Friday, September 13, 2013

IV CPC RANK PAY CASE: CONTEMPT PETITION HEARING

Contempt Petition (C) No 328/2013 in TP(C) No 56/2007: Preliminary Hearing

The 'Contempt Petition' filed by RDOA in the IV CPC Rank Pay Case on 31 July 2013 has been scheduled for hearing on 23 Sept 2013 as per the Advance List of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Contemnors named in the Petition are the Defence Secretary, Secretary Defence Finance, Secretary Expenditure and the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (CGDA) for wilful defiance of the Court orders and for changing the court order deliberately.

Court No and Item no will be posted when final list is issued. RDOA gearing up!

Secy RDOA

 

35 comments:

gentle said...

While extending the congratulations to the esteemed members of the learned legal team , we would also pray for the successful result of their efforts . I would like to bring out that there is still no payment made to me by the DCDA (AF) authorities in respect of pension arrears in spite of the reminders about the same to all the concerned authorities including the CPPCW Delhi , the bank as well as the DAV Air Force , who have been passing on the buck from one to the other.
It seems that no body seems to care for the same till the HSC intervenes in the case & gives out clear cut instructions about the amount to be paid as well as the responsibility for any lapse on this account .

Ranjay said...

All the Best......May God Bless the RDOA....

chowpc said...

Our best wishes to RDOA and the Legal Team. We are looking forward eagerly for positive developments.
chowpc

Harry said...


Heartening indeed to hear about the positive news of listing of Contempt petition in the HSC. Thank you RDOA for putting up a dogged fight for justice!

My Prognosis is as below:-

On 23rd Sept when the Contempt Petition comes up for hearing, it is safe to assume that Contemnors would be asked to file their replies by the HSC. For this SG/Addl SG is likely to seek max time but hopefully HSC would not yield to their delaying tactics and RDOA would like them to be given least time. SO expect 4 to 6 weeks time to the Contemnors and then we run into Dec!
Only thereafter the real fight starts!

I'm sure RDOA's ammo is dry! :)

WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) said...

Dear RDOA, Hearty congrats in advance. I wish RDOA and the team a VERY GRAND SUCCESS AND GIVE A LIFE TIME ACHIEVEMENT TO ITSELF AND ALL VETERANS.
V.SUNDARESAN

Bloomberg said...

RDOA Team needs support of all Veterans in their own humble way for a dramatic outcome.......

good samaritan said...

Thanks for the good news sirs(RDOA)

good samaritan said...

Thanks for the RDOA for the good news.

good samaritan said...

Thanks for the RDOA for the good news.

Murarilal Agrawal said...

Good news with a hope for the fast & positive dividend.

Murarilal Agrawal said...

Good news with a hope for the fast & positive dividend.

chowpc said...

We veterans form Sector 25 & 21 Noida wish RDAO and your legal team the very best and success. We hope for a fast resolution and favourable verdict.
Chowpc

Parvinder Bir Singh said...

Chak De

Parvinder Bir Singh said...

Chak De

Aerial View said...

@gentle, file a RTI and see how it works.

dogra said...

3 cheers. best of luck!

sunny said...

All the very Best. May God bless.
We have full confidence in RDOA legal team. congrats in advance.

SATPAL SHARMA said...

Respected President RDOA,
Sir,
Congrats.. for the persuation of case I am hopeful that it would yield fruitful result.
May I also request u to consider the following points:
1) Pray to HSC for appearance of miscrients named in the petition for physical appearance in the court.
2) Is it possible to seperate Govt. and zero down on the miscrent employees of Govt. for the contempt.
3) Is it a fact that the babus are the one provide all civic comforts to judges, key appointment holders and mps and no one go against their will? are the people scared of miscrients?
4) Hold people responsible on the ground of juris prudunce. and the spirit on which HSC gave order on Danpalan case and the final judgement on 04-09-12. can it be argued that a civil servant has such a lack of prudence that he intrepreted the HSC order as 'as on 01011986' and applicable only for the rank as on 01011986 not there after, not applicable to promotion taking place even in the 4th cpc itself and not applicable to 5th n 6th cpc as they have intrepreted. if the prudence is so low that not been able to intreprete the simple order, are they eligiable to be an employee who is responsible for making policies rules and regulations for the country? as it is learnt that bubus are going to plead that the present implementation methodology is the only way that they have understood the HSC order. kindly prepare the antidot to counter this argument.
Regards and may god bless the RDOA and we veterns who gave our youth for the country.

