Kargil War: The neglected heroes

http://www.tribunei ndia.com/ 2010/20100725/ edit.htm# 1

Administrative egotism and mischief must cease

Administrative egotism and mischief must cease

Navdeep Singh

The National Litigation Policy recently unveiled by the Law Minister would have special significance for the defence services in general and disabled veterans in particular. The policy ordains that frivolous appeals would not be filed by government departments and that appeals from orders of Tribunals shall be an exception rather than the rule. The policy also directs that false and misleading pleas or technical points shall not be espoused before judicial fora.

Since the last few years, veterans have been at the receiving end of paper violence perpetrated by legal pundits of the government, who, guided by a strange spirit of sadism, exhaust every single game in the book to ensure that disability benefits do not reach the beneficiaries even when directed by higher judiciary. To begin with, medical authorities indulge in ‘literal’ interpretation of rules rather than ‘liberal’ thereby denying disability benefits to disabled soldiers. They forget the ‘spirit’ while clinging to the ‘letter’. When there is a judicial pronouncement granting disability pension, appeals and reviews are filed as a matter of routine even in cases fully covered by earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. It is not the higher echelons of governance or the services headquarters which are to blame but the swarm of section officers, under secretaries and deputy secretaries who rule the roost. Yes, the lower level bureaucracy with its caustic file-notings unfortunately runs the government. The idea is simple, even if there is a verdict in favour of a disabled veteran, file an appeal, take a chance, and maybe the verdict would be overruled because it is well known that our jawans cannot afford proper legal aid up till the Hon’ble Apex Court.

That the new policy has specially mentioned ‘false’ and ‘misleading’ pleas goes to show that the Minister is aware of the malaise that has set in. Appeals are filed not out of legal necessity but because of administrative egotism – ‘How could a petty employee win a case against the mighty officialdom ?’. Then comes the ‘hook’ or ‘crook’ stage wherein dubious pleas are presented before Hon’ble Courts with departments even misguiding their own counsel into presenting incorrect pleadings, which if not rebutted by a well acquainted legal brain, end in pronouncements which can hardly be termed well-rounded. The presence of these two words - ‘false’ and ‘misleading’ in the policy reminds me of some specific cases with special reference to disabled soldiers. In Secretary MoD Vs Ajit Singh case (2009), the statement of the defence ministry is on record wherein it has been stated that disability pension was not released to the veteran since he did not have the minimum required service of 10 years to his credit. Needless to say, in reality, there is no minimum service requirement for disability pension and even a recruit is entitled to the same. In the recent case of Karan Singh Vs UOI (2010) before the Jaipur AFT, it was espoused by the central government that it is the Army alone that provides disability pension to its employees. However truth is that civilian employees are also entitled to exactly the same benefits since 1939. In PK Kapur Vs UoI (2007) the government went hammer and tongs proclaiming how it had the right to fix a cut-off date for grant of certain enhanced disability benefits which had been refused to pre-1996 defence retirees. The case went in favour of the government since the Court was never informed that the said benefits through the same master notification had already been extended to similarly placed pre-1996 civilian retirees as back as in 2001. The Petitioner could not rebut the falsehood since he could not afford a lawyer.

It is not that mischievous elements are playing around only with the pious institution of judiciary, the higher strata of governance is also not left untouched. In an official speech last month obviously prepared by a similarly inclined officer, the Defence Minster was made to ‘announce’ with pride that the government had introduced an additional amount of Rs 3000 as constant attendance allowance for disabled soldiers keeping in view the ‘valour and sacrifices of army personnel’. So far so good, but the humble Minister was not in the knowledge that firstly, constant attendance allowance is applicable to civilian employees too and hence has nothing to do with ‘valour and sacrifices’, secondly it is a concept in force since times immemorial and is nothing new and even its enhancement is old news which was announced in March 2008 by the sixth pay commission, thirdly it is not applicable to all disabled personnel but only to 100% disabled retirees. In the past two years there have been other instances where the political executive and the top brass have been misled into announcing beneficial ‘policy decisions’ by hiding from them the fact that the same had actually been necessitated due to Supreme Court verdicts.

