Seminar on ESM - 17 Jun 2010

President IESL and AVM R P Mishra Vice

President(Nominated) attended the high level

Seminar conducted by Army HQs on 17 June

2010. The event was attended by the Hon'ble

Raksha Mantri, COAS and a large number of

Senior Defence Veterans from all the three

services. The team interacted with the Hon'ble

Raksha Mantri and the COAS and discussed a

various issues pertaining to the welfare of the

ESM Fraternity. Points projected to the Service

HQs are enclosed as an attachment.These

points have also been projected to Secy Deptt

of ESM Welfare.

BRIEF FOR SEMINAR 17 JUNE 2010

1. We would like to bring few points, mentioned in subsequent paragraphs, to your kind notice, where we need support of Services Headquarters.

(a) Periodic Meetings at Services Headquarters to discuss ESM Welfare. Quarterly meetings may be held with the senior most officers of the three Services looking after the welfare of ESM, jointly or separately, to discuss various issues confronting the retired fraternity.

(b) Communication Between IESL and ESM through Regimental Colonels. We are finding it difficult to establish communication with ESM who are spread through out the country. Feasibility may be examined for routing the communication from IESL to ESM through Regimental Colonels by means of quarterly bulletins.

(c) One Rank One Pension (OROP). A major source of discontent among ESM is OROP which has been their long outstanding demand. It has been recommended by various High Powered Committees formed for this purpose. Even as late as May 2010, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, while tabling its report on 07 May 2010 has recommended grant of OROP to the Defence personnel. We seek the indulgence of the Chiefs of Staff Committee to take up the issue at highest level so that the demand is fulfilled and unrest amongst ESM is arrested.

(d) Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR). Based on Report of the Committee of Secretaries, headed by Cabinet Secretary, on “One Rank One Pension and Related Issues” submitted on 30 June 2010, although OROP has not been approved, pensions of all pre 2006 retired PBOR based on their rank and service have been brought on par. In case of officers of Defence Forces and civil service pensioners, it was already so. Also, method of calculating pension has been revised based on maximum of the erstwhile pay scale and its fitment in the new scales. This has only removed the anomaly as this was the way it was calculated for them before 2006 and should have been done in any case. Thus, both these are based on VI PC recommendations. Para 8 (iii) of the Report, however, mentions it as a new concession and has permitted the benefit only prospectively. On the other hand a new pay scale for Lt Generals/Additional Secretaries and their equivalent has been created which did not exist as per VI PC recommendations. This, however, has been, stated to emanate from VI PC recommendations and has been recommended to be implemented wef 01.01.2006 (Para 8 (v) of the Report refers). We feel that pension of PBOR should also have been revised wef 01.01.2006. This issue may kindly be re-examined along with concerned officers of MoD.

(e) Officers. Para 6.8 0f the Report states, “There is very little difference between the pension of pre 01.01.2006 based on modified parity granted by Pay Commission and that with reference to minimum of fitment Tables” All Government letters issued so far fixing pension of pre-2006 pensioners are treating minimum of fitment Tables as modified parity. If modified parity is same as minimum of the fitment Table for each rank, this difference should have been zero for all ranks. Difference has arisen because interpretation of Finance Ministry is not the same as interpretation of Secretaries Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary, which is obvious from their Report. The Report further states, “ The difference is around 2% in case of Lt Colonel, 6% at the level of Colonel, 11% at the level of Brigadier, 13% at the level of Major General. Only at the level of Lieutenant General is there a substantial difference of 26%.” Now let us examine how the difference mentioned above has been calculated. Example is only for two ranks but it applies to all the ranks.

Major General.

Pension as per fitment Table. 44700+10000+6000/2=30350

Pension as per minimum of Grade Pay. 37400+10000+6000/2=26700

Difference in percentage.30350-26700/26700 x100=13.67%

Lt General.

Pension as per fitment Table.51850+12000+6000/2=34925

Pension as per minimum of Grade Pay.37400+12000+6000/2=27700

Difference in percentage. 34925-27700/27700 x100=26.08%

If the modified parity is based on minimum of the Grade Pay, this difference in both cases should have been zero. Again, pension of Lt Generals has now been revised to 36500 which is more than 34925 the pension recommended by PC based on minimum in band pay as per fitment Table corresponding to the rank of Lt General. In other cases, no change has been recommended although the difference is substantial. It may kindly be ascertained from Department of ESW as to why different yard-sticks have been applied by the Government.

