: This 'letter', that you have posted here, is all over the email circuits. Some bloggers have also reproduced it with God knows what level of efforts to track it's authenticity.
Now you have posted it as part of a comment on the RDOA blog.
Surely, the affected parties, ie all of us, deserve to get a link to the original material on the web.
If the author is a member of RDOA, it could have been posted here with his own ID. Expressing opinins as "Unknown" or "corona8" or "aaa" is different from parting with first hand information of the nature you have posted.
It is left to RDOA to comment on the contents and nature of that comment.
@ Corona8. There are many people who are trying to meet the bigwigs with what intention is not known.Could only spoil the case.Other than RDOA no one has the mandate to discuss the case as RDOA has not asked them to do so. It may be in an indvl capacity.
@SATTY'S CORNER: I, for one, do not ascribe ulterior motives to others who might wish to contribute to the cause. But this manner of distributing unauthentic information on an important subject just serves to muddy the water.
Fine, if someone has had an interaction with any of the parties involved, the feedback on such discussions could be uploaded on their own web-sites or blogs.
But unauthenticated emails are a real hazard in this day and age. Others don't help the situation by chain-mailing such communications or by posting extracts from these on their blogs.
@corona. The author is not a member of RDOA. Neither has RDOA asked him to spk to COSC and talk about the rank pay case. It is his own perception of things.RDOA is the litigant and has not asked anyone rpt anyone to talk on their behalf with MoD or Services HQ.
@RDOA: That really clarifies the matter. It is not even certain whether that letter and other text was actually originated by the veteran to whom the material is attributed.
It's not very responsible of individuals to be chain-mailing/blogging/pasting such material of unestablished authenticity.
A sure case in favor of AFs being hood winked by Politicians and Babus. Please do not fall prey to all the assurances and misleading tactics. Learn from the past experience.GO AHEAD WITH THE CONTEMPT PETITION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
They will continue to HOODWINK us AS IT HAS BEEN DONE IN PAST.GO AHEAD WITH CO
NTEMPT PETION.ALSO WE NEED TO ORG A MASS PROTEST AT VIJAY CHOWK/JANTA MANTAR ON SAY 15 AUG 2013 & DISROBE AND WEAR MEDALS ON BARE BODIS IN FRONT OF MEDIA AND HANDOVER THE SAME TO MAHAMAHIM, RM ER THEIR REP.OTHERWISE GIVE IT KABARIWALA, HE WILL BE GREATFUL TO U ALLFOR MAKING HIS DAY.
SAME
AFs are doing EXCELLENT RESCUE OPS. I SALUTE THEM.
Why not send babus, IAS and other mandarins of MOD to the rescue ops, they may take the rank pay, gradepay, and all other allnces also.
v.sundaresan
When is the HSC reopening after their vacation? Or are they in session already?
@ all officers trying 'one up man ship' in their comments and learned views - please stop bickering coz we are not fighting amongst us - it is against the babus - direct your thoughts on that front and not how to score over each other!!! - for all u know the one/two guys instigating others could be a babu in disguise!!!
Dear Veterans,
Giving case to AG by MOD was expected. Whatever may be the assertions of MOD but the reason there of is that the AG is part of Govt and no wonder he may well support MOD because of the MoD’s interpretations, inferences and similarities drawn out of the HHC Kerala and HSC judgments.
My analysis and reservations are given below:-
1. As per the judicial pronouncements and judgments Rank Pay which was introduced exclusively for AF Officers from Capt to Brig wef 01 Jan 86 in IV CPC was in addition to Basic Pay and it forms part of basic pay which means it earns all those allowance basic pay earns. My assertion here is that it is grossly incorrect of adding rank pay to basic pay for comparison of AF Officers pay with their civilian counter parts.
2. The Judgment says the deduction of rank pay from total emoluments while fixation of pay was incorrect, irregular and illegal.
3. The Judgments were delivered in the case of Maj Dhanapalan who was Capt on 01 Jan 1986 and whose rank pay was deducted from the total emoluments while fixation of the pay. Maj Dhanapalan retired in the IV CPC era only and he was not effected fixation of pay in V CPC on 01 Jan 1996.
4. The HSC in its judgment in the case of Maj Dhanapalan, clarified that its order shall govern all similarly situated officers who have not approached the court and also those who have filed Writ Petitions which are pending before various High Courts/Armed Forces Tribunal.
What MoD has interpreted and drawn inferences and similarities from the phrase similarly situated officers by co-relating to Maj Dhanapalan were officers who were in the ranks of Capt to Brig on 01 Jan 1986 as that of Maj Dhanapalan this is the first similarity that MOD has drawn from the judgment. Since Maj Dhanapalan was retired in IV CPC era only and his case was not involved in deduction of rank pay on 01 Jan 1996, the MoD has drawn second similarity of Maj Dhanapalan case and closed Rank Pay case on 31 Dec 1995. Now see how cleverly and smartly the MOD babus have drawn the similarities and inference from the judgments. They remained silent as far as deduction of rank pay in Vth CPC and couple of other irregularities they committed in fixation of pay in Vth CPC on 01 Jan 1996. They drawn similarities in correlation to Maj Dhanapalan only and left with all other irregularities they committed in fixation of pay in Vth CPC. I am giving below certain tables as to how CDA (O) has fixed pay on 01 Jan 1996 and self calculation of pay as on that date.
BASIC PAY FIXED BY CDA(O) ON 01 JAN 1996 5th CPC
Details of Fixation Amount
Basic Pay 3600
Rank Pay 200
DA 5180 148% of 3500
IR I 100
IR II 380
40% of Basic 1520
+ Rank Pay
Total 10980
Less Revised
Rank Pay 400
Emoluments
after deduction 10580
Basic Pay under
5 Pay Comm 10800
SELF CALCULATION OF BASIC PAY ON 01 JAN 1996
Details of Fixation Basic Pay Rank Pay
Pay 3600 200
DA (148% 4884 296 148%
on max B+RP
3500
IR I 95 5
IR II 360 20
40% of pay 1440 80
Total 10379 601
Pay to be fixed to bring at par with civilian counter parts 10800 800 In Next slab multiple of 200
Rank Pay in IV CPC
Capt Maj Lt Col Col Brig
200 600 800 1000 1200
Rank Pay Ratio in IV CPC
1 3 4 5 6
Rank Pay in V CPC should be 800 2400 3200 4000 4800
Rank Pay Ratio in V CPC
1 3 4 5 6
SELF CALCULATION OF BASIC PAY OF CAPT WITH 5 YRS SERVICE ON 01 JAN 96
Details of Fixation
Basic Pay Rank Pay
Pay 2800 200
DA (148%) 4144 296
IR 1 95 5
IR II 280 20
Add 40%
Unrevised pay 1120 80
Total 8439 601
Pay to be fixed
at starting
Basic 9600 800 In Next slab multiple of 200
Contd
Dear Veterans,
Continued from previous post
If we carefully study the pay fixation by CDA(O) in table 1 above, they have given all that allowances on rank pay but clubbed together with basic pay which was grossly incorrect and irregular. Out of the total emoluments they deducted only 400 towards revised rank pay (though the total rank pay was Rs 601) and rest amount including unrevised rank pay fixed as basic pay to show was that a captain with 13 years service and with 13 increments is at par with his civilian counter part. Does not it mean the civilian counter part has got the benefit of unrevised rank pay meant for AF Officers only? Isn’t it an eye opener for all of us as to how babus have cheated us? Our rank pay of IV CPC multiplies by three times and not just doubles as given to us in Vth CPC.