SATPAL SHARMA said...

Respected President RDOA,
Sir,
Congrats.. for the persuation of case I am hopeful that it would yield fruitful result.
May I also request u to consider the following points:
1) Pray to HSC for appearance of miscrients named in the petition for physical appearance in the court.
2) Is it possible to seperate Govt. and zero down on the miscrent employees of Govt. for the contempt.
3) Is it a fact that the babus are the one provide all civic comforts to judges, key appointment holders and mps and no one go against their will? are the people scared of miscrients?
4) Hold people responsible on the ground of juris prudunce. and the spirit on which HSC gave order on Danpalan case and the final judgement on 04-09-12. can it be argued that a civil servant has such a lack of prudence that he intrepreted the HSC order as 'as on 01011986' and applicable only for the rank as on 01011986 not there after, not applicable to promotion taking place even in the 4th cpc itself and not applicable to 5th n 6th cpc as they have intrepreted. if the prudence is so low that not been able to intreprete the simple order, are they eligiable to be an employee who is responsible for making policies rules and regulations for the country? as it is learnt that bubus are going to plead that the present implementation methodology is the only way that they have understood the HSC order. kindly prepare the antidot to counter this argument.
Regards and may god bless the RDOA and we veterns who gave our youth for the country.

CL BEDI said...

GOOD NEWS follow!!!!!!!!

It is learnt that during Air Force Association Day deliberations today (15.9.13), COSC informed that two days back RM has received reply from AG regarding reference sent to him in connection with Supreme Court judgement on RP case.

It is further understood that reply is on favourable lines.

Details will be received by COSC by tomorrow (16.9.13).

RDOA may like to follow up and post details.

ramesh sharma said...

It has been heartening to learn that finally the date has been fixed for 23-9-2013.My best wishes to RDOA team for their success.

Ravi Rao said...

@RDOA
Our learned counsels may kindly bring it to the notice of Hon SC that veterans are being treated like mercenaries who are generally forgotten or neglected after their work is over and not as Citizens of India who gave their Prime of Life time in the service of the Nation risking our lives under gruelling conditions and dangerous terrain. There is no parallel in legal history where the tormentor has been condoned paying compensation whereas we have been denied interest of 20 years. The denial of our legitimate entitlement if had been paid then we could have given our children better education and we would have been better off post retirement not seeking petty jobs.

Venkatesh VT said...

Now that AG has given his opinion & is favorable to us,we should really ensure that the contempt case is perused with full vigor & the guilty is punished & they should lose their jobs.Else the babus will never wake up even to our genuine demands

Ram Subbuu said...

ATTENTION OF RDOA TEAM TO PERSUE CONTEMPT PETITION AT HSC ON 23 SEP 2013 SHOULDNOT BE DIVERTED BY THE LATEST MISCHIEF OF AG & MOD

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013

Rank Pay Case : Opinion rendered by the Attorney General supporting some points in favour of the Defence Services


Refer……..www.indianmilitary.info Navdeep Singh

The points under controversy were duly (and strongly) taken up by the Services Headquarters and also by the Chief of Staff’s Committee (COSC) with the Defence Minister when it was felt that elements of the bureaucracy were not inclined to see reason or to implement the orders in their proper form. Most of the objections were from the Defence Accounts Department.

The Defence Minister had then directed that the views of the Services as well as those of the others be placed before the Attorney General for his opinion.

The Attorney General (AG), it seems, has rendered his opinion, and it is in the following terms:

(a) As in the above referred blogpost, while the Court had ordered re-fixation of pay 'with effect from 01-01-1986', Para 6 of the implementation order of the Ministry granted it to officers 'as on 01-01-1986'. The AG has reportedly opined that the benefits cannot be confined only to the officers whose pay was fixed as on 01-01-1986 and benefit is to be granted to all those officers whose pay has been fixed after deducting rank pay whether on or after 01-01-1986.