When the top block itself is victim of tomfoolery emanating from the bottom, what can the poor soldier expect ?

http://www.indianmilitary.info/2010/07/oped-in-tribune-administrative-egotism.html

Unfair to military personnel: They Must Get their Due

Unfair to military personnel: They must get their due

by Lt-Gen Vijay Oberoi (retd)

The Tribune, 5 Jul 10 GOVERNMENTS, they say, are impersonal and yet a democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We take pride in saying that we are the world’s largest democracy. Yet, the people’s voice is largely not heard because the political leadership and the bureaucrats who advise them are so bound by rules and regulations (of their own making unfortunately) that unless they are nudged, nay shoved violently, it is difficult to change their somnambulant state. Unfortunately, the military fraternity of both serving and retired categories seems to be experiencing the brunt of it, especially since early 2008, when the continuing and tragic saga of the Sixth Pay Commission commenced. While the commission has been hogging the headlines, there are many other important issues that also need to be highlighted so that the people, who after all are supposedly the real rulers of the country, are aware of them. This piece is about a few inter-linked yet vastly different issues that are making military personnel very angry and justifiably so. The first is the case of the “rank pay”, where despite an elaborate and clear ruling by the Supreme Court, the authorities, ill advised by the bureaucracy, have filed another appeal! This is a farce of monumental proportions being played against a large number of affected military officers. As a case of bureaucratic pusillanimity and procrastination, this does take the cake. Let me briefly narrate the essentials. In 1986, the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission included the grant of “rank pay” to all defence officers of the rank up to brigadier and equivalent. However, while implementing the same, equivalent amounts were reduced from the pay, by an omission or by design (both perceptions exist)! No military person noticed this at that time. This may be hard to believe but the prevailing culture at that time was that most military personnel were fairly blasé about their pay and allowances. It was in fact considered infra dig to get in to mundane issues like entitlements, as it was a firm belief that the authorities will always look after one’s interests. It is now clear that we were really naive. The authorities in the corridors of South and North Blocks, however, had little time for such niceties! Having learnt bitter lessons after the Sixth Pay Commission, the military has now become wiser, but at the huge cost of losing confidence, trust and fair play in the government (read bureaucracy). Reverting to the “rank pay” case, the issue came to light only when retired Major Dhannapalan discovered it, approached the Kerala High Court for redress and fought it with the unrelenting Ministry of Defence (MoD) in both the High Court and the Supreme Court, till he won the case in 2005, after nine years. However, while implementing the judgment, the MoD gave benefits only to the officer. The representations of a large number of similarly affected officers were ignored. This resulted in a flood of writ petitions, as the affected officers had no other option but to seek justice from the courts. Finally, despite the vehement opposition by the MoD, the Supreme Court ruled on March 8, 2010, that the benefit of the judgment must be extended to all eligible military officers and also awarded 6 per cent interest on the amount due to the officers. While the affected officers were still doing their calculations, the empire struck back with an appeal against the ruling. Why is the MoD deliberately trying to deny justice to a large number of military officers? Is it a delaying tactic designed to cheat the military personnel and stall the implementation of the judgment, or a case of losing face or the fear of being penalised for a deliberate act of commission, or a combination of all three? Whatever be the motivation, the military personnel are livid on being denied their legitimate emoluments. This also begs the larger question of the government being the single biggest litigant, keeping the courts busy and in the process preventing them from dispensing justice to more needy persons. I fail to understand the logic of the government contesting every order the Supreme Court has passed in favour of defence forces. It did so for umpteen years in the case of fixation of pension of Major-Generals. In the case of a disabled officer, Capt CS Sidhu, the Supreme Court was constrained to remark that the government treated its soldiers worse than beggars! Dr V. Moily, Minister of Law and Justice, has recently announced the National Litigation Policy, which aims to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to three years. The policy emphasises that the government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The Law Minister may keep making announcements and publishing policies, but will the stalwarts in the MoD as well as other ministries listen? In the meantime, the large numbers of affected military personnel continue to be deprived of their legitimate emoluments. Let me now highlight the second and a more recent issue, relating to jobs for military personnel after their retirement. In 2004, the Directorate-General of Resettlement, as part of its drive for securing jobs for retired officers and soldiers, had persuaded the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to accept retired military personnel for running toll plazas on highways. Being disciplined and honest, they are doing a superb job and have already increased collections at the ex-servicemen-run toll plazas from the earlier 15 to 80 per cent. There are over 25,000 military veterans running NHAI-owned toll plazas, while another 10,000 provide logistical support. Now, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has decided to auction all the toll plazas to the highest bidder. The motive is undoubtedly monetary, while efficient running or jobs for the needy veterans do not seem to have any place in the thinking of the government! As a sop, the NHAI has stated that the toll plazas in Jammu and Kashmir, northeastern states or other disturbed areas would continue to be kept for the military veterans sponsored by the Director-General of Resettlement. How nice, but no toll plaza exists in these areas! While the government is keen to employ military veterans to do all the difficult fighting against the Maoists, including the highly dangerous clearance of mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), when it comes to giving them their dues in terms of their legitimate emoluments or jobs as part of their rehabilitation, it baulks at and panders to power and money brokers. Is this our version of democracy?