In IV CPC pay fixation case the babus have done one mistake of deducting rank pay but in pay fixation in Vth CPC they made three mistakes thinking that AF officers will never raise any doubts/cases.
May I request RDOA, the remedy now is only filing contempt case bringing out as to how babus have drawn the similarities from the judgments and closed rank pay arrears at 31 Dec 95 in IVth CPC era only though the same mistake of irregular deduction of rank pay coupled with more irregularities were committed once again by babus in Vth CPC.
Since AG is part of Govt who is respondent in this case, we as the petitioners need not wait for AG’s remarks.
@raj: "..all officers trying 'one up man ship'.."; :-) The greatest one-upmanship is to stand on a table and appoint oneself chairman of the board and say, "Gentlemen, quiet please! Do not fight, such and such could be a spy...etc".
If you see what I mean.
Sir, now a doubt. Just like maj.dhanapalan got arrears only upto his retirement time(within 4PC0, i think every one of us have been receiving only upto our retirement time.
I retired on 31-8-1991 and AFCAO has given me the arrears upto this date ie form 1--1-86 to 31-8-1991. and gladly sent all the due-drawn statement to the CDA for further action. Till now there is no action from PCDA.
by giving only upto the date of retirement MOD has followed the similarity of Maj.dhanapalan.
good show.
v.sundaresan
Dear Wg Cdr Sunderesan,
Are you clear now how similarities were drawn by clever and smart babus out of the judicial pronouncements? I always take cleverness and smartness are total negative qualities. We are more and much intelligent than babus that is why we are in safe-guarding every one including babus. We never get into such negative attitude. When we think we can safe-guard entire Nation cant we set right our baboos who have inclined to degrade the people who are safeguarding them.
See how they have interpreted and drawn inferences and similarities from the Judicial judgments. Isn't it eye opener now. Who is AG, he is in receiving end being part of MoD & Govt, why should we wait for his remarks and why should we worry about his reports. I think the similarities drawn by MoD were in half way, they drawn similarities which they think beneficial to them neglecting the drastic irregularities which they committed. I hully hope RDOA strugling well for al of us and keep them informed will all informations which you did today that you have been given rank pay arrears till 31 Aug 1991 that is your retirement only. Now see how cleverly the babus have drawn similiraity between you and Dharmapalan. Let all study the case thoroughly and keep RDOA posted so that our Association (RDOA) can address the issue accordingly.
Dear Veterans,
So far we have been saying that the babus have twisted the judgement from "wef 01 Jan 1986" to " as on 01 Jan 1986". In my views this is not the case. From my posts it is very clear how cleverly and smartly babus have twisted the entire case of drawing similarities between Maj Dhanapalan and similarly placed officers. This is nothing to do with the date but something to do with "similarities". I request RDOA to take up the issue with our learned counsels on this case with complete study as to what pattern was adopted by CGDA in payment of rank pay arrears in similarity to Maj Dhanapalan and what was the course of action the CGDA initiated to rectify their irregularities in Vth CPC pay fixation. The rank pay in any case should be 3 times in Vth CPC and there is no doubt attached. This inference can be well drawn from the HHC Kerala and HSC judgements. Let us not leave the culprits. If we leave them we are unfit to be solders.
@Col MS Raju: Your long and split comment appears to be on the same lines posted in blogs over the last few years umpteen times.
Firstly, would it not be better to start your own blog? You could then ask readers of this blog in a comment to follow a link to your views related to the subject of this blog-post in your own blog.
Secondly, presentation in tabular form of the data you have given in paragraphs would certainly have made the content easier to read.
@corona8
I made the tabular form on excell sheet but am unable to post it in that tabular form. I can send the excel sheet if you can post it here for the info of all. May I get your mail id so that I can send the excell sheet?
Col Raju, thanks a lot sir. now the game is getting clearer by day. i only hope RDOA is on the war-footing and their team leaves no stone unturned in our fight for justice.
v.sundaresan
@Col MS Raju: The excel sheet should be viewable by all who read your comments. There's not much point mailing it to just myself.
An alternative to having your own blog could be that you upload the excel file to your Google Drive account and make the document shareable by providing a link to it in your comments on this blog.
Dear All,
View excel sheet in the following link
http://colmsraju.blogspot.in/
@Aerial View
Sir, your comment is quite correct but my submission is the judgments in IVth CPC rank pay case say that the rank pay is in addition to basic pay and deduction of rank pay from total emoluments while fixation of pay is incorrect, illegal and irregular. This has become a pronouncement and applies to pay fixation in successive pay commissions in which rank pay was given to AF Officers. The court's pronouncement applies mutadis-mutandis for pay fixation in Vth CPC as far as rank pay is concerned.
@Areal View,
Sir, I read in one of the blogspots that as per the arguments held in HHC Kerala & HSC during hearing of Maj Dhanapalan's case that the Army Instructions/Special Army Instructions are not absolute authority for granting pay and allowances but they are administrative instructions to paying authorities. Absolute authority is pay commission report approved by the concerned authorities.
I agree with Col Raju.Since RANK pAY has been accepted as integral part of the pay of service officers in the 4th CPC and 5th CPC,while fixing the pay in5th CPC also orders of HSC stand for payment of arrears due to affected service officers.
Hope AG will see the above two officer's reasoning logical at his EARLIEST.
@Col MS Raju: "Absolute authority is pay commission report" Hopefully not.
The pay commission recommended that rank pay be deducted from emoluments for fixing basic pay at the time of IV CPC and V CPC.
The pay commission also recommended starting stages for ranks be fixed in running payscale at levels that were lower than those of equivalent civilian officers.
The pay commission recommended lower rank rank-pay be given for officers with time-scale ranks. All these are disputed and incorrect recommendations.
The aquiecence of Service Hqs in sending the DGL ( Draft Govt Letter ) /Rank Pay case directly to the Attorney General is against the existing norms/ protocol of channel of command. The more appropriate step should have been to send it to the MOD, who would have in their own wisdom, endorsed the favourable comments before sending to the AG. This is more logical & gives credence to the view expressed by the Service HQs. And it would have further strengthen the case.This is more relevant , especially if there is no difference of opinion between MOD & Service HQs &the MOD is inclined to accept the methodology of Rank Pay fixation as advocated by the majority of the stakeholders .Where is the guarantee that MOD shall be fair & send favourable comments independently & in line with that of Service HQs ? Pl ponder for some more time to know the TRUTH.
It is a abundantly clear now that CGDA & Finance Ministry officials are the Dramatis Personae who in an absurd manner are not reconciling to the unanimous views of the MOD & Service HQs in the correct interpretation & methodology of re - fixation of pay in the integrated pay scale.I strongly feel that their EGO is subverting their mind to be in conformity with the stand of Service HQs / MOD. How long they shall resist is any body's guess. I am sure Good Sense shall prevail on them sooner or later. God Bless !
@Satish Kumar: "..It is a abundantly clear..";
???