Major and equivalent Ranks The Committee of Secretaries is silent about the rank of Major though the difference as calculated above is quite substantial. Why the difference has not been narrowed down as has been done in case of Lt General has not been mentioned in the Report. The case may please be taken up with MoD so that justice is given to all ranks as has been given to Lt Generals/Additional Secretaries and equivalent. . Following Table will make it clear.

Rank	Pension as per modified parity granted by Pay Commission	Pension as per Annexure I/II	Difference
Lt	13500	13500	0
Capt	15350	13850	(-)10.8%
Major	18205	14464	(-)25.9%
Lt Col	26265	25700	(-)2.2%
Col	27795	26050	(-)6.7%
Brig	29145	26150	(-)11.5%
Maj Gen	30350	26700	(-)13.7%
Lt Gen(before revision	34925	27700	(-)26.1%
Lt Gen(after revision)	34925	36500	(+) 4.5%

2. Issue of CORRIGENDUM to PPO. As Corrigendum to PPOs has not been issued to implement VI PC recommendations, banks are taking long time to calculate arrears and in many cases, the figure is either more or less than actual figure. This is very troublesome particularly for family pensioners. Even Annexure IV has not been supplied to most of the pensioners. It may be confirmed from CDAs what percentage of Annexure has been received by them. It is also requested that, in future, Corrigendum to PPO may be issued whenever there is a change in pension. As all the information is already available with CDAs, this should be done without asking pensioners to fill up forms.

3. Disability Pension. Committee of Secretaries, mentioned above, had referred payment of disability pension to ESM on percentage basis in stead of slab basis to Department of ESW so as to assess financial and other implications (Para 7.2(4) refers). Although the Report was submitted on 30 June 2009, no decision on the same has been taken although more than eleven months have elapsed. The same may be expedited through Department of ESW.

4. Court Cases. A few of the Press clippings are reproduced below

"The Supreme court has expressed concern over the increase of frivolous and unjust litigation by the Central and State Govts thereby clogging the wheels of justice. Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in Public Interest. They should be responsible litigants. they cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections nor act in a callous and high handed manner. They cannot behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment" said a Bench of Justices R.V.Raveendran and G.S.Singhvi.

Writing the Order, Justice Raveendran said" Unwarranted Litigation by Government and Statutory authorities basically stems from two baseless assumptions by their officers- all claims should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest court, if taking a decision on an issue could be avoided; then it is prudent not to decide and let the aggrieved party approach the court and secure a decision”.

The Bench said” The reluctance to take decisions or the tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the Governments or statutory bodies but is attributable to some officers responsible for taking decisions and/or Officer in charge of Litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making or worse of improper motives for any decision making.

The Bench said" Unless the insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making to courts and tribunals. The Centre is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the government and for filing appeals and revision against adverse decisions thereby eliminating unnecessary ligitation.”

The Court said ".Vexatious and unnecessary litigation has been clogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for courts and tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants".

The Bench said "They are expected to show remorse or regret when their Officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by the Officers are brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/ restoration to the extent possible, with appropriate compensation". Their harsh attitudes to genuine grievances of the Public and their indulging in unwarranted litigation required to be corrected."

As per a press report, a few days after Supreme Court observations, Law Minister re-emphasized that Govt would soon be a ‘responsible’ and ‘reluctant’ litigant.

It is unfortunate that after all this, Government has gone for recall of RANK PAY case to Supreme Court and is yet to issue Government letter base on Chandigarh Tribunal to fix pension of pre-2006 Major Generals and equivalent based on Supreme Court Judgement on re-fixing of pension of pre-1996 Major Generals from October 2001 on the same basis as was done for post-1996 Major Generals. It is requested that frivolous cases whish have already been decided by Supreme Court may not be re-opened to avoid injustice to pensioners. Department of ESW Ministry of Defence may be requested to follow advice of the Supreme Court as well as of the Law Minister.

