Rift between Armed Forces-Defence ministry over selective implementation of SC verdict on Rank pay case widens
Defence Minister AK Antony. Photo: PTI
Over the last six months, the rift between the uniformed services and the civilian leadership of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has widened, right at the top over the maltreatment of the veterans and widows.
Leading the charge is Air Chief Marshal (ACM) NAK Browne, who as the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) has sought the Defence Minister AK Antony's attention for resolving the issue, but to no avail.
The genesis of the spat lies in the MoD's 'selective' implementation of the Supreme Court order of September 2012 in the Rank Pay case, which the ex-servicemen community won after battles in the Kerala High Court as well as in the apex court from 1996 to 2012.
After the anomalies emanating from a 'faulty' order were pointed out, the ministry has been unable to rectify its stand.
Letters accessed by this correspondent, written by ACM Browne to Antony written on January 18 and May 27, 2013 show the utter disappointment of the uniformed services at the MoD's conduct.
Both these letters were written with the intention to get Antony to make the bureaucrats fall in line. However, there has not been much progress.
In his latest letter, ACM Browne writes to Antony, "The present approach the infirmities has caused a inordinate delay which has given rise to apprehensions in the environment that the delay may be intentional... the beneficiaries to this verdict include many of such officers who retired decades ago and do not have a long time left to wait for their dues. It will be a grave injustice to these veterans if they pass on without getting their rightful arrears."
ACM Browne went on to state, "It is with a deep sense of regret that I convey to the honourable Raksha Mantri about a growing feeling that cases involving Armed Forces personnel are unnecessarily being dragged to higher courts whereas the same could so easily be resolved in the ministry itself."
In fact in his previous letter to Antony on January 18, ACM Browne had specifically pointed out three major anomalies arising out of MoD's implementation order. Towards solving that, Browne had made four recommendations.
In that too, ACM Browne had stated, "The implementation order suffers from unprecedented disparity. It falls much short of expectations and I fear it will fuel further litigation and may enhance the feeling of alienation among veterans."
Lt. Col (Retd) BK Sharma of the Retired Defence Officers Association (RDOA), which fought the case in the Supreme Court said, "It is very strange. We met the Defence Minister twice, the last time we requested him to ensure implementation of court orders. While he was positive, his ministry does everything to negate that. If this is how they treat veterans, which youngster will want to join the armed forces?"
His colleague, Lt. Col (Retd) Satwant Singh added, "I squarely hold the babus of the MoD responsible. What they are doing to our morale is indirectly aiding the enemy!"
The RDOA, it was learnt is planning on filing a contempt petition in the SC against the MoD as soon as the vacation ends.
Despite repeated requests made to the Directorate of Public Relations (DPR), MoD's public relations wing, there was no response.
Even written requests made at the office of the Secretary, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (ESW) for a response did not elicit a response.
What is the case all about?
The Rank Pay case is also known as the Major Dhanapalan case.
The Supreme Court had envisaged re-fixation of pay for all officers of the Army, Navy & Air Force who were eligible for Rank Pay with effect from 1.1.86, the date of implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission.
However, the MoD implementation letter of December 2012 changed it to 'as on 1.1.86'.
The SC order had also sought the re-designing of the minimum basic pay in the integrated pay scale of IV pay commission to avoid different basic pay to similarly placed officers.
Also, the subsequent amendments in the pay and pension orders issued towards fifth and sixth pay commissions.
Where is it stuck at present?
Meetings were held in the MoD on January 30 and March 6, 2013 following ACM Browne's letter which were attended by officials from MoD Finance, Expenditure and other departments.
It was later learnt that the services were asked to make a statement of case which would b circulated among all and forwarded to Solicitor General for his comments.
But, for all this, the MoD had time till May 31 2013 as per SC orders. According to RDOA, only a handful of officers have been given their due that too partly, within this deadline even as a majority remain waiting.
Mystery over 'change'
ACM Browne's letter stated, "Despite the efforts of AS(A) to arrive at a consensus, representatives of CGDA continued to maintain that their version of the interpretation of the court orders needed no review... there has been no explanation as to how and why 'with effect from 1.1.86' was changed to 'as on 1.1.86' despite specifically documented by the apex court in its judgement. It has not bee established as to who had authorised this change since this arbitrary change has now become the root problem."
Leading the charge is Air Chief Marshal (ACM) NAK Browne, who as the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) has sought the Defence Minister AK Antony's attention for resolving the issue, but to no avail.
The genesis of the spat lies in the MoD's 'selective' implementation of the Supreme Court order of September 2012 in the Rank Pay case, which the ex-servicemen community won after battles in the Kerala High Court as well as in the apex court from 1996 to 2012.