Have we just tuned in?
Clear as mud, more likely.
Where'd we get the unanimous views of MOD from?
Good lord. Its the classic and proverbial case of a night-long recitation of the Ramayana.
And, hellooow! (anybody home??); Wasn't the last letter DGL sent to MOD? What happened to it? And here we are talking merrily of existing norms/ protocol of channel of command.
God help us!
My point is NOT understood. Service HQs, to the best of my knowledge have never directly communicated with Attonney General or Solicitor General.They can approach them through MOD. Suffice to say at present.Sending separate communication is a breach of protocol.
@corona8 “The pay commission recommended that rank pay be deducted from emoluments for fixing basic pay at the time of IV CPC and V CPC”
.
Would like to see pay commission reports which recommended that the rank pay be deducted from emoluments for fixing basic pay at the time of IVth CPC and V CPC”. Can you send me link to access to pay commission reports of IV and Vth CPCs where it can be found. Whatever is the case I don’t comment whether you are right or wrong? But HSC has already delivered judgment that deduction of rank pay from emoluments is incorrect, illegal and irregular. How come HSC made this judgment? Why not the pay commission authorities summoned to explain it in HSC? You know what point you have raised today? If you have authority that the pay commission recommended rank pay be deducted from emoluments for fixing pay at the time of IV CPC and V CPC. Kindly upload it here so that we all proceed against pay commission. In Maj Dhanapalan case it was argued that the army instruction was not an absolute authority but it was pay commission which recommended rank pay in addition to basic pay and the report was accepted and sanctioned. Army instruction is an internal administrative instruction within MOD and it is not a sanctioning authority. Every instruction as far as financial transaction is concerned has a back up sanction of the competent authority.
Whatever is the case whether pay commission has said or Army instructions said that rank pay be deducted from emoluments for fixing basic pay at the time of IV CPC and V CPC, the highest court of the land said deduction of rank pay of AF Officers from the emoluments for fixing basic pay is illegal, irregular and incorrect. Do you still have any doubt in your mind whether pay commission is right or Army Instruction is right or HSC judgment is right.. You have given a layman statement today in your post. Sorry to say this. If you have authority to support your post kindly post it here so that we the retired officers can approach legal authorities in right direction.
In Vth CPC the rank pay as part of basic pay fetched allowances more than three times of it. Then why only double of it was deducted from the total emoluments and why one-third was left in basic pay fixed and then AF Officers were consoled to be at par with their civilian counter parts ? Wasn’t the aim of babus was to give unrevised rank pay amount to civilian counterparts also. They have given it. Have you really studied this case completely? Why one-third portion of rank pay was not deducted in Vth CPC? Can you justify?
Please – I don’t know who you are, but kindly see your own payslips as to what had happened. I can write pages here being an author in similar subjects but sorry am not here to explain things time and again. Kindly refrain quoting incorrect authorities. Kindly show me which pay commission report has said that the rank pay be deducted from total emoluments while fixation of pay? What was the purpose of granting rank pay if it has to be deducted from the pay? Kindly don’t act as lay-man.
@Aereal View
Sir, the addition in V CPC was 40% of basic + rank pay and not 20% as mentioned by you in illustrations.
What ever rank of IV CPC accrued IRs, DA and 40% should have been fixed as rank pay for each rank. That makes V CPC rank pay triple of the IV CPC rank pay. Again deducting 2/3rd of the accrued rank pay and keeping 1/3rd with the pay fixed on 01 Jan 1996 is irregular and incorrect because our pay after fixation was shown to be at par with our civilian counterparts. When rank pay was in addition to basic pay then how come 1/3 portion of rank pay was kept in pay fixed on 01 Jan 1996 and then we were told we were at par with civilian counter parts.
For correct calculation of pay on 01 Jan 1996 kindly visit following link
http://colmsraju.blogspot.in/
@corona8
i didnt want to get personal so did not name anyone but i hope u get the point as to who i mean!! coz i am sick of reading this wise guy's assertions and corrections of everyone else!!!if u still dont get it then i will do the honours!!!
@MS Raju and All. Kindly do not put the cart before the horse. And do not talk of protocl as what shud be done. RM has directed that Service Hq send to AG dirctly. Matter ends there. Pay commission reports are only recommendatory. RDOA has proof thereof. Full stop.
Dilution has taken place in implementing HSC judgment. RDOA knows what is to done.Please do not give food for thought to MoD/CGDA. Keep it for VII CPC
Dear all,
Now that a new twist has come to light,(ie. whether the RP to be deducted from the total emoluments in the fixation for 5 and 6 PC) the babus may use this, may be even to recover the arrears from 1986/1996.
Let RDOA take up the matter seriously. if required, Col.Raju may be requested to co-opt in the case.
let us not leave
v.sundaresan
Dear col.M.S raju, i am unable to open the excel sheet from your blogs. your blog gives many sites but since i am not a full computer-savvy, i am not able to find the sheet.
Pl. if you don't mind, send the excel sheet to my mail
sundar_veeravalli@rediffmail.com
sorry for the trouble
thanks
wg.cdr.v.sundaresan(retd)
@Wg Cdr V Sundaresan, please do not worry. If you have the time and the inclination, please ponder over these points: -
1. 5 CPC submitted its Report in january 1997 when O.P. 2448 of 1996 was still being heard.
2. MoD issued SAI/SNI/SAFI No. 2/S/1998 on 19.12.97 while the matter was still sub-judice.
3. The first judgment upholding O.P. No. 2448 of 1996 came on 5.10.1998.
4. MoD filed W.A. No 518 of 1999 on 23.2.1999 and an additional affidavit (W.A. No. 510 of 2000) in December 2000. Neither of the Affidavits mentioned that 5 CPC has recommended the deduction of Rank Pay for re-fixation.
5. The Affidavits did not mention that MoD has usurped the Hon'ble Court's Constitutional Right to decide/judge the Dhanapalan Vs. UoI case by issuing the SAI etc No. 2/S/98 thereby committing Contempt.
6. The Division Bench passed its judgment in W.A. No. 518 of 1999 upholding the judgement in O.P. No. 2448 of 1996.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the 2 judgements of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala i.e. deducting Rank Pay was wrong.
So, the methodology in SAI No. 2/S/98 is questionable at best and malafide at the worst.
Just take it easy and let RDOA do its work.
For Col MS Raju and Wg Cdr V Sundaresan,
Resolution 50(1)/IC/97.........The
Commission submitted on the 30th January, 1997, its Report relating to structure of emoluments, allowances, conditions of service and retirement benefits of Central Government employees including Union Territories, members of All India Services and personnel belonging to the Armed Forces.
The Commission also submitted its Supplementary Report No. 1 on Improving the Motivation Level and Supplementary Report No. 2 on Cabinet Secretariat on 28th February, 1997. The Government have given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Commission in respect of civilian employees of the Central Government in Groups 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', as also those in the All India Services and have decided that the recommendations of the Commission in respect of these categories of Central Government employees and All India Services shall be accepted broadly subject to the modifications mentioned below:--
(i) The following six scales of pay (S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5 and S-13 grades), recommended by the Commission will be improved and the revised pay scales for these grades will be.......