(b) The AG has reportedly however opined that minima of scales need not be changed and that the ceiling for the rank of Brig/equivalent may also not be changed since it was not a subject matter of the said litigation.

(c) As again highlighted in the above blogpost and also put forth by the Services, the Ministry’s implementation letter had also stated that no changes would be made in the instructions issued after 5th and 6th CPCs except to the extent of re-fixation necessitated due to fixation as on 01 Jan 1986. The AG has however clearly opined that it is immaterial that the in the Rank Pay case only the 4th CPC was involved, the principle of law would have to apply to 5th and 6th CPCs also and the same action (non deduction of rank pay) would need to be corrected for other CPCs also and that officers cannot be expected to again approach Courts on same lines.

With this, the points of law postulated by this blog and also by the Services Headquarters on many important points involved in the case, stand solidified.

Now the ball is back in the Raksha Mantri’s Court.

Thank You.

Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh

ninihala said...

This news/ rumour of AG's opinion is a canard spread by babu lobby, as on earlier occasions, to give us false hope and not pursue contempt petition with vigour. We should believe anything only when it appears thru govt channels.
I expect babudom to again accept SC order and seek more time to implement SC order. We shud not fall into same trap again. RDOA shud insist on implementation of DGL of TRIPAS or insist any GO to be produced b4 SC and be acceptable to RDOA.

Harry said...

Sir,


- Now if one tries to analyse the Learned AG's opinion (details available on Air Mshl Savur's blog, there were four queries raised by Services HQ but then Queries I and IV are virtually same. So in effect we are left with three.

1. Consequential benefits to officers commissioned after 1.1.86 and cascading effect of pay revision on subsequent CPCs.

2. Revision of minimum pay for each Rank. (Pls Note AG's exact words, "There is no need to revise the minimum, if as stated by the CGDA, it has been fixed on another basis. I hope it does not, later on, turn out to be another 'foundation of lies' built by CGDA).

3. Revision of top of integrated scale.


- My 'worthless' views:-

1. Queries I and IV (in effect not two but one) have been accepted by AG. So far so good.

2. Queries II and III have NOT been agreed to. So Learned AG thinks it was perfectly normal for certain officers to stagnate on top of the scale after award of CPC. (In other 'unsaid' words, CPC bodies comprised of loonies who gave such recommendations in first place and the Govt was no less hare-brained for not changing that!!!) How could courts possibly adjudicate on revision of top of the scale and change of minimum when Maj Dhanpalan's case none was involved? Now they want to take refuge in that very fact. Isn't it so stupid an argument?

3. Finally, AG's opinion is 50:50 (for and against), how I still wish in hindsight that Services HQ should have clubbed Queries I and IV together (Sir, I'm sure you got what I'm hinting at, didn't you?) ;-) Well...let me expressly state that accepting just one out of three would have been difficult for AG, IMHO.

4. Anyway, post filing of Contempt Petition by RDOA and listing of the same, the entire exercise above has got rendered simply redundant.

5. Lastly RDOA is requested to fight for EXPLICIT directions to UoI by the HSC wherein each and every step is given out clearly in child-like manner along with stiff penal (compound) interest for willful subversion of justice by the UoI and its seniormost civ functionaries who are Contemnors.

corona8 said...