Justice And The Armed Forces: A Mirage

Lt Gen SK Bahri PVSM (Retd) A3/502 World Spa East

Sector 30/41

Gurgaon 122001

Tele 0124 4143180/181

14 Jun 2010

Justice And The Armed Forces: A Mirage

I am writing to you about a subject which is becoming a rather touchy one both with the Government and the defence services, including the ex servicemen. The UPA II has just finished patting itself on its back for what it has done during the past 12 months. But one area where it has faltered is the redressal of grievances of serving and retired soldiers of the three defence services.

The Services have been depended upon by the Nation for guarding it against both, external aggression and internal disorder. They have acquitted themselves well each time and have earned the respect of the nation. It is one organisation, which is looked upon in horror by the Nation if a misdemeanour by one of its members, is detected. Such aberrations not only make headlines but even the Services handle them like cancer, which need to be excised promptly.

Can any other government wing be compared with the defence services? The morning newspaper seems incomplete if there is no news about a few lapses in one of the government’s arms eg., corruption, custodial killing, crores of intelligence funds meant for fighting Maoists being siphoned off by DGPs , selling land at throwaway prices to cronies, excise duty being evaded, continued rape of a subordinate’s wife, children being molested by people who are supposed to protect them and civil servants amassing wealth beyond their known sources of income. I could not believe when the press informed us that in Burail Jail in Punjab , there is a barrack only for convicted policemen!! (The only jail where a special barrack may be reserved for Indian soldiers must be in Pakistan !!) The world organisations have recently graded our civil services as the most inefficient. But we cannot do anything about it.

The above is known to the Aam Admi, whose patience is running out. We should be prepared for the worst, as he knows what he deserves. We have created a Frankenstein in the form of the Maoist menace due to totally inadequate governance and, another monster is in the making. I guess the armed forces will be drafted once again, as they are being planned to deal with Frankenstein.

But what is the morale and thinking of the soldiers? The PM will get reassuring reports from the Service Chiefs, as they cannot say otherwise. But believe me, Mrs Gandhi, there is a feeling amongst the soldiers that while they are protecting a beautiful nation, it is being eaten away internally by termites. Will they be asked to jeopardise their lives once again to remedy a self-created problem? They feel used and are resentful. The reasons are not too far to see, if one has the intention to see.

After the 8 Mar 2010 judgement of the Supreme Court in favour of Defence Officers (who had been denied the benefit of Rank Pay in the 6^th Pay Commission while fixing their emoluments), to set right a patently obvious fraud perpetrated on them by the bureaucracy, the government has filed an appeal against the implementation of the judgement. I then sent the attached email on 16 May 2010 to the Law Minister, Mr Veerappa Moily telling him that the action of the Government is against his own statement that the government should not be a persistent litigant. I, as is customary in todays government offices, have not received an acknowledgement so far. So it is possibly lying in the wastepaper basket next to his table or censored by his OSD, the bureaucratic representative who acts as the self appointed filter of “bad news” from the “master”!