After the anomalies emanating from a 'faulty' order were pointed out, the ministry has been unable to rectify its stand.
Letters accessed by this correspondent, written by ACM Browne to Antony written on January 18 and May 27, 2013 show the utter disappointment of the uniformed services at the MoD's conduct.
Both these letters were written with the intention to get Antony to make the bureaucrats fall in line. However, there has not been much progress.
In his latest letter, ACM Browne writes to Antony, "The present approach the infirmities has caused a inordinate delay which has given rise to apprehensions in the environment that the delay may be intentional... the beneficiaries to this verdict include many of such officers who retired decades ago and do not have a long time left to wait for their dues. It will be a grave injustice to these veterans if they pass on without getting their rightful arrears."
ACM Browne went on to state, "It is with a deep sense of regret that I convey to the honourable Raksha Mantri about a growing feeling that cases involving Armed Forces personnel are unnecessarily being dragged to higher courts whereas the same could so easily be resolved in the ministry itself."
In fact in his previous letter to Antony on January 18, ACM Browne had specifically pointed out three major anomalies arising out of MoD's implementation order. Towards solving that, Browne had made four recommendations.
In that too, ACM Browne had stated, "The implementation order suffers from unprecedented disparity. It falls much short of expectations and I fear it will fuel further litigation and may enhance the feeling of alienation among veterans."
Lt. Col (Retd) BK Sharma of the Retired Defence Officers Association (RDOA), which fought the case in the Supreme Court said, "It is very strange. We met the Defence Minister twice, the last time we requested him to ensure implementation of court orders. While he was positive, his ministry does everything to negate that. If this is how they treat veterans, which youngster will want to join the armed forces?"
His colleague, Lt. Col (Retd) Satwant Singh added, "I squarely hold the babus of the MoD responsible. What they are doing to our morale is indirectly aiding the enemy!"
The RDOA, it was learnt is planning on filing a contempt petition in the SC against the MoD as soon as the vacation ends.
Despite repeated requests made to the Directorate of Public Relations (DPR), MoD's public relations wing, there was no response.
Even written requests made at the office of the Secretary, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (ESW) for a response did not elicit a response.
What is the case all about?
The Rank Pay case is also known as the Major Dhanapalan case.
The Supreme Court had envisaged re-fixation of pay for all officers of the Army, Navy & Air Force who were eligible for Rank Pay with effect from 1.1.86, the date of implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission.
However, the MoD implementation letter of December 2012 changed it to 'as on 1.1.86'.
The SC order had also sought the re-designing of the minimum basic pay in the integrated pay scale of IV pay commission to avoid different basic pay to similarly placed officers.
Also, the subsequent amendments in the pay and pension orders issued towards fifth and sixth pay commissions.
Where is it stuck at present?
Meetings were held in the MoD on January 30 and March 6, 2013 following ACM Browne's letter which were attended by officials from MoD Finance, Expenditure and other departments.
It was later learnt that the services were asked to make a statement of case which would b circulated among all and forwarded to Solicitor General for his comments.
But, for all this, the MoD had time till May 31 2013 as per SC orders. According to RDOA, only a handful of officers have been given their due that too partly, within this deadline even as a majority remain waiting.
Mystery over 'change'
ACM Browne's letter stated, "Despite the efforts of AS(A) to arrive at a consensus, representatives of CGDA continued to maintain that their version of the interpretation of the court orders needed no review... there has been no explanation as to how and why 'with effect from 1.1.86' was changed to 'as on 1.1.86' despite specifically documented by the apex court in its judgement. It has not bee established as to who had authorised this change since this arbitrary change has now become the root problem."
21 comments:
It seems no Major Political Party is interested to help the Veterans and Veer Naris, We should approach Farmer Groups & Aam AAdmi Party to help us out in Gheraoing the Parliament House when the Monsoon Session Starts. Veterans along with AAP volunteers can undertake the Mission.RM seems to be a tool in the hands of Babus so nothing much can be expected from him as he tries to please everyone with him soft talk but is scared of taking action due to fear of the Babus.
Also RDOA should send contempt notices to Paying authorities viz PCDA(O), AFCAO & CDA (Navy) by name , as they are the face of the Babus and responsible for paying the correct arrears.
Ravi Rao correctly said that no political parties/political bosses(Matries) are brave enough to tail any thing to BABUS as their "KALI KARTUTE" are well known to them.
One may certainly depend upon Arvind Kejariwal Party "AAP" for positive and purposeful outcome.
One who does not get into water , his/her cloths will never get wet.so, don,t expect anything from RM as he wants his cloth to remain dry.No political party will help us including AAP.Did BJP give us OROP when they were in power for 5 yrs?
It is only The SC which can ensure our legitimate dues are paid .CDA(O) Army /Navy /Air force should be No 1 in the contempt petition being main culprit.