5. Pension Regulations: PBOR Family Pensioners. Presently, Defence officers as well as civil services employees get 50% of the last pay at the time of retirement as pension. Family pension is 30% of the same which works out to 60% of pension of officers. In case of PBOR, pension is based on maximum of pay scale in which a PBOR retires and then weightage is applied. Family Pension, in their case, however, is not 60% of the pension of PBOR, but 30% of the actual pay last drawn by the PBOR. This is the reason why family pensioners have been excluded while implementing the decisions mentioned in Para 6 above. Due to this, finances of family pensioners are affected very badly on the death of pensioner. This is unjustified. It is requested that a case for amendment of Pension Regulations may be taken up to make family pension 60% of the pension sanctioned to PBOR

-----------------

“the Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant”

Finally, Moily takes a call….

Well, finally Dr Moily has decided to promulgate a ‘National Litigation Policy’ which takes care of some of the issues highlighted by us in the recent past which also formed part of communications sent to the Law Ministry. I am also happy to inform that the Law Ministry has dealt with most of our points in the new policy and that the step is bold in the sense that it is for the first time that there has been an indication of a holistic overhaul of the legal system.

‘The Hindu’ has reported on the development. It is a welcome and a notable move, however the lower level babudom would still manage to exercise leverage in the various caveats and provisos of the policy which are aplenty if what is stated by the newsreport is taken to be correct. Also this idea of appealing against Court verdicts in cases involving ‘financial implications’ should be dumped forever since an illegality cannot be allowed to sustain on the pretext that its rectification shall burden the exchequer. In a democracy, financial burden can never be an excuse to perpetrate something that is declared illegal or arbitrary.

We would have to analyse its effect in practice but I’m sure the Law Ministry would be open to more suggestions in case of any pitfalls. Here is a reproduction of the newsreport :

With the huge backlog of cases continuing to clog the wheels of justice, Union Law Minister M.Veerappa Moily on Wednesday launched a new policy initiative to ensure that government departments and agencies become more “responsible” in filing and pursuing cases.

Recognising that the departments and agencies contribute the maximum to court cases, the new ‘National Litigation Policy' enjoins on these organisations to think twice before resorting to litigations, as well as in pursuing them.

The policy statement makes it very clear that, “litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating” and that “false pleas and technical points will not be taken.” It also lays down that correct facts, all relevant documents should be placed before the court and that nothing should be suppressed or an attempt made to mislead any court or tribunal.

The policy also directs that “the Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant” and states that, “the philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded” and that “the easy approach, ‘let the court decide' must be eschewed and condemned.” Drafted by the office of Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, the policy provides a set of tools for its implementation, including a provision for appointment of well-trained nodal officers, with adequate legal background and expertise by each and every department and agency for a “pro-active” management of its cases and constitution of empowered committees to monitor the implementation of the policy.

Acknowledging that frequent adjournments are resorted to by government lawyers, the policy states: “unnecessary and frequent adjournments would be frowned upon and infractions dealt with seriously.” Defaulting lawyers may even have their names removed or suspended from government panels.

The policy also provides that in service matters, no appeal would be filed in cases where the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion or where the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.

Further, an appeal would not be filed in service matters merely because the order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees and appeals would not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against another. Challenges to orders of Tribunals would be an exception rather than a matter of routine. Mr. Moily said that in keeping with the new policy, all pending cases involving the government would be reviewed and categorised in order of priority so that they could be disposed of quickly.

Noting that the monitoring and review mechanism proposed under the policy would help prevent delay and neglect of important cases, he said, “May be, cases like the Bhopal case would not be repeated.” Asked about the curative petition that the Group of Ministers (GoM) have recommended on the Bhopal case, Mr. Vahanvati, who was also present at the launch function, said, the Law Minister had only made a suggestion before the GoM and that it was not a considered opinion. The GoM's recommendation had to first go to the Union Cabinet for approval before any follow up measure could be taken up. In response to a question, he acknowledged that the 1996 Supreme Court order judgment “wrong as a matter of law,” he said: “I am not criticising the judgment. [But,] I am entitled to tell you that it is wrong. I say it as a matter of law. I believe there are contradictions in the judgment and there are lot of material that have come up post that judgment.” The Attorney-General pointed to evidence that people knew that there were some flaws in the factory and that they were not rectified as matter of economy.

http://www.indianmilitary.info/2010/06/finally-moily-takes-call.html

This is no way to treat the enemy

By blatantly copying disruptive pattern uniform, some central police organisations and even state forces have started comparing themselves with the Army. But their ethos and actions show that they have a long way to go.This picture flashed around the country would illustrate how !