The soldiers, serving and retired, are a disillusioned lot. After your assurance in Amritsar , inclusion in the Congress manifesto, declaration by the President in her opening speech to Parliament, statement of the Finance Minister in the Budget speech and the proclamation by the PM from the ramparts of Red Fort,One Rank One Pension (OROP) remains a mirage. Rubbing salt in the wounds, directions of the highest court in the land are being contested, only because they are in favour of soldiers. (The bureaucracy had also appealed repeatedly against the judgement of the Supreme Court in favour of Maj Gens in 2008). Imagine a Committee of Secretaries met to consider the Judgement and within a week (a record of sorts!) decided to appeal against it, as it was financially unviable. Can a fraud detected by the Supreme Court be wished away due to its financial cost? Do you think the soldiers will swallow all this, and accept it happily? If your advisors say so then they are the same who have landed our Country in this sorry state of affairs, be it in the North East or in the 400 odd districts, with many more on the verge of joining them, affected by Maoism. They are the ones who are putting the fear in the politicians that the Defence Forces will take over the country if they are not kept under their thumb. A disastrous presumption.

For the country’s sake, please do not push the soldiers over the precipice and make them behave like our huge police force, which wants a bribe for registering a FIR or a bureaucrat who does the same for putting his signatures on a piece of paper. Mrs Gandhi please look after the soldier, he is ironically defenceless in his own country.

Mrs Sonia Gandhi

Chairperson UPA

10 Janpath

New Delhi 110001

Copy to

Dr Manmohan Singh

Honourable Prime Minister

7 Race Course Road

New Delhi 110011

Mr AK Antony

Honourable Minister of Defence

9 Krishna Menon Marg

New Delhi 11011

Mr Veerappa Moily

Honourable Minister of Law and Justice

Ministry of Law & Justice

4^th Floor, A Wing

Shastri Bhawan

New Delhi 110001

Not On Original

Admiral NK Verma PVSM, AVSM, ADC

Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee

Chief of the Naval Staff

Naval HQ, South Block

DHQ PO

New Delhi 110011

General VK Singh PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC

Chief of the Army Staff

Army HQ, South Block

DHQ PO

New Delhi 110011

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik PVSM, VSM, ADC

Chief of the Air Staff

Air HQ

Vayu Bhavan

New Delhi 110011

Obstructing the Supreme Court order on Pay Commission

LETTER DATED 16 MAY 2010 TO MR. VEERAPPA MOILY, LAW MINISTER BY

LT GEN SK BAHARI

Dear Mr Minister,

I send herewith an email received from Retired Defence Officers Association, who are affected by the recent decision of the Govt of India to go in appeal against a ruling dated 8 Mar 10 by The Supreme Court .This matter was taken up by officers, in service on 1 Jan 86, of the rank Capt to Brig (bulk of the Army officer strength) regarding an injustice done to them during the Vth Pay Commission by the bureaucracy, in setting the basis for fixing their future salaries.

Maj V Dhananpalan had taken up a case against this discrepancy in the Kerala High Court and won the case more than a decade ago. The Govt gave him his arrears and forgot about all other officers who were similarly denied their dues, and affected by the same order.

Some time later other officers quoting Maj Dhananpalan' s ruling, took up the case in various High Courts in the country for a remedy. When faced with mutiple the Govt requested the Supreme Court to club all the cases and hear them as one case.After a tortuous number of years the Honourable Supreme Court ruled in favour of the complainants on 8 Mar 10 and ordered that all the arrears be paid with 6% interest.

Now the Govt has gone in appeal against the SC ruling. Obviously the concerned department has lost face and may also be penalised for having to pay interest on a deliberate act of commission. So the easiest way is to launch the case into orbit so that the perpetraters of this fraud can retire before the CAG raises hell. Mr Minister, you had said on taking over your current portfolio that the Govt is the single biggest litigant who keeps the courts from doing justice to more needy persons. Here the Govt is deliberately trying to deny justice to a large number of officers. I know gallantry awards are given posthumously, but, why should financial dues be given posthumously? Imagine the loss to the affected persons as the value of the rupee has gone down so much in the intervening years.

I fail to understand the logic of the Govt contesting every order the Supreme Court has passed in favour of Armed Forces personnel.

You may be aware that in the case of fixation of Maj Gens' pension the Govt appealed multiple times and intentionally delayed filing its replies. Eventually the Govt had to pay as per the orders with 12 % interest. Doesnt it show the malicious intent of the persons concerned. Only recently your Solicitor General had to request the Supreme Court to soften it remarks in the case of Capt CS Sidhu , when it had said that the Govt treats its soldiers worse than beggars!