(II) With regard to fixation of pay in the revised scales, the percentage of pre-revised basic pay to be added as fitment shall be 40% as against 20% recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The other recommendation of the Commission in this regard including the recommendation of one increment as a result of "bunching" (for the fifth stage) has been accepted; however, the fixation shall be made in the manner that every employee will get at least one increment in the revised scale of pay for every three increments in the prc-revised scale of pay,
For Wg Cdr Sundaresan and Col MS Raju,
Fixation of Proposed Pay Scales by V CPC
"Para 148. 1 We have made recommendations with regard to fixation of pay in the proposed scales in respect of civilian employees in the relevant chapter. The method of pay fixation on revision of pay adopted by earlier Pay Commissions for civilians and service personnel was more or less identical. The Fourth CPC while following a similar dispensation for civilian and Service Personnel had given specific illustrations of the manner in which pay for service personnel should be fixed especially in the context of the introduction of integrated pay scales for Service Officers
Para 148. 2. We have deliberated over the manner in which service pays should be fixed and in order to ensure equality of treatment suggest that the method of fixation of pay on revision recommended for civilian employees may also be adopted for service personnel. For Service Officers upto the rank of Brigadier who are to be brought on to regular scales of pay from the existing integrated scale, we suggest that for fixation of pay the existing rank pay may be taken into account but pay in revised scales be fixed after deducting the revised amount of rank pay. While the method of fixation and illustrations given for civilians would apply mutatis mutandis to PBOR and Service Officers of the rank of Major General and above, the following illustrations indicate the manner in which pay should be fixed for armed forces officers upto the rank of Brigadier......."
@raj:assertions and corrections
Rather than getting sick, there's a need to visit other blogs and feel a little grateful for valuable information being provided for all for free.
Some of the comments here definitely need to be countered. RDOA's magnanimity in permitting all comments does not mean this is some free for all chat forum.
If someone indulges in offensive and unbecoming comment-writing, I don't think a polite reminder as to who we are would be out of place.
@Col MS Raju:"Would like to see pay commission reports";
Well the blogs are full of links and detailed information obtained painstakingly thro RTI. I don't understand why it has not been referred to by one and all.
In any case, Aerial View and RDOA have already clarified for those who hadn't bothered to update over the past couple of years.
@Col MSRaju, How the amount of Rank Pay for V CPC is arrived at (Rs 800 etc, etc) needs to be elucidated because V CPC has recommended just the doubling of the IV CPC rates of Rank Pay.
In clarification to another comment, the RTI reply of MoD has stated that Recs of the Pay Commission are just that "Recommendations" and a sub-para earlier stated that recommendations of the Pay Commissions are for mandatory compliance by the Govt and the employees.
CGDA, in reply to RTI, stated that the SAI is the authorisation of the Competent Authority (MoD)and CGDA is only (so, sad!) the implementing agency. Probably in the reply to RTI (255 pages paid for on 7/6/13) CGDA may inform us how it, the poor implementing agency, has the veto over the MoD, the Competent Authority, in proposing and approving its own DGL ignoring (or white-washing) observations/objections of the Service HQ/TRIPAS.
Interesting days ahead but typing out the 255 pages (since I don't know how to convert pdf to word and place them on the blog)would be enlightening as I will read every word as I type.
@Aerial View: Sir, though I haven't tried it myself, you could consider the feasibility of utilizing this converter in view the large number of pages involved.
@Aerial View,
We all are aware as to what judicial courts have said about rank pay. Rank pay is in addition to basic pay and it forms part of basic pay. It was not said that the rank pay is part of basic pay but it forms part of basic pay which means whenever basic pay accrues any allowances the rank pay also accrues such allowances proportionately.
Let us take example of a Captain with 5 years service on 31 Dec 1995. On 31 Dec 1985 he was getting basic pay of 2800 (2300 + 5 increments) + rank pay of 200/-. Basic and rank pay both accrued the following allowances while migrating to Vth CPC, put all these allowances in the proportion of Basic pay 2800: Rank pay 200. The ratio is 2800:200. Hope so far it is clear.
Now the allowances fetched before 01 Jan 1996 are DA @ 148%. In this the DA on basic pay of 2800 was 4144 and on rank pay 200, the DA was 296.
IR I was Rs 100. Basic pay gets Rs 93/- and Rank pay gets Rs 7/-
IR II was 10%. Basic gets 280/- and rank pay gets 20/-
40% of unrevised basic and rank pay on basic pay of 2800 the increase was 1120 and on rank pay of 200, the increase was 80/-.
Now add all allowances accrued by rank pay to the rank pay only. Ie 200+296+7+20+80=603. It means the officer was getting Rs 603 as rank pay with basic rank pay and allowances fetched by it. The next slab of rank pay for captain above 603 is 800 in multiple of 200.
The rank pay in IV CPC for Capt to Brig was 200:600:800:1000:1200. The ratio in the ranks for the rank pay thus 1:3:4:5:6.
In Vth CPC a captain was supposed to get rank pay 4 times of rank pay drawn in IV CPC. He was already drawing rank pay of Rs 603 as on 31 Dec 1995, how can it be brought down to Rs 400 by pay commission recommendations. The balance amount of Rs 203 (603-revised rank pay 400=203) was left in revised basic pay to show us that a captain’s pay has been fixed at par with his civilian counterpart. Why should we loose rank pay into basic pay to accept the contention of Govt that we were at par with our civilian counterparts?
In Vth CPC pay fixation, the total rank pay including its allowances drawn till 31 Dec 1995 should have been fixed as rank pay in its next upward slab and then our basic pay should have been fixed at par with our civilian counterparts.
Hope I put it in right way.
@sunlit, Thanks. Will try that out as soon as I receive the 255 pages.
@ColMSRaju, please read Part IV, the method of pay fixation for civilians recommended by 5 CPC, then read the Recommendations of the 5 CPC for Defence Forces officers in Part VII, Section 2, Chapter 147, 148.
Mathematically that your reatio (amount)of 1(200):3(600):4(800:5 (1000:6 (1200)ratio may be correct, but neither Chapter 28.13 states that it is this ratio and since that is only your inference but not in Para 148.2 of the V CPC which clearly specifies that "in addition to basic pay, Rank Pay...., it leads to erroneous assumptions.
It may be of some use to factor in that the "Rank Pay is part of Basic Pay" order of MoD came in Feb 2000, almost 3 years after the Resolution 50 (I)..... Futher, it is possible that by this order MoD was trying to justify the shortfall in emoluments vis-a-vis civilians by showing that the Defence officers draw more (Pay + Rank Pay) than civilians and therefore they have no grievance - a statement repeated in may affidavits.
@Areal View
My answer is already there in para 2 of your post. V CPC clearly specifies that the rank pay is in addition to basic pay. Then as to why certain amount of rank pay earned in IV CPC was kept in basic pay if it was in addition to basic pay. There is a contradiction V CPC itself.
@MS Raju. Kindly do not confuse issues.The Courts have given their judgments which are very clear and specific.No pt in misleading people.Issue now is of implementation which has been diluted which the contempt action will sort out.
@Col MS Raju:"..why certain amount of rank pay earned in IV CPC was kept in basic pay.."
I don't know if you are trying to state something else, but that sentence is so strange to read that one can't help endorsing RDOA's advice not to confuse the issue.