Though the public at large is totally with the Home Ministry in its resolve to tackle the Maoist epidemic, the way the enemy is treated differentiates an irregular militia from an Army, and these men in the picture prove that they are more of the former and none of the latter.

One Rank One Pension-Letter to the President of India

From:

Lt Gen Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM

Chairman

262, Sector-17A, Gurgaon – 122 001

Mobile-9811226676

To:

Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil

Hon’ble President of India &

Supreme Commander of Armed Forces

Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 004

IESM/Medals/2010 8 June 2010

Kindly refer to our letters No IESM/Medals/2010 dated 16^th March, 2010 and 13153/RK/2010 dated 12^th April, 2010 on the subject of depositing medals with the Supreme Commander of Armed Forces.

It is submitted that we still have not received a reply to our request to the Hon’ble Supreme Commander to receive medals of the ex-servicemen in person. The depositing of medals is symbolic of the disenchantment of the entire ex-servicemen population at the rejection at their long standing demand of `One Rank One Pension’ (OROP).

It is once again requested that the Supreme Commander find time to make it convenient to receive in person the delegation deputed to hand over the 5,000 medals that were brought back earlier from the Rashtrapati Bhawan.

Do allow me to mention that if your availability or any other response is still not intimated to us within a reasonable time, in deference to the wishes of the ex-servicemen community, our delegation carrying the medals will have no choice but to visit the Rashtrapati Bhawan on a pre-announced date. In case, your Excellency does not meet the delegation and does not receive the medals personally, the delegation will come back without handing over the medals. This will be repeated every month till we get OROP.

With best regards,

Yours sincerely,

(Raj Kadyan)

Are ex-servicemen Enemies of the State?

Are ex-servicemen Enemies of the State?

Favour nor pity

http://tinyurl. com/AreVeteransE nemies

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

The growing adversarial relationship between the Government and ex-servicemen is a matter of grave concern.

For the last few years, an impression is gaining ground that the Government is becoming increasingly intolerant and biased against ex-servicemen and is treating them unfairly.

The military is an instrument of the Government. How can a Government let itself be seen as an adversary of its own constituent? More so when the affected constituent consists of retired soldiers who have given the best part of their lives to the nation and now, in the twilight of their lives, look up to the Government for support to be able to lead a respectable life?

They do not seek favour or pity but ask for compassion, understanding and equity. They want their Government to acknowledge the severity of their service conditions and their contribution to nation safeguarding.

The vindictiveness and wickedness with which the Government is contesting court orders given in favour of the ex-servicemen has shocked even die-hard supporters of the Government. Three sets of recent cases clearly show the Government's intransigence and obduracy.

The 4th Pay Commission had granted Rank Pay in addition to basic pay for officers up to the rank of Brigadier. There was no ambiguity at all.

However, while fixing pay in the integrated scale, an amount equal to the Rank Pay was deceitfully deducted by the concerned bureaucrats from the total dues, thereby causing heavy financial loss to the officers. It was an act of betrayal of the trust of the armed forces.

No other country in the world is known to have conspired and connived so blatantly to deprive its own soldiers of their rightful dues. Even DA, pension, gratuity and other related entitlements of the affected officers were adversely impacted. With one clever stroke, the Government had nullified the recommendations of the Pay Commission.

As all equivalence of appointments in the Government is based on pay scales, the bureaucracy employed this stratagem to keep the comparative status of officers down. All pleas to the Government fell on deaf ears.

Major Dhanapalan approached Kerala High Court for justice in 1996. The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner and directed the Government to refix his basic pay with effect from 01 January 1986. Instead of accepting its mistake gracefully and ordering refixation of pay of all eligible officers, the Government appealed against the award to a larger Bench of the same court. The appeal was dismissed.

However, the Government was not done yet, and brazenly filed an SLP in the Supreme Court. The e Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The MoD grudgingly refixed the pay of Major Dhanapalan and sanctioned payment of arrears.

Although the issue had wider application, the Government failed to show required magnanimity to extend the same dispensation to other affected officers under the specious plea that the Court orders pertained to the applicant only.

Clipped wings

Dismayed by the apathetic attitude of the Government, many officers knocked at the doors of various courts in the country. The Supreme Court admitted a petition for transfer of all the writ petitions pending before the various High Courts in 2007. The matter was heard and finally disposed of by the Supreme Court on 8 March, 2010. The Apex Court held that the judgment of the Kerala High Court was correct and reasonable and as such the benefit of this judgment be extended to all eligible officers of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the Apex Court awarded 6 per cent interest on the amount due to the officers.

