GOOGLY BY COURT !? Further to post of 21 Mar 2012 on the ibid case. The Court No 8 did not 'SIT' today ie 22 Mar 2012. In all probability another date will be given which will be posted on the blog once known. In the meantime u can start counting ur pennies @6% interest.
'But patience to prevent the murmur soon replies' John Milton
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
IV CPC Rank Pay Case Update as on 21 Mar 2012
The case was listed at item no 7 in court no 8 in the apex court for 21 Mar 2012.
Item no 1 took the complete day and finished at 1530hrs. Item no 2 case took two weeks adjournment.Some discussion took place on case at item no 3 and then the case was adjourned for three weeks. Remaining cases have been rescheduled for 22 Mar 2012 We are hopeful the case will be heard on 22 Mar 12.
Item no 1 took the complete day and finished at 1530hrs. Item no 2 case took two weeks adjournment.Some discussion took place on case at item no 3 and then the case was adjourned for three weeks. Remaining cases have been rescheduled for 22 Mar 2012 We are hopeful the case will be heard on 22 Mar 12.
Monday, February 20, 2012
MOD FILES APPEALS AGAINST DISABLED VETERANS
MoD FILES APPEALS AGAINST DISABLED VETERANS DESPITE CONTRARY DIRECTIONS BY THE COAS AND DESPITE LEGAL POSITION SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT
The appeal in the SC on 17th Feb 2012 by the Defence Ministry against the enhancement of war-injury pension of 1965 war-hero and former Army Vice Chief Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi has again brought into focus the deep scorn of the MoD’s Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) towards disabled defence veterans. Gen Oberoi is 70% war-disabled and the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had granted him enhancement of five percent from 70% to 75%.
The DESW has filed an appeal in the SC despite the fact that the matter has already been settled by the SC in two cases in 2011 in favour of disabled veterans, namely KJS Buttar Vs UOI and UOI Vs Paramjit Singh. The SC refused to grant a stay on the AFT’s decision in Gen Oberoi’s case when the case came up for hearing.
To off-set medical subjectivity, rigidity and mistakes of medical boards, the 5th Pay Commission had introduced broad-banding of disability percentages for calculation of disability pension wherein it was provided that disabilities upto 50% would be considered as 50% for purposes of computation of disability pension, those between 50-75% would be treated as 75% and above 76% would be taken as 100%. This was considered imperative since different medical boards were granting varied percentages for similar disabilities leading to errors.
However while implementing broad-banding, the MoD extended the policy only to those prematurely invalided from service and not to those who had been granted disability pension on completion of terms or on superannuation though the latter were also affected by the same medical subjectivity. This action of MoD was also against existing rules since defence pensionary provisions provide that all personnel released in low medical category were to be deemed as ‘invalided’ for purposes of disability pension.
The AFT’s Chandigarh Bench had ruled in August 2010 that discrimination between invalided and other low medical category personnel was not justified. This was followed by similar favourable judgements by the Supreme Court in 2011 following which the Army HQ and the Chief of the Army Staff had directed that no further appeals were to be filed in SC on similar matters. It may be recalled that it’s the Adjutant General’s Branch which is responsible for taking a decision whether to implement a Court decision or to file an appeal against it.
Despite directions by the COAS and SC judgements, the MoD has gone ahead and filed such appeals, which, ex-servicemen opine, is not only demoralising but shows the convoluted approach of lower bureaucracy which keeps the top brass of the MoD in the dark about the actual position. Veterans feel that rather than amending its arbitrary policies in favour of disabled and war-injured personnel, the MoD is more inclined to pay hundreds of crores of rupees as legal fee to Govt lawyers in the SC out of tax payers’ money. In fact, it is learnt that the former Secretary of DESW, Ms Neelam Nath, had, in 2011, granted an in-principle approval of rectification of the anomaly but the file was given a negative twist by lower-level staff.