Even if this had been asked, say last year, others could have tried to ascertain what was meant. But now, the judgement is through, a flawed implementation has been done, tons of documents are available courtesy of other blog owners for clarifying doubts, yet we keep seeing such discussions as if some have not understood even now what is involved.
So, its best to wait for the next steps and developments.
@RDOA
If our Assn feels that I am confusing the issue, it is not my fault. I never confuse any one. Please let us not get confused. You have my mail id, kindly tell me where and in which context I confused the issue. Did I say anything wrong, please point it out to me in may mail address. I said what has happened. Am not here to fight for my pay, pension and benefits. Am here to help the organization which made me not only an officer but as an author too. I know how to counter bureaucracy and even ministerial secretariats. Am here taking obligations from RDOA not for my benefits but for every one including our jawans. For example how many we lost in recent incidents in yatras and how much help we rendered and who is going to bear this expenditure. Is it Home or Defence. If it is defence then how we get our arrears. Am not here to get my money but am here to expose what is happening with defence and in the name of defence how much is being diverted. Sorry I became sentimental and went off the subject. Kindly note and delete my post. I am not here to counter our ow2n organization but am here to counter who goes against 'not us' but their own security forces. Sorry, what ever has happened so far, I will not appear on this site. You may retain my contribution for what ever cause you told me that "donot confuse the issue".
Thanks RDOA
My services are not required to you and our organisation
Bye
DRAFT RANK PAY ORDER….Who hijacked it….?....for full details click on link below
---
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFcQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Freportmysignal.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F11%2Frank-pay-arrears-draft-implementation.html&ei=XE_MUcKvNeqb0wXo54C4AQ&usg=AFQjCNF0tALytAXMn_9sD-gRRHxQdiBY9g&sig2=YAREuQvxtP-76FsRYBB7rw
---------------------------------
DGL ……………………… D(AG)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi,
Dated Sep 2012
To,
The Chief of the Army Staff
The Chief of the Naval Staff
The Chief of the Air Staff
Implementation of the Order dated 04 Sep 2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of in IA No 9/2010 and Transfer Petition No 56/2007 (N.K. Nair & others Vs UoI)
1.
“Under these circumstances, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner with effect from 1.1.86 without deducting the rank pay of Rs 200/- as has been done by respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner is also entitled to get his pay re-fixed in accordance with the pay fixation of 1987 evidenced by Extract Please.
3. Accordingly, consolidated modalities modifying the existing SAIs/SNIs/SAFIs to the extent specified hereunder are being promulgated for the implementation of the ibid Court order.
Section-I : Modifications effective from 01 January 1986 to 31 December 1995 (SAI/SNI/SAFI 1/S/87)
4. As the judgment is applicable to all officers upto the rank of Brigadier & equivalent the pay scale mentioned at Para 3 of SAI/SNI/SAFI 2/S/87 stands amended. The following revised integrated scale will be admissible to officers of the rank of 2nd Lt to Brigadier and equivalents wef 01 Jan 1986.
2300-100-3900-150-5850-200-6650
5. On 01 January 1986 the pay of all officers will be fixed again in the integrated pay scale in the following manner:-
(a) For the purpose of re-fixation the pay drawn by an officer on 01.01.86 in the existing scale of 3rd CPC will be considered. The pay such drawn will be enhanced by the following fixation formula to arrive at the revised pay;
(i) An amount representing 20% of the basic pay in the scale drawn by officer on 01.01.86 shall be added to the “existing emoluments” of the officer.
(ii) Thereafter, the officer’s pay will be re-fixed, without deducting the rank pay as was done earlier, in the integrated scale at para 4 above, at the stage next above the amount thus computed.
Rank Minimum pay in the integrated scale Reckonable years of service for the purpose of pay
Lieutenant 2500 2
Captain 3000 5
Major 4050 11
Lt Col 4800 16
Colonel 5500 20
Brigadier 6150 23
(b) Rank Pay. In addition to the re-fixed pay in the integrated pay scales, the following Rank Pay shall be paid depending on the rank held :-
Rank Rank Pay (Rs. Pm)
Captain & equivalent 200
Major & equivalent 600
Lt Col & equivalent 800
Colonel & equivalent 1000
Brigadier & equivalent 1200
(c) The above stated pay scales shall be used for re-fixation of all officers who were in service on 01.01.86 and also those who came into service after that date.
(e) Similarly in the case of an officer who, is promoted to the next higher rank after 01 Jan 1986 is in receipt of pay in the integrated scale which is less than the minimum pay prescribed in the table at sub Para 4 (a) (iii) above, the pay from the date of promotion shall be reckoned to be the minimum for that rank as shown, provided that he had completed the length of service indicated in the same table.
Section-II : Modifications effective from 01 January 1996 to 31 December 2005.........read on ....link
Dear Corona
Thanks for reiterating my own statement ".why certain amount of rank pay earned in IV CPC was kept in basic pay..". Don't you know certain amount of rank pay already earned in IV CPC was kept in V CPC in basic pay when rank pay was defined as a pay in addition to basic pay". If it was so why earned rank pay in IV CPC was kept in basic pay. If you all think that my statement is confusing you all, kindly leave me I know how to counter. Am not here fighting for my pay and allowances, please don't mind. I am not against you. Am not against any one. Lat year it was you who made a comment as to who is this Lt Col with 38 years service, and in which army he served, yes of course it is me. My rank service was counted towards Officers service. Don't be surprised if some one says he is a Lt Col or Col with 42 years of service. Am not fighting for my benefits, am very well off even in pension but am raising issues as to how our civilian leaders are behaving with us. I have already requested RDOA to spare me from their list. Be happy. I will not be here to point out for any thing. But before retiring from this site I want to say I have countered many IDAS, IAS and CAs auditing accounts in units and formations. I have that efficiency but I don't take it as a credit I did my duty.You wont hear me in future. I would like to remain as Yaksh who questioned Dharmaraj. Will remain as Yaksh watching things happening. I still bother for my jawans and I know how I can help them. The day will come that I as Yaksh will certainly question entire community. Thanks and goodby to every one on this blogpost. You will never find me here because you people failed to understand as to how much earned rank pay was kept in basic pay in Vth CPC. See your own payslip and pay fixation on 01 Jan 1996.
I can file a case in HHC Hyd and can spend to counter those who went against us. Just think if vth cpc says the rank pay be deducted from total emoluments, which rank pay the vth cpc was talking of, was it earned rank pay or recommended rank pay. Has any one given thought to this logic. We defence officers do not have any logic like those who are clever and smar. We are neither clever and smart but we are intelligent that is why we defend every one silently. There is a limit for silence. Good bye to every one on this blogpost.
@Col MS Raju:"..Lat year it was you who made a comment..";
Heavens to Betsy! Someone sure is keeping an archive of comments to be acted upon in future.
No, seriously, which part of rank pay went where are mere academic issues as far as the implementation of the judgement is concerned.
The DGL prepared by the services HQs is an ideal basis for correcting the flawed implementation.
All our doubts and concerns can be viewed in relation to that DGL as well as the RTI material published on blogs and RDOA's clarifications given in previous comments.