RDOA's approach is rational and legally sound, in stark contrast to looney tunes occasionally heard in the comments section of the blog posts.
I mean, other than being a caricature of a political entity and being unable to fend for even itself during the whiney and ineffectual protests it has tried to stage, what else is the 'alternative political establishment' good for? And, here are some duff suggestions for bringinging that lot into the act. God help us and protect us from daft suggestions like that!
What income tax slabs have got to do with rhe rank pay matter would be apparent to only the Caps-Lock challenged participants. May God keep a benign eye on RDOA's cause and protect it from the incoherent ramblings of those keen to participate but lacking the intellectual apparatus to do so.
DEAR SIR
1.OUR GENERALS HAVE RUINED ARMY FOR THEIR PERSONAL GAINS
2. ARE U SHOCKED .I BELIEVE YES.
SEE IN ARMY ONLY
A] EX COAS JJ SINGH: WHEN CASE OF RANK PAY WAS RAKED .HE WAS THE ONE HE PUT HIS FOOT DOWN .SAYING RANK PAY HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED, SO IT CANNOT BE GIVEN OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. SEE LEVEL OF FOOLING HIMSELF & HARMING ARMY TO GET PLUM POSTING OF GUV AFTER RETIREMENT. THE GENERAL MUST BE AWARE THAT PAY IS NEVER CLAIMED . HE HAS PUT EVERYONE IN SPIN FOR HIS PERSONAL RISE. I AM SURE HE TOO MUST HAVE GOT RANK PAY ARREARS BY NOW.A SHAMELESS ACT.
B] EARLIER THERE WAS ONE IG POLICE IN COMBINED HARYANA+UT+PUNJAB. IN EX COAS MALHOTRA POLICE WENT ONE RANK UP. NEITHER HE UP GRADED ARMY NOR HE PUT HIS FOOT DOWN FOR POLICE. SO IN AID TO CIVIL POWER ARMY OFFICER WENT DOWN IN RANK STRUCTURE.NOW SEE AMOUNT OF DGP+IGP FLOATING IN THESE PLACES
C] IN 6th CPC GOVT WAS GIVING NFU STATUS TO US.NAVY & AIR FORCE WERE WILLING BUT ARMY DENIED. TO DATE A TIME SCALE IAS/IPS OFFICER GETS PENSION OF Lt Gen. MOREOVER THERE IS COMMAND & CONTROL PROBLEM NOW A CWE IS SENIOR TO MAJ GEN
D]OUR ACR SYSTEM ALLOWS WRONG ONE TO COME UP. PEN PICTURE HAS NO MEANING WHICH 95% OFFICER MAY NOT KNOW. IT IS NUMERIC RATING WHICH MATTERS . AN EXCELLENT COMMAND WORD IN PEN PICTURE WILL NOT MAKE UP IF AT ONE ODD PLACE 7 REMARKS ARE GIVEN IN QUALITY . ALTHOUGH 7/8 ARE NOT PROPERLY DEMARCATED [ 7 OR 8 HAVE EQUALITY TO FOOL THE RECEIVER]
E] CORRUPT & GOOD CHAMACHA’S MAKE UP
F]THERE ARE 2 PAY BANDS FOR OFFICER’S PAY.THERE ARE 2 BAND FOR ACCN .BUT FOR COMFORTS LIKE CANTEEN * OTHERS THERE ARE SO MANY BANDS.
I] HONY Lt TO COL. CO HAS BEEN CLUBBED WITH HIS JCO’S . WHERE IS STATUS LEVEL FOR BULK OF OFFICER
II] BRIG ANOTHER BAND
III]MAJ GEN ANOTHER BAND
IV] Lt GEN ANOTHER BAND
V] COAS ANOTHER BAND UNLIMITED LIQOUR. HEIGHT OF GREEDINESS.
DO NOT YOU SEE A MOCKERY OF SYSTEM WITHIN US. HAVE ONLY TWO BANDS. RED TAPE BELOW & RED TAPE. MORE INTERSETED FOR DATE OF BIRTH ISSUE EX COAS
G] ALWAYS START CORRECTION FROM HOME ONLY THEN UNITED ACTION AS U DESIRE CAN START.FIRST CLEAN ON MESS
H] 50% MERGER DA AS ON 1/1/2006. NONE OF CHIEF HAS PUT DOWN FOOT. WHEN SERVING GOT ALL ALLOWNCES ENHANCED WHY NOT MERGER OF DA WAS TAKEN WHICH IS MOTHER OF ALL ALLOWANCES
K]DUE TO BABUS WRONG ACTIONS OUR PAY/PENSION IS WRONGLY BEEN GIVEN. 13 COURTS INCL SC HAS GIVEN RULING TO PAY SUM OF[ BASIC+GRADE PAY+MSP] WEF FROM 1/1/2006. BUT IT IS LIKELY TO BE PAID FROM WEF 24/9/2012. NO ONE HAS PUT FOOT DOWN & AGAIN WE ARE BACK IN COURT NOW
2. CHANGE IS IN NOT FAR WAY . DEMOCRACY HAS TO GO AS IT IS ALMOST FAILED & CORRUPTION IS ON ON IT’S PEAK. ARISTOTLE THEORY OF GOVT CHANGE WILL TAKE INTO EFFECT
3. do not have narrow mind restricted to rank pay only or caps lock. see how we are treatted
@Ranbir Lamba: I am able to see how the caps-lock mode of interaction can be a barrier to effective discussions and on-line interaction.