Even on other occasions, the Defence Ministry has been clogging the dockets of the SC by filing appeals against verdicts granting disability pension to disabled and war-disabled. Most of the appeals filed by the MoD in the Supreme Court against High Court and AFT decisions relate to handicapped veterans and their claims to disability pension. In many cases, the Ministry fields top govt lawyers including the Solicitor General by spending heavily in issues involving grant of a disability pension amounting to a few hundred rupees. Defence personnel of lower ranks are mostly unable to afford legal help in the SC because of the exorbitant costs involved leading to uncontested decisions at times.
The appeal in the SC on 17th Feb 2012 by the Defence Ministry against the enhancement of war-injury pension of 1965 war-hero and former Army Vice Chief Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi has again brought into focus the deep scorn of the MoD’s Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) towards disabled defence veterans. Gen Oberoi is 70% war-disabled and the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had granted him enhancement of five percent from 70% to 75%.
The DESW has filed an appeal in the SC despite the fact that the matter has already been settled by the SC in two cases in 2011 in favour of disabled veterans, namely KJS Buttar Vs UOI and UOI Vs Paramjit Singh. The SC refused to grant a stay on the AFT’s decision in Gen Oberoi’s case when the case came up for hearing.
To off-set medical subjectivity, rigidity and mistakes of medical boards, the 5th Pay Commission had introduced broad-banding of disability percentages for calculation of disability pension wherein it was provided that disabilities upto 50% would be considered as 50% for purposes of computation of disability pension, those between 50-75% would be treated as 75% and above 76% would be taken as 100%. This was considered imperative since different medical boards were granting varied percentages for similar disabilities leading to errors.
However while implementing broad-banding, the MoD extended the policy only to those prematurely invalided from service and not to those who had been granted disability pension on completion of terms or on superannuation though the latter were also affected by the same medical subjectivity. This action of MoD was also against existing rules since defence pensionary provisions provide that all personnel released in low medical category were to be deemed as ‘invalided’ for purposes of disability pension.
The AFT’s Chandigarh Bench had ruled in August 2010 that discrimination between invalided and other low medical category personnel was not justified. This was followed by similar favourable judgements by the Supreme Court in 2011 following which the Army HQ and the Chief of the Army Staff had directed that no further appeals were to be filed in SC on similar matters. It may be recalled that it’s the Adjutant General’s Branch which is responsible for taking a decision whether to implement a Court decision or to file an appeal against it.
Despite directions by the COAS and SC judgements, the MoD has gone ahead and filed such appeals, which, ex-servicemen opine, is not only demoralising but shows the convoluted approach of lower bureaucracy which keeps the top brass of the MoD in the dark about the actual position. Veterans feel that rather than amending its arbitrary policies in favour of disabled and war-injured personnel, the MoD is more inclined to pay hundreds of crores of rupees as legal fee to Govt lawyers in the SC out of tax payers’ money. In fact, it is learnt that the former Secretary of DESW, Ms Neelam Nath, had, in 2011, granted an in-principle approval of rectification of the anomaly but the file was given a negative twist by lower-level staff.
Even on other occasions, the Defence Ministry has been clogging the dockets of the SC by filing appeals against verdicts granting disability pension to disabled and war-disabled. Most of the appeals filed by the MoD in the Supreme Court against High Court and AFT decisions relate to handicapped veterans and their claims to disability pension. In many cases, the Ministry fields top govt lawyers including the Solicitor General by spending heavily in issues involving grant of a disability pension amounting to a few hundred rupees. Defence personnel of lower ranks are mostly unable to afford legal help in the SC because of the exorbitant costs involved leading to uncontested decisions at times.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
ECHS WEBSITE: http://echs.gov.in
It is informed that ECHS has opened their own independent website with all relevant rules, regulations, empanellment proceedure, treatment etc.
A must see / visit for all.Also offer your valuable suggestions for improvement of the site.
A must see / visit for all.Also offer your valuable suggestions for improvement of the site.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
UPDATE RANK PAY CASE AS ON 18 Jan 2012
Though the case was listed for 18 Jan 2012 in Court no 9, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it did not get chance to come up for hearing. Reason: The case which was partially heard yesterday was contd today and took up the whole day for arguments. At the end of the day all cases which were scheduled for 18 Jan 2012 were given fresh date of 21 mar 2012.