Fresh analysis and discussions not related to the actual situation are just a waste of everyone's time. They also mislead.
Col.M.S.Raju Very recently I have been seeing on this blog .So far where were you.
RDOA has very clearly brought on
25 -6-13at 9.31PM 27-6-13 at 5.27AM entire theme in just few words.
Col.M.S. Raju you may be correct but at this stage your stand/ logic/ arguments of no use.
Kindly Let RDOA do his job which is being done in the best interest of all of us in the best possible way
In addition to the legal process, public opinion may also help. I think the great work done by the IAF and the army in Uttarakhand gives us an opportunity to take our case to the public. I reproduce below a Letter to Editor that I have sent. Some of you may like to take some similar action so that the buzz increases. Every bit helps.
-----------------
Now that the IAF and Indian army have almost completed the stupendous task of rescue in Uttarakhand, it is time to raise some pertinent questions. Firstly, the only resource that was available to these magnificent warriors but not available to others was medium lift helicopters and large transport aircrafts. So use of these resources of IAF in this national calamity was justified. But besides this, why were other tasks not taken up by other civilian resources? Even the bridges constructed by the army are available in civil sector, or, should be. What were the DMs, SDMs, tehsildars, civil surgeons etc doing? What preparations were done by the government to handle such a situation, which occurs once every three years or so. None, whatsoever. Why not? Because the armed forces are always available to do everyone else's job.
On the TV, I saw survivors praising IAF and the army as they praise God. But the same praise does not translate into support for the armed forces in their struggle against the government.
Does the public even know that the popular sentiment in the armed forces with respect to the bureaucracy of MOD and the political leadership is one of utter contempt and disdain. We are not paid fairly, equipped fairly, housed properly and treated fairly in protocol. Isn't it a ridiculous situation that very recently, all three Chiefs publicly accepted that we have serious problems of equipment, arms and ammunition for a war. That will force the army to use men in a battle where they should be using artillery shells! The live firing practice of tank gunners is severely curtailed due to shortage of practice ammunition. Above all, the government cheated us in our Rank pay case and One rank-One pension case and there is great anger on this issue. The pensioners had to fight a case against their own government, which they won in successive courts. Even after the Supreme gave verdict in favour of the retired petitioners, the government is not implementing it leading to a likelihood of contempt petition.
So, dear citizens, enjoy the services of your armed forces whether in war or in peace, but also support their cause. In strengthening them, you'll only be strengthening your own interests.
Col Alok Asthana ( retd )
Mumbai
@ Col A Asthana Sir, thanks for your concern and sustained efforts. In fact your adequately worded letter to the Editor, "Just deserts" , published in the Indian Express, Mb edition of 25 Jun 13, has been the well timed eye opener to the GoI/ MoD and valuable input to masses regarding ongoing mess of matters affecting Armed Forces (serving as well as retired) personnel. As result of your noble act, 'the RDOA as one of the only Hot Entity legally engaged in fighting with Almighty UoI/ MoD' has somehow become well known to the common population (generally seen to be over occupied in self-centric activities for their own day to day survival)of Mumbai city.
Most of the letters to Editor on our issues may not find its deserving place in news paper, however we need to continue our efforts, particularly in a period during which our contempt petition comes for hearing in HSC and our Bharat Mata is heading for its 16 th L S Elections, in less than year's time. Once again thanks and all the very best.
I think we are getting in too deep in evaluating rankpay percentages which is quitq confusing.I always understood that our payscles were fixed into an integrated payscale and over and above we were to get rankpay based on the rank we hald every month with increments of Rs 100 or Rs 150 as per the total pay(ie basic plus rankpay).DA was paid based on this total pay.May I request that adding more complex calculations at this stage may be shelved because it shall only add to the problems already thrown in our basket by the BABUS.RDOA is requested to take all views expressed by various officers while preparing our contampt plea for July battle.
Part of my letter to the editor was published at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/letters-to-the-editorjust-deserts/1133196/. Something is better than nothing.
Best
Alok A
Dear all, pl take a few minutes of your valuable time to read this.
Col raju's points are worth taking into account.
I would like to submit that "had maj.dhanapalan not taken up the deduction of RP issue to the heights of legal remedies, we would not have been here today celebrating. I was told that even dhanapalan was not encouraged by services initially, Even the the COAS could not understand fully and seems reluctant to pursue the case.And dhanapalan went to legal system like a "ONE MAN ARMY" and the rest is history.
You never know; the deduction of RP issue could be the proverbial "TIP OF THE ICE-BERG'
What my earnest, personal request to RDOA is that the expert legal advisers to study the points raised by col raju and settle once for all, whether to take it up or not.The amount involved may be small; BUT THE MISCHIEF IS MISCHIEF; YOU CALL IT BY ANY NAME". You never know, the babus may be using this lacunae in the next 7PC and try to make more mischief; and we will be sufferers.May be another long legal battle to rectify these small but significant mischiefs.
Better late than never.
Let RDOA decide and issue a clarification. THAT SHIULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR ALL OF US.
THANKS A LOT FOR READING THIS LONG PERSONAL OPINION.
DEEPLY SORRY IF I HAD HURT ANY ONE. THAT IS NOT AT ALL MY INTENTION
V.SUNDARESAN
@ WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) "....points worth taking into account."
1. Sir, have a relook at the annual increments given to us in the 4th and 5th CPC.
2. In 4th CPC, Maj fixed at 3400 after deducting RP and gets increments of 100/-. Civil employees fixed at 3700/- and get increment of 125/-.
3 In 5th CPC, Capt fixed at 9600 after deducting 400 RP and gets increments of 300/-. civil employees fixed at 10000/- and get increment of 325/-.
AMEN
Respect Sec.RDOA and other boarder sirs.
My earnest request is not to allow distortion and diversion of matter by giving personal opinion without reading SAIs be it for 3,4 or 5cpc.
Kindly note RP is in addition to BP which is clarified by HSC. Deduction of RP had happened both in 4th n 5 cpc. if HSC order is not to deduct RP from BP, which is done both in 4 n 5 cpc. it has to be restored. since not done for 5cpc siting dhanpalans case as he retired before 31-12-95, it does not mean the rational or order changes. my request is not to listen to our friends v sundaresan or raju who try to weaken RDOA's stand n case by bringing funny logics without reading SAIs n its content.
My earnest request is stop posting self conceived ideas and get scared of 7th cpc and weaken our case.
Thanks n regards.
I am sorry but have to say this.
Humble request to all Veterans. RDOA has done full research and fought the case very successfully till now. They are doing an excellent job.We must not post contrary / different interpretations and should leave every thing to learned counsels of RDOA .They have a plan of action.This fight for our dues is against the Govt/Babus and not against fellow veterans.
Let us hope RDOA represents and demands dues for ALL including those pre 1-1-1986 retirees , their family pensioners and their nominees. When they truly demand for all, I think we shall get our dues else the matter remains jinxed as till now.
@above all: can we just leave the legal intricacies to be dealt with to the RDOA, to do the least.
RDOA has come up so far & let us all extend our wholehearted support & best wishes for their next endeavour in whatever manner we can.
let it not be a one-up man show as it appears at present.
I once again appeal to refrain from mis-interpreting & mis-representing all facts as that has already been taken into account by HSC.
