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

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