The level to which the Government can stoop can be gauged from the fact that it has recently moved an application in the Apex Court for directions seeking modification/ directions/ recall of the said order of 8 March 2010. It is obsessively resisting grant of overdue arrears to its officers despite clear-cut court directions.

Fix Pensions

In the case of Union of India and Major General Vains and Others, the Supreme Court had, vide its judgment of 9 September 2009, directed that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 01 January 1996.

The Apex Court ruled that similarly placed officers of the same rank should be given the same pension irrespective of the date of retirement and that no defence personnel senior in rank can get less pension than his junior irrespective of the date of retirement. Thus, principles governing fixation of pension were unambiguously laid down by the Apex Court.

The Government should have accepted the above directions in the correct spirit and applied them across the board. Instead, it continued with its hostile approach and grudgingly readjusted pension only of pre-1966 and their equivalents in Navy and Air Force. Disparity between pensionary benefits of pre-2006 and post-2006 Major Generals continues. Most dishonestly, the Government decided to ignore the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Court and applied its directions only to the barest inescapable cases.

It was left to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Chandigarh, when approached by the aggrieved parties, to rule, vide its judgment dated 3 March 2010, that the SC ruling dated 9 Sep 2009 be applied to pre-2006 retirees as well and that the judgment be implemented in three months time.

Concurrently, in another case, AFT Chandigarh, vide its judgment of 8 March 2010, ruled that the state cannot lay down different criteria for grant of pensions to officers, JCOs and Jawans on the basis of cut-off date of retirement.

No defence person can draw less pension than his junior in rank irrespective of the date of retirement. All pensioners of the same rank and service irrespective of the date of retirement are entitled to the same pension. The above directions were ordered to be implemented within four months.

Although the Supreme Court has been counseling against frivolous and unjust litigation by governments and statutory authorities in a callous and highhanded manner, it is learnt that the Government is planning to appeal against the above judgments - a sad illustration of pettiness getting better of a sense of equity and justice.

Strangely, it does not appear incongruous and absurd to the Government that it pays lesser pension to a Havildar than a Jawan who is two ranks his junior. Similarly, a Brigadier is getting lesser pension than a Colonel, only due to different dates of retirement.

Title case

The case of C S Sidhu, a Short Service Commissioned Officer whose right arm had to be amputated due to an accident while serving on the border in high altitude area in November 1970, is symptomatic of the disdain and viciousness with which an apathetic Government treats its brave soldiers.

His pension was fixed at Rs 1000 per month. Directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to pay higher pension were challenged by a unabashed Government in the Supreme Court.

While dismissing the appeal on 1 April 2010, a bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and A K Patnaik slammed the Government for treating army personnel like 'beggars' in respect of emoluments and pension and asked the authorities to adopt a more 'humane approach' towards those bravely defending the country's borders.

'If a person goes to any part of Delhi and sits for begging, he will earn Rs 1000 every day and you are offering a pittance of Rs 1000 per month for a man who fought for the country in the high altitudes and whose arm was amputated? Is this the way you treat those brave army officers? It is unfortunate that you are treating them like beggars.' observed the Court in verbal comments while passing the order.

It noted, 'The army personnel are bravely defending the country even at the cost of their lives and we feel they should be treated in a better and more humane manner by government authorities, particularly, in respect of their emoluments, pension and other benefits.'

In its written order, the Apex Court stated, 'We regret to say that the army officers and army men in our country are being treated in a shabby manner by the government. In this case, the respondent (Sidhu) who was posted at a high altitude field area and met with an accident during discharge of his duties was granted a meagre pension. This is a pittance (about Rs 1000) per month plus D.A...If this is the manner in which the army personnel are treated, it can only be said that it is extremely unfortunate. '

Hostile attitude

Having failed to move the Government to accept their genuine demands, ex-servicemen felt compelled to resort to peaceful protests like 'dharnas'.