No up date from RDOA for the last 15 days.Any news with regard to contempt filing or waiting for AGs comments to come out.
AG is yet to submit it's views to pers concerned....
as such RDOA was not a party to what transpired among stakeholders on 14 Jun 2013
SC opening on 08 Jul 2013.
All the Best.....
RDOA WILL emerge victorious....
All offrs paid arrears till March 2013 may view their form 16A uploaded by CDA officers.
Dear all,
Seasons greetings.
Today i had received the NEW PPO from CDA(AF)
It appears that the CDA has not followed fully the "LETTER AND SPIRIT" of the HSC's orders on the implementation of the payment of arrears, of RP, and other arrears PARTICULARLY FOR THE PRE-2006 RETIREES.
I retired on 31-8-1991 as a (SEL) wg.cdr.. In those days and for pre-2006 veterans, THERE IS A WEIGHTAGE FACTOR; which most of us have taken into consideration. My, as per the earlier two PPOs, the QUALIFYING SERVICE IS 33 YEARS(taking into 7 years of weightage.This is mentioned in the PPO ISSUED CLEARLY IN POST 1996 PPO
But in the NEW PPO, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE WEIGHTAGE,(for me. pre-1996 veteran), AND THE ACTUAL COMMISSIONED SERVICE IS ONLY TAKEN INTO A/C FOR CALCULATING ,I THINK, BOTH THE COMMUTATION VALUE ARREARS AND THE DCRG.
THE RESULT?/
THERE IS A NEGATIVE ARREARS,in my case.FOR DCRG
FOR RDOA I am sending the NEW PPO for your study. i think this may be the case with all pre-2006 retirees.
I do not think, either HSC or the affidavit filed by the govt in the HSC mentions anything about 'NOT CONSIDERING THE WEITAGE"
This may be looked into by your esteemed legal specialists. If found suitable, this factor may be included in the "CONTEMPT" case as a failure to follow the "LETTER AND SPIRIT" ISSUE IF REQUIRED AND DEEMED NECESSARY.
Thanking you and sorry for any point which may hurt anybody. THIS IS NOT MY INTENTION AT ALL, I ASSURE.
If anybody can give the clarification to the accuracy or otherwise of the calculation, i shall be thankful.
wg.cdr.v.sundaresan(retd)
@WG.CDRV.SUNDARESAN(RETD): Have you sent an application to your CDA or to the Veterans set-up in Air HQ? I feel you should do so urgently and without delay.
Dear WG CDR sundersan.
1. I am too retiree of may 91
(a)pen.given(4050+800)(22+7)/66
=Rs 2132PM
(b)Commu Rs 916/-
(c)payable Rs 1216
2.Now I too have received new PPO
(a) Pen.given(4950+600)(22+8)/66
=2523/-PM.Icrease Rs 391/-
(b)Comu.Rs1084/-increase Rs168/- Current pen to be reduced by Rs .168PM for next 15 years.
(c) DCRG and comu.paid acordingly
(d) Total increase of pen R 391/-(with DA+ADA +IR) PM wef date of retirement to 31-12-95 as arrears with 6%int also being paid.
3. For furthur clarification you may contact me on +919351584109.
4.Hope I have given you sufficient and needful information.
@ Corona8, Wg Cdr Sundaresan & Murari Lal Agarawal,
I left service in July 1987. I got my revised PPO from DyCDA (AF)-Subroto Park on 29.5.13 with similar observations. In my case “Net DCRG” shown is a meagre amount of Rs. 475/= (Rupees four hundered & seventy five) only.
I had sent an email on 9.6.13 to ‘Grievances Officer-Jt CDA (AF)’ at email ID: cdaaf-delhi.cgda@nic.in, with a copy to DyCDA (AF) and DAV (Air HQ). A bcc was endorsed to RDOA also for their information. I have not received any reply so for.
It was again followed up by a ‘Speed Post’ letter dated 26.6.13 addressed to DyCDA (AF) with copy to DAV and AFCAO. Reply is sill awaited, before adopting route of RTI.
Those interested may contact me on 9312220496 for collective brain storming efforts.
According to Supreme Court ‘calendar’, it was closed only up to 30.6.13. I, therefore, presume that it must have reopened & started functioning wef 01.7.13 (and NOT 08.7.13, as is generally understood)
Having said that, we must also understand that correct timing for filing a Contempt Petition (CP) depends upon many other factors also. Therefore, in view prevailing circumstances we should not pressurise, suggest or even express our (natural) anxiety for early filing of CP.
We should leave it to the wisdom of RDOA and its legal team to decide the opportune time for such an action. The resolve expressed by RDOA (especially at Para-6) on their Blog “Request/Confidence Building Measures” d/d 28.11.12 should give us enough faith in the working confidence of RDOA.
@CL BEDI: It is hoped the accounts organizations and the connected CDA arms are not deliberately playing merry Hell with the entitlements of veterans.
There was also a post on the chatroll about increment dates of veterans with time-scale ranks having been pushed forward at the time of calculaing rank pay arrears causing them a huge loss.
To
RDOA
sir Any thing happened today 08-07-2013.
@ Dhoop
Your apprehensions have a great weight because of my own experience. There seems to be a sea of undercurrents of biases against AF.
I shall share something which I wanted to avoid in one of my previous comments in this blog for obvious reasons. You may like to ponder upon the following:-
(a) After receiving my PPO, my bank branch cooperated and sent one of their employee’s to Dy CDA (AF)’s office to seek clarification of ‘Net DCRG’ amount being shown as a meagre amount of Rs. 475/=. The bank representative told me (in confidence) that he was turned back saying,
“…We are very busy now a days…. There must be some loan outstanding against the officer! …Anyway, what is the hurry to pay arrears...” or words to that effect.
(Note: - I retired about 26 yrs back, in July 1987, and they feel there must be some loan still against me! What a casual attitude!)
(b) I received (local address) my PPO dated 14.5.13 on 29.5.13. On investigation, I found that the speed-post cover was despatched on 28.5.13. Perhaps to show that they have beaten dead line of 31.5.13, laid down by HSC. I am preserving the postal cover, which may be used at appropriate time.
(c) A few of my brother officers who received their PPOs as late as in 1st week of this month, bears no date on the PPO. Officers have been requested to preserve their respective postal covers similarly.
You can draw your own conclusions.
RDOA members, those who have paid full membership fee, are entitled to some updates from RDOA on the rank pay case. None seem to be forthcoming.Seems wrong.
shiva,
today is 08 jul 13. i have not yet recd any arrears or statement so far inspite of updating their master comtr and sending details in nov 12.
i am a disability pension person hence my service pension and disablity pension is exempt from IT.
will they recover IT FROM me or not. i am not paying any IT on my pension hence not filing any return. regards
Dear RDOA, what is happening in the HSC? has it reopened? and what IS THE STATE OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE AND WHEN IS THE HEARING?
WE ARE ALL EAGER TO KNOW.
PL UPDATE THE INF.