The opinion of learned AG as cited in the Aerial View and Military Benefits blogs, and the inputs of CGDA, on which it is based, regarding the payscale minima matter, flies in the face of the cold hard logic stated in the "Truth And Deceit" blog-posts of Harmed Forces/RDOA, as reproduced below:

"Q How the scales were manipulated to form integrated scale of 2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB—150-5100?
A Documentary evidence exists with RDOA that:


In the integrated pay scales for each rank there was a minimum pay fixed for separate ranks. This minimum was arrived at after deduction of rank pay. So then we have as per para 6 (a)(ii) of SAI of 1987 the minimum for each rank as:
Capt 3000(2800+RP200); Major 4000(3400+RP600); Lt Col 4700 (3900+RP800);
Col 5500 (4500+RP1000); Brig 6150 (4950+RP 1200). So in real terms you never got rank pay. Your scale was divided into two components of basic pay plus rank pay. As per para 8.65 of IV CPC Report Civs who were in Senior Adm Grade II & I (SAG) at 3CPC were upgraded and given the scale of 5900-200-6700; but this was not extended to the Armed Forces. So Col and Brig got clubbed in the same scale of SAG II. Had that been given then Brig would have started at 5900-200-6700. These depressed scales by an amount equal to rank pay got carried fwd to V CPC and then on to VI CPC reducing the pay scales and status of AF officers vis a vis civ counterparts.


The entire integrated scale was compressed for offrs from Capt to Brig in the equivalent civil scale of JTS starting with 3000-100-3500-125-5000 which was improved by the Pay commission to 5100 with rank pay to be paid in addition at the recommended rates".


The "documentary evidence", referred to in the blog post, would now be required to counter the Learned AG's opinion.

For reference, a link to screen-print of the entire Harmed Forces blog post is provided here.

manu69 said...

1. During the hearing of the contempt petition, all the doubts raised by various agencies, the details of which are available in the blog of AERIAL VIEW should be thrashed out in the courts.
2. The core issue of basis of fixing the min pay for each rank in 4th cpc and modalities for formalising the pay scales in 5th cpc should be clarified by the court.
3. The technical lacuna of the case being filed for incorrect pay fixation in the capacity of indl cases is being used now to cover the lapse of incorrect pay scales fixed. DOES THE UOI IMPLY THAT A SEPARATE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED FOR WRONG AND DEPRESSED PAY SCALES GIVEN TO ARMED FORCES??

S Chander said...

Result of efforts of Chairman CoSC is finally out in the form of opinion of AG, as sought by RM. His favorable opinion is only on the need to revise pay for 4th, 5th and 6th pay commissions , as per SC order to fix pay (wef 01 Jan’ 86) and not (as on 01 Jan’ 86) as perceived in MOD letter of 27 Dec’ 12 . Other aspects viz revisions in integrated pay scale of 4th CPC, grade pay etc have not been addressed appropriately. Chairman CoSC may have to draw his own conclusions and respond accordingly. RDOA is neither concerned with this exercise nor the opinion of AG has any bearing on the contempt notice in its case in SC.
RDOA is now expected to be strong and more active in bringing out the acts of omissions & commissions of the concerned officers , which have resulted in discontentment amongst the armed forces on account of suppressed pay packages for the last three decades and the negatively biased attitude of the MOD.
Our Best Wishes for the hearing on the 23rd Sep’ 13.

manu69 said...

The estimated outgo of 1623 cr in implementing the Hon'ble SC order is a total farce. only 320 cr has been paid till 5 july 2013. Where has the balance amount gone?? please see para 16 here http://sharad10525.blogspot.in/2013/09/clarifications-by-ld-attorney-general_16.html#comment-form

Ravi Rao said...

Since UOI has arbitrarily paid what they deemed fit, now we should ask for interest wef 1.1.1996 on the arrears that will accrue and not 1.1.2006 as given by Hon SC in the 4.9.2012 judgement since it is by mischief of the Babus.
Though separate prayer was not made for modifying the Integrated Scale it is imperative that the scale automatically gets modified since rank pay is invluded in the basic.
Further CGDA is not a legal entity ,they are only audit & accounts agency, hence their opinion should not have been considered as they are the biggest deniers of rightful entitlements of the AF personnel. In one of the letters of CGDA they have clearly admitted that they are only an implementing agency and not decision makers.

Ravi Rao said...

We should demand interest from 1.1.86 as the UOI had bluffed the Hon SC that the total out go would be 1620 crores whereas it is not even 500 crores, this lie should be exposed by highlighting their modus of Calculation, as it would expose their intention of fraudulently gaining relaxation in payment of interest .

HIRAK SEN said...