It is also a firmly established practice on the web to equate caps-lock texts as akin to 'shouting'. It is not only considered rude, it is downright distracting and unsocial in the domain of internet discussions.
Whatever the issues that one wishes to highlight, one can do so using normal text, using the bold or italics options, without resorting to caps.
Having said that, do illustrate how not merging DA is against service personnel and not civilians. Have you also calculated the tax liability on the same salary with std deduction and the new norms for comparing the two?
I think not.
In any case, what does that have to do with the rank-pay matter? Your comments are off-topic, and in caps at that.
1]firstly your caps locks> many have liked caps locks due to eye sight problem ,you may have good eye sight
2]now merging da . you follow slave mentality .why civil should lead why cannot we lead &point out . i have done detail case & taken case with ministries .give me ur e mail i will send you cases as old as on 201 in the subject
3] you are clueless about standard deduction case. it was mistake & was to be re-introduced as per sc. read ET of time it was take away.
4] even if i grant u ur wisdom of tax liability[which is wrong] any common man will understand when 1/3rd deduction is done ,the tax will be less by any norms.hats off to ur wisdom
5] rank pay is one topic it will be foolish to not to contest others cases .i am giving you a wide spectrum of your losses. today ur badly paid . a inspector in police who becomes dsp in 8 years gets lt gen pension,but not in your domain of either thinking or contesting . i have done it & have got ack of pmo+ahq also but babus;s are delaying it
better act or take rest
@Ranbir Lamba: You are just arithmetic, logic and netiquette challenged. That doesn't essentially mean you're a bad person. I wish you luck with your cap-locked diatribes.
@Dhoop . u have shown ur worth . at least have some gentleman ettiquettes...ur comment back to you for ur wisdom...kindly do not spoil forum
@Dhoop . u have shown ur worth . at least have some gentleman ettiquettes...ur comment back to you for ur wisdom...kindly do not spoil forum
@Ranbir Lamba: The word is
etiquette not ettiquettes But don't let that get you down, after all English was clearly not the language intended for you to be conversing in.
Here is a link to a reference book for your benefit. I'm sure it will help you with your self-improvement programme. Do read. There may even be a Hindi version available. Do ask someone who knows about these things to help you with a web search.
There's a good fellow, now.
Col sharma is requested not to put unwanted comments in this blog which is out of context.
There are several comments on this forum which expose how immature, petty-minded and trivial we service officers are.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our dues but it somewhat explains it.
@ Ariel View
Sir, have you received any reply from RM in response to your letter.
Regards
dear,ravi rao, ack from pmo received. let us wait & watch now
@Ravi Rao: You have addressed a query to Aerial View in your comment. I don't see any comment by Aerial View on this blog post. Nor is there any reference to a letter written by Aerial View in the main text of the blog post.
You will pardon, I'm sure, those who would feel a bit puzzled, to say the least, at this manner of carrying forward a discussion on an important topic.
To top it all, an answer to your query is from quarters one did not realize had the authority to represent Aerial View in these discussions.
Do dispel these mysteries, if you don't mind.
kindly visit pay commission > http://paycommissionupdate.blogspot.in/2013/06/armed-force-pay-parity-meeting-on-14th.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/frCK+(PAY+COMMISSION)> Armed Force pay parity : Meeting on 14th June> see comment no:1. i do not think i have posted any comment on aerial view. kindly let me know what u have in mind
thanks
Strange. i had addressed my comment to @Ravi Rao but I'm getting a reply from another commentator about a different blog-post altogether.
Previously there was a reply on behalf of Aerial View about a matter not even mentioned in this blog post.
The mystery deepens.
@ Dhoop
Refer to blog of Aeriel View of 01 june 2013
@Ravi Rao: Actually, I'd understood the context. But why raise an issue relating to a different blog-post, that too in a different blog over here, and without any hyperlinks on top of everything. It serves to mislead.
Post a Comment