With reference to the proposal of RM; it is learnt that both the statement of cases ie one proposed by Service Hqs (COSC) and the other by MoD have been fwded to the Law Ministry. It is presumed that after their comments (Law Ministry) will fwd to Attorney General.
Next date of hearing of the 'Contempt Petition' is on 15 Nov 13
RDOA wishes all its members, Veterans and their families 'A Very Happy Diwali'
Next date of hearing of the 'Contempt Petition' is on 15 Nov 13
RDOA wishes all its members, Veterans and their families 'A Very Happy Diwali'
9 comments:
Is it not Shocking!If MoD has to every time look up to MoF and is incompetent in itself to correctly interpret simple judgement of HSC & formulate a correct DGN, then how will it interpret complex issues like procurement, operational, etc & give fair and logical decisions??
This is just an example of highhandedness of the concerned agencies who are basically insensitive to the needs of the servicemen! I just wonder what would have been their reaction in case the matter required to be action-ed had directly concerned their future!! One can only pray for the concerned servicemen while keeping one's fingers crossed ! There is a good old saying that JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED!
@Manuureet Singh,
A thorough perusal of the material published on Aerial View will show that the deduction of Rank Pay in the 4 CPC regime was by MoD at the behest of MoD (Fin). This is borne out in the SAI 1/S/87. This has been admitted by MoD and confirmed when DOP&T and MoF asked MoD about the convoluted procedure when having to pay Maj (retd) Dhanapalan after the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of UoI/MoD in 2005.
CGDA (which furnished the MoD letter of 27.12.12) used the MoF (Deptt of Expenditure)observations of first trying to limit the payments to Army officers only, and then stated that in the case of Maj (retd) Dhanapalan, he was paid only for the 4 CPC.
CGDA, MoF ignored a couple of truths to justify their stand. First, TP (C) 56 of 2007 and the subsequent IA No. 9 of 2010 were not (R) NOT Maj Dhanapalan Vs UoI but UoI Vs N.K. Nair and several others. Second, either in Maj Dhanapalan or latter cases, the MoD, CGDA and MoF willfully concealed the fact that the impugned deduction was also made part of 5 CPC but this was not mentioned in any written affidavits or proceedings in the Kerala High Court or the Apex Court.
Any outgo of the large amount and unplanned for, as has become evident from the Apex Court order of 4.9.12 and the subsequent opinion of 3.9.13 of the Ld Attorney General will require release of funds/re-appropriation by MoD.
Finally, CGDA while quoting CCS (RP) Rules 1986, Rule 7 (1)(A) has omitted any mention to the GoI OM of 10.4.87 where the President has permitted that ceiling as per Rule 22 will not apply to Pay where a public servant is promoted to or appointed to a post carrying higher duties and responsibilities.
MoD must be wary (the "once bitten twice shy" syndrome) so taking cover, hiding behind MoF, MoD(Fin) and CGDA.
Here's wishing the RDOA team and all faithful followers of this blog a prosperous and happy Diwali.
Now that holiday on 14 November has been shifted to 15 November, will the hearing be on 14 Novemeber?
Dear All,
Due to holiday declared on 15 Nov instead of 14 Nov, for Offices in Delhi area, our Contempt Petition No.328/2013 has been listed on 19 Nov 13.
Jai HInd! Since it is only a preliminary hearing, let us wait with bated breath. All the very best to the entire RDOA team!
As per SC website, our case No. Civil Contempt PetitionNo.328/2013 has been rescheduled for 19 Nov 13 from 15 Nov has been declared a holiday for Delhi offices (Muharrum). It is only a preliminary hearing on that day nothing much can be read from this hearing! Best of luck to the RDOA team from all serving and veterans!
Link of interest from the Pcda Pension website
http://pcdapension.nic.in/Misc/corder.pdf
Found this on the pcda pensions website!!
http://pcdapension.nic.in/Misc/corder.pdf
Post a Comment