Not a single Government leader or functionary thought it necessary to meet the protesting ex-servicemen to understand their problems. Nearly 6,000 ex-servicemen signed in blood to express their frustration. The Government remained totally insensitive and indifferent. Over 22,000 medals were returned by the dismayed ex-soldiers to the President of India on six occasions as a mark of protest against their total neglect. Medals earned during active service are the proudest possession of soldiers and their being driven to surrender them would have made any government sit up and take note. But the Indian Government, true to its wont, remained unconcerned.

This episode will certainly go down as a dark chapter in the history of Independent India, wherein ex-soldiers were treated so disdainfully.

It is a matter of shame that the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, the President of India, has not been able to spare a few minutes to meet a delegation of ex-servicemen despite repeated requests for a meeting. She can meet all and sundry but not the soldiers due to whose sacrifices India continues to exist as an independent nation.

Compare this with what President Obama said at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention at the Phoenix Convention Center on 17 August 2009, 'You have fulfilled your responsibilities. And now a grateful nation must fulfill ours. And so long as I am President of the United States, America will always fulfill its responsibilities to you', he declared.

He termed America's commitment to its veterans as sacred bonds and a sacred trust Americans are honour bound to uphold. It is no wonder that America has been the undisputed world power whereas every foreign invader succeeding in enslaving India.

The joke's on us

Purportedly to solve the problems faced by ex-servicemen, a new Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DEW) was raised in the Ministry of Defence in 2004 with much fanfare. It had the ostensible mandate of dealing with resettlement, welfare and pensionary matters of ex-servicemen. But the DEW has turned out to be a cruel joke played on the hapless ex-servicemen by self-serving bureaucracy. DEW is headed by a bureaucrat and there is no ex-serviceman in the whole department at all. The opportunity has been utilised to create another Secretary level appointment. Needless to say that without first-hand experience, DEW has degenerated into another bureaucratic quagmire where no proposal ever fructifies.

A comparison of DEW with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) will be enlightening. All the top officers of DVA are ex-servicemen. It is headed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, General Ric Shinseki, a lifelong soldier and a wounded warrior from Vietnam. Under the direction of the President, he is responsible for administering benefit programmes for veterans, their families and their survivors. He is a member of the President's Cabinet. His Deputy Secretary, W. Scott Gould is a veteran of the U.S. Navy, having taken active part in Operation Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. He was awarded the Navy Meritorious Service Medal. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff of DVA, is an artillery officer having retired in 2001 as a Colonel after completing 30 years of service. Most of the subordinate functionaries also possess military experience.

Regrettably, the Government has failed to appreciate the intensity and criticality of the relationship that ex-servicemen enjoy with the serving soldiers. It is a unique umbilical cord that binds the two into an everlasting bond. Not only are the ex-servicemen treated as repositories of unit traditions but also considered as conscience-keepers of the battalions. In no other organisation are the retired personnel treated with so much of respect and due deference.

Therefore, the way a Government cares for its ex-servicemen has a profound effect on the morale of the serving soldiers. Shabby and apathetic treatment meted out to ex-servicemen by an ungrateful Government can never motivate a soldier as he sees himself as an ex-serviceman of the future. He starts entertaining doubts about Government's sincerity in fulfilling its commitments to him after superannuation.

What's it worth?

It is time the Government reviews its stance and tries to regain its lost credibility amongst ex-servicemen. For that, it should institute proceedings against the officials who connived to deprive the officers of their Rank Pay.

They must be exposed for their nefarious act and shamed publically as anti-national elements for demoralizing the armed forces.

Secondly, officials who recommend filing of revision petitions should be identified and made accountable for wasting public money and bringing disrepute to the Government.

Finally, all judgments issued in favour of ex-servicemen should be implemented in letter and spirit in a convivial manner, without any past rancor.

Today, ex-servicemen are a disillusioned and disappointed lot. They feel let down by their Government. Their exasperation and plight of helplessness can be best described by recalling the poignant lines of lyricist Anand Bakshi -

'When an enemy inflicts a wound, a well-wisher comforts the heart;

But when a well-wisher inflicts a wound, who will heal it?

If a boat is trapped in midstream, helmsman can row it ashore;

But when the helmsman sinks the boat, who can save it?'

Major General Mrinal Suman, (retd) AVSM, VSM, PhD directs the Defence Acquisition Management Course for Confederation of Indian Industry and heads its Defence Technical Assessment and Advisory Service. A prolific writer, he is often consulted by policy makers and the Parliamentary Committee on Defence, and is regularly invited to address various industrial chambers in India and abroad.