Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Indian Express: CAG seeks exemption from appearing as Contemnor

7 comments:

Lt Col G K Mohan Rao said...

As per paper clipping the core issue of with effect from 1-1-86 rather than as on 1-1-86 has not been high lighted but only few officers has not been paid for lack of details which is not a core issue. RDOA mat throw some light on this

Alok Asthana said...

Is the question about non-payment to some officers, or is it about incomplete payment to all (as per RDOA interpretation of the SC judgement ), or both? I thought it was about both, with the latter being the more important of the two.
Why is RDOA simply posting a news item cutting and not giving their comments. We, who have paid, have a right to know, don't we?

Young50 said...

Contempt of court emanates from the affidavit filed by these three Secretaries stating that the pay and allowances of the entire serving and retired personnel of Army,Navy and IAF needs to be revised wef 01 Jan 86 running into 4th, 5th and 6th CPC. Thereafter other issues of not adhering to time limits without valid reason etc comes into focus. Firstly RDOA puts up the update after 24 hrs and followed by a paper cutting without any tagging notes. Secondly, it is the second time G/C Bhatti is seeking postponement of date in this case ! The entire issues appears to be losing its steam somewhere down the line. Veterans may throw some light esp the members of the RDOA. Let the updates be timely and complete and not a work of cut and paste job of paper clippings like jottings.in. Jai Hind !

Dhoop said...

@Alok Asthana :We, who have paid, have a right to know;

:-)
I think people who have paid for that newspaper should be saying that to the editorial staff.

RDOA have already clarified in detail what the issues are. I don't think explaining the sketchy reporting by some reporter is part of RDOA's area of responsibility, but that's my view.

Since people who have paid expect an explanation, I'd be the last person to question their sense of entitlement.

But, I'm glad that link to the clip came in handy.

Aerial View said...

@Alok Asthana & Young50,

RDOA's stand in CP 328/2013 is clear from its prayer - full and complete implementation of the UoI's affidavits including that the Apex Court's order of 8.3.2010 will impact the pay and pension of not only 4th, but also 5th and 6 CPC as well.

From the UoI's affidavits in the media, and inspite of the opinion dated 03.9.2013 of the Ld Attorney General, UoI/MoD and the alleged Contemnors state that they have complied "in letter and spirit" with the Apex Court's Order dated 4.9.2012, which upheld the order of 8.3.2010 "save the interest part", which in turn agreed with the "reasoning of the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala" in the Major Dhanapalan Vs UoI case.

UoI has not stated that it was not only the reasoning i.e. deduction of Rank Pay for fixation was wrong, but also presumed for itself, notwithstanding myriad of its own affidavits to the contrary, that applicability is only for the tenure of Major Dhanapalan i.e. 4th CPC. This stand has been disproved by the Ld Attorney general on 03.9.2013.

As the matter is sub-judice, RDOA maybe under advice not to muddy the waters and dilute its Contempt Petition by offering comments to media reports and miscellaneous speculations. RDOA may also have been advised that whatever counter/rejoinder be filed and argued in the Apex Court.

Every advocate might have certain compulsions. Ram Jethmalani is not available on 14.3.2014 to argue the Subrata Roy case. Similarly, Gp Capt (retd) Bhati was not available. In our ire and angst, we forget that he was not available but only for the second time in 8 years Repeat 8 years from when the case was first filed.

I hope this places the matter in an "understandable" context and you are less vexed.

Alok Asthana said...

@ Dhoop - You are being unnecesarily sarcastic.
By saying,'we, who have paid', I wish to assert that I am a paid member and my views HAVE to count. I know for sure that many in this forum as not members so there must be some difference in their rights and mine.

Dhoop said...

@Alok Asthana The people who paid for that newspaper and got such a outdated bit of partial news would certainly appear to have a case for having their views counted.

I don't know if the payment made by you entailed a contractual liability on part of RDOA to forward an exclusive e_newsletter of a specific periodicity to be forwarded to you personally, so I couldn't possibly comment.

I don't think that would qualify as sarcasm. It's a matter between those who paid and RDOA.

All I'm saying is RDOA can't be diverting their attention on what appears in the press and what doesn't.