CGDA HAS TO BE NAILED TO THE CROSS BY RDOA LEGAL TEAM IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION ON 23.9.2013 FOR THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS

CGDA’s views: CGDA has stated that Major Dhanapalan sought revision of pay from 1.1.1986 citing court orders in the present matter. He was informed that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court order was for not deducting rank pay as on 1.1.1986 when Rank Pay was introduced for the first time based on IV CPC recommendations ad not as on 1.1.1996. An element of rank pay was already included in the pay at the time o pay fixation as on 1.1.1986 and 40% fitment benefit was given thereon.

No further communication from him or any court was received thereafter. The case was before courts from 1998 to 2012 and it was never an issue. Neither the Kerala High Court nor Supreme Court has issued any directives for revision of pay fixation formula for Fifth Pay Commission or the Sixth Pay Commission.

--------------------------------------
Yes , “The case was before courts from 1998 to 2012 and it was never an issue. Neither the Kerala High Court nor Supreme Court has issued any directives for revision of pay fixation formula for Fifth Pay Commission or the Sixth Pay Commission. “

---------------------------------------------
But, you Mr CGDA do you know that “5th & 6th CPC was not applicable to Major Dhanapalan as he took pre-mature retirement at 1200h on 31st August 1997 before 5th CPC Report was approved by GOI at 1730h on 31st August 1997 (at the close of office hours).

……So, how 5th CPC could be applicable to Major Dhanapalan & further how 6th CPC could be applicable to Major Dhanapalan when he was not in service during these two CPC …….according to CGDA since 5th & 6th CPC was not applicable to Major Dhanapalan …..hence “it cannot be made applicable to other officers”…..what a logic contrary to AG….RDOA please take note …..KAMBAL PARADE is the only answer…….?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronology of events of Major Dhanapalan are as under:-

6th February 1996: Maj A.K. Dhanapalan filed the Original Petition (O.P.) No. 2448 of 1996 in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala challenging deduction of Rank Pay from revised pay.
(ii) 30th January 1997: 5th CPC submitted its Report and Recommendations to Govt of India.
(iii) 31st August 1997: Maj Dhanapalan retires prematurely from the Army.
(iv) 31st August 1997: GoI approved 5th CPC Report vide MoF Notification No. 50 (I)/IC/97.
(v) 19th December 1997: MoD issues SAI/SNI/SAFI 2/S/1998 including the impugned methodology recommended by 5th CPC for fixation of pay of Defence Services Officers.
(vi) 5th October 1998: Learned Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala passes judgment upholding Maj Dhanapalan’s O.P. and directs Respondents (UoI & Ors) to make corrections from 01.01.86.
(vii) 23rd February 1999: UoI files Writ Appeal No. 518 of 1999 against judgment of the Single Judge in OP No. 2448 of 1996; UoI does not mention either the 5th CPC Report of issue of SAI No. 2/S/1998 nor seek any approval/views/directions from the Court (please see attached photocopies of MoD letters).
(viii) December 2000: UoI files additional affidavit (WA 510 of 2000) in WA 518 of 1999 providing clarifications but again there is no mention of 5th CPC or SAI No. 2/S/98.

(ix) 4th July 2003: Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dismisses UoI’s Writ Appeal No. 518 of 1998 against judgment of Learned Single Judge.
(x) 12th July 2005: Supreme Court dismisses UoI’s Special Leave to Appeal 5908 of 2005.
(xi) 2005-2006: Correspondence between CDA (O) and Maj Dhanapalan wherein CDA (O) informs Maj Dhanapalan that the Kerala High Court judgment does not mention 5th CPC. (Para 5 of Note 10 dated 21/11/12 of O/o CGDA provided under RTI refers).

WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) said...

Why not include him(AG) ALSO in the contempt petition? he seems to be (mis)guiding the whole issue and the RM/COAS) AND MAY BE PLANNING TO EVEN THE HSC.
V.Sundaresan

Aerial View said...

Item No. 16 in Court No. 3 Hon'ble Justice R M Lodha and Hon'ble Justice Madan B Lokur.