THANKS
V.SUNDARESAN
Dear Alok,
I think it may not be true that rdoa is providing update to only paid member. somebody may be spreading the rumor to defame rdoa and disintigrate. it had been the legacy of rdoa to infuse confidence n hope to we veterns, who had been wroged by some unscrplous elements in helm of affairs. i have no doubt that one day they will get their share of justice, only unfortunate thing is we would not be able to see their misery, which they earned causing harm to pure soles who came for the aid of nation disregarding their self n family. none would be spared be it politician, babu or law goon.
satyameva jayate. may god enlighten the heart of those who don't know what they are doing by melicious injustice to afv's.
jai hind.
The following information kindly be consider for the contempt of court.
Cdao Pune has paid interest on other arrears but not paid interest RS.3140/- on leave in cash amt RS 7344/-wef1-1-2006 to 28-2-13 the date of payment.
Now PNB bank have not paid interest RS.17555/-wef 1-1-2006 to 29-6-2013 on DCRG amt RS 9450/- and commutation amt Rs 29610 (Total Rs 39060/-).
Thus total legitimate int amt RS 20695/-was not paid to me.
The above may be the case every one of us.
I believe AF officers has got full interest on leave in cash ,DCRG and commuttation amts.
"IS MERA DESH ISILIYE MAHAN HE?"
Gentlemen, as BP affects some allowances, it'd be interesting to learn id anyone has received arrears relating to HRA.
RDOA pl update the latest on the RP case.
thanks
v.sundaresan
1 Attention all Babus and Netas! Wake up !!!!@@###
2. You must remember that if once the anger of Armed Forces Rise then all of you will not be able to hide behind dhoti of any politician
3. If we have done Yoemen service in all Pre Independence Wars, 47-48 War ,65,71 wars and Kargil and helped all Aid to Civil Auth incl IS duties in NE and J&K and Punjab and in Uttrakhand where all SDMs , DM,SPs and all politicians were hiding in each others underwears were having NFUs and Assured Career progression and policemen were taking bribes for rescue in heli rescue ops que.
then
we can snatch it all from BABUs
4. If you do not give us NFU, 8700 Grade pay for Lt Col and ACP till Maj Gen eqvt to Jt Secy as done to all IAS and One rank one pension etc then Forget security of country from China or Pak
or even
Bangladesh
5. We will also sell anything to compensate ourself as Babus and Netas are doing and will not respect /salute any Senior Babu or Neta !!! F$$$ yo&& and pull their dhoti and galabandh suit
Understand You Netas and Bass%%%%%%
From
An Enlightened and Educated Indian Armed Soldier and Officer
Not exactly enlightening, even if originating from such an enlightened source. :-|
@ corona8 : There might be many more with such or more heartening feelings and emotions as expressed by the 'Enlightened' one.
How long and to whom all you may succeed in stopping them from expressing prevailing anger and frustration about the system and concerning individuals, responsible for ongoing harassment,denial and injustice to AF personnel?
@ RDOA : Timely update on nonstrategic plan/ move, may help in clearing some air, at this crucial juncture.
1Dear Enlightened officer & solider.
I agree that anger has reached at peak.
2In no circumstances soldiers can forget the country .Basically we all shall look after the country in best tradition
3.But nothing shall be left with LOOTERA BABUS and THE PLITIACINS who are trying to make us fool and the country as a whole .
4.we shall send all such to Bangladesh for their fate with empty hands keeping all their belongings.
5.Thanks God HSC has started on this line and FEW historical verdict have been given in last four days.
With regards.
@D S Ramakrishna:"..How long and to whom all you may succeed.."; Why would I even bother to stop indulging in soap-box oratory of the rabble-rousing variety?
It's for RDOA to permit or not permit those kinds of comments. To my mind, that nature of comment has nil relevance to the blog post on which it has been made and shares none of the dignity with which RDOA has conducted the litigation and is continuing to do so.
If RDOA accept the tone and tenor of those comments, which remind us of neta-like civilian speech-makers, then why should anyone even wish to stop this nature of comment writing.
But it is certainly not enlightening.
If you think that's very enlightened then that's your choice and only serves to affirm the picture others may have already formed of your line of reasoning. After all, you, as everyone else, are entitled to independent points of view.
@ corona8 : simply thanks for appreciation of line of reasoning and most importantly an independence of point of view.
By now, we all affected ones, know the way dignity of litigants/ RDOA been taken for granted/ride, by the concerned agencies.
Dignity is fine with a setup, which believes in following the courtesy and grace of unconditional reciprocation, and not the means of misinterpretations and deceits.
In this regard, emarks/comments of various authorities in the note-sheets, pertaining to the award of HSC's Rank Pay Case Judgement, as made available in Aerial view blog, refers.
@DS Ramakrishna: "appreciation" I doubt if I could ever appreciate that enlightened comment with lots of ##** added. As
For the valuable Aerial View data, I don't think any advice is required to read it. Everyone knows the difference between quality blogging of that kind on one hand and sub-standard street-boy behaviour on the other.
Anger is all around but comments should be dignified. All of us gave 35 to 40 years to save this country.Few Babus and Netas have cheated us .Can we sell the country and surrender to enemies due to this few Babus and Netas? No, Not at all. Think about 120 crores Indians and our mother land.They have not cheated us, rather they respect us. Be cool and have full faith on RDOA and HSC.We will won the battle our enemies will get their dues.
@corona8 & DS Ramakrishna,comments of the "enlightened one" would probably have been thought out/written with some "spirit" back-up.
I agree with the lucidly expressed view by Amal Sarkar. We do not do ourselves proud by lowering our standards of decency and language, especially when it was and still is our pride that we have guarded the Nation's integrity even at the peril to our lives.
As for my blog, my endeavour has been to share my views/opinions backed up with facts and figures and more importantly, to inform many if not all Defence Services officers, of what the MoD/MoF/CGDA etc think and commit on paper. It saves speuclation based frustration, I think.
I am travelling and hence cannot put up the 255 pages info that CGDA has provided. It will be another 2 weeks before I return and then share the thought process of the CGDA with all.
To corona8, thanks for the compliment and I sincerely appreciate it.
@Murarilal Agrawal dated July 06, 2013.
Few clarifications;
Presume you retired as Lt Col/eqvlt
with 22 yrs service.
Initially rank pay 800 plus weightage 7 years applicable to Lt Col?
Revised pension: Rk pay 600(applicable to rk of major?) and weightage 8 years (applicable to major?)
Is this because 21+ yrs Majors' pay scale have been revised to Lt Col and Lt Cols' pension being brought up to level of Majors with 22 yrs service?
@ Res Aerial view Sir, thanks for further elaboration of my point of view, vide para 3 of your comment.
In addition to the above, aim of reference of precious material available in your blog, has been to remind intentions of concerned individual of MoD/CGDA, in shaping decision of implementation of RP case, the way it is today. And of course to extend our gratitude for your tireless efforts in seeking this material through the painstaking process of RTI applications followed by appeals.
Some users of this blog, love to shoot unsolicited remarks to most of the comments.I respect their helplessness and opt to ignore.
@DS Ramakrishna: "..thanks for further elaboration.."; I don't see any "further elaboration" :-)
There's nothing to elaborate. You were justifying the trashy content in some other comment which has been politely snubbed by others.
So let's get real and absorb, if we have the intellectual apparatus to do so, the material others have so kindly put at our disposal and stop justifying ourselves with claims of having been 'elaborated'.
Sheeesh!
Post a Comment