Not to be disheartened. Another date!The interest clock is ticking!
Not to be disheartened. Another date!The interest clock is ticking!
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
ANOTHER SPANNER PROPOSED BY UOI: IV CPC RANK PAY CASE
The UOI has suggested another 'spanner' to cause delay in the IV CPC rank pay case.In its affidivit filed the UOI says that the Central Govt is open and willing to constitute an independent commission headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court to examine the correctness of the implementation of the recommendations by IV CPC related to rank pay as given in para 28.113 of its report and to make recommendations for further improvements to the proceedure for disbursement of pension to retired Armed forces personnel based on Govt orders subsequent to VI CPC recommendations
THIS IS PURE HOGWASH AND ONLY TO DELAY MATTERS. RDOA IS NOT GOING TO BUY THIS LINE OF ACTION.
Further it says:Apart from the enormous financial implications, actual implementation of the Hon'ble Court's order would involve the following stages;
(a) Revision of pay of offrs on 1/1/1986, 1/1/1996, and 1/1/2006 with simultaneous revision of all pay linked allowances/benefits.
(b) Calculation of DA on slab basis from 1/1/1986 to 31/12/1995 is time consuming
(c) Revision of retirement benefits (gratuity, leave encashment)of offrs retiring after 1/1/1986
(d) Revision of pension on 1/1/1986, 1/1/1996, 1/1/2006.
(e) Revision of family pension based on revision of pension of offr
(f) Payments to be made to legal heirs of deceased offrs
(g) Interest @ 6 % per annum for upto 24 yrs in each case will have to be calculated and paid.
This would be a protracted exercise taking a lot of time and involving huge manpower as each case will have to be examined/ calculated individually.
RDOA comment. UOI is responsible for this faux pas and should do the needful and pay the offrs their legitimate dues. The Court should raise the penalty to 18% for causing unnecessary delays in implementing court orders.
Next hearing is due on 18 Jan 2012
THIS IS PURE HOGWASH AND ONLY TO DELAY MATTERS. RDOA IS NOT GOING TO BUY THIS LINE OF ACTION.
Further it says:Apart from the enormous financial implications, actual implementation of the Hon'ble Court's order would involve the following stages;
(a) Revision of pay of offrs on 1/1/1986, 1/1/1996, and 1/1/2006 with simultaneous revision of all pay linked allowances/benefits.
(b) Calculation of DA on slab basis from 1/1/1986 to 31/12/1995 is time consuming
(c) Revision of retirement benefits (gratuity, leave encashment)of offrs retiring after 1/1/1986
(d) Revision of pension on 1/1/1986, 1/1/1996, 1/1/2006.
(e) Revision of family pension based on revision of pension of offr
(f) Payments to be made to legal heirs of deceased offrs
(g) Interest @ 6 % per annum for upto 24 yrs in each case will have to be calculated and paid.
This would be a protracted exercise taking a lot of time and involving huge manpower as each case will have to be examined/ calculated individually.
RDOA comment. UOI is responsible for this faux pas and should do the needful and pay the offrs their legitimate dues. The Court should raise the penalty to 18% for causing unnecessary delays in implementing court orders.
Next hearing is due on 18 Jan 2012
Friday, December 9, 2011
IV CPC RANK PAY CASE:APPREHENSIONS
There seems to be lot of apprehensions on the final outcome of the case as well as continued 'tarikh pe tarikh'.All probable documentary evidence related to the case and the deduction of the rank pay is with the court. The UOI has filed a affidavit as to the method of fixation as asked by the court. In the so filed affidavit there were lot of mis representations which have been countered by RDOA in the form of counter affidavit.These have already been posted on the website of Navdeep.Readers can refresh themselves.There is nothing more/gimmick which can be produced by UOI.All facts and figures are before the court.The court has to finally decide.The SG has not been appearing for reasons best known to him /UOI.RDOA is hopeful that the case will finally be decided on 18 Jan 2012. It is already a decided case as per the order of 08 Mar 2010 of the court. Final call on the appeal of UOI has to be taken by the court.Beyond that it's beating a dead horse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)