Govt says it is doing everything for the Aam Admi. I presume soldiers do not form part of this exalted community. May I request you on behalf of the silent services that this injustice be stopped immediately, the Solicitor General be directed to withdraw the appeal ( I am sure he has more fruitful work to do than pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the bureaucracy) and the persons who authorised the filing of this appeal be penalised for clogging the SC with frivolous work.

May I request that a word of acknowledgement of this mail would give us confidence that our pleas reach the powers that matter. Otherwise they normally go unanswered.

With warm regards

Yours sincerely
Lt Gen SK Bahri PVSM (Retd)
(Personally not affected by the SC order)

A3/502 World Spa East
Sector 30/41
Gurgaon 122001

Tackling Maoists

LETTER ADDRESSED TO HOME MINISTER DATED 08 APR 2010

8Apr 2010

Governance

It was a long time ago, possibly 20 years, that I last wrote a letter to you. You were MOS in the same ministry and I was MGO in Army HQ. It was as a consequence of a meeting you had called in MOD, to discuss the supply of small arms to the police forces which were in their 3^rd/4^th qtr of life! I had explained to you that life of only artillery and tank guns is measured in quarters of life and small arms are only checked if the prescribed gauges pass through them or not.

This time I am writing about a much more serious matter. You being one of the few “proactive ministers” who has brought about substantive changes in whatever charges have been given to you, I am taking the liberty of writing on a matter which concerns us all.

The trigger for this letter has been the recent statement to the press by the Home Secretary, wherein he stated that a number of ex servicemen (ESM) are helping train the Maoists. The country is facing a very serious challenge from these destructive elements and the fact that a segment (ESM) whose loyalty to the nation is seldom questioned, is helping a rebellious force needs to be viewed with great concern. I remember in the early`60s a retired JCO, Nb Sub Pan Singh, had played havoc in the Chambal ravine area as he had created his own gang of dacoits. The reason for his going that way was that he had been deprived of a piece of his land by some powerful landlord and despite his pleas to the persons responsible for governance, nobody helped him. I am sure these alleged ESM must also be nursing a similar grouse.

Mr Minister, GOVERNANCE in the country has become the biggest casualty in the last 40 years or so. Unless some serious and concerted effort is made there will be many more Pan Singhs and ESM waiting to join Maoists or other anti national groups. Shouldn’t we all sit up and do something about it?

I joined the corporate sector soon after my retirement and saw things which I had been largely isolated from, in my 38 years of army service. Be it the IAS officers in the NOIDA Authority, or in the UP government, sales tax , income tax, excise, labour officers, minor judiciary or the electricity departments – everyone was on the take! If you resisted, they could bring your business to a halt and make you lose much more than what they demanded. Worse is that there was no one you could turn to. I am surprised that the corporate sector has not started their own vigilante force to get out of the clutches of a corrupt bureaucracy. Trouble is that they are a divided lot as some are able to bribe their way through and make huge profits while denying the government a large portion of its tax dues.

Unfortunately law abiding people are being dealt with a double whammy. Firstly, they are not allowed to go about their businesses without let or hindrance and secondly, law breakers are permitted to avoid paying their taxes make illegitimate profits and deny their workers a fair living wage in connivance with the guardians of the law.

What the police does or does not do is an open secret, as is evident from the daily newspapers. It is also a major contributor to misgovernance in the country and accretion to the ranks of law breakers. A simple case in point. Why is there total anarchy on our roads? The enforcers are totally bereft of any knowledge about road rules and etiquette, permit encroachments on the roads so, how can they prevent road rage which is becoming a major law & order problem and chaos on the highways.

Have you noticed that as the country is descending into lawlessness the state governments are turning more and more to ESM to train their policemen to manage their responsibilities. Is it not ironic that the same police officers who have been letting their hapless constabulary get slaughtered by the Maoists, have been resisting the induction of ESM in their ranks as they claim that they have a different `culture’. Reality is that the ESM will disturb their `give and take’ culture.

The recently launched Op GREEN HORN is in reality being run by green horns. 86 policemen being killed in two days and not a single officer killed or punished for not leading his subordinates is too much of a joke. There is speculation that eventually the Army will be called in, as per SOP. Army officers and men will get killed and the Ashok Chakras will be collected by police officers wearing a lot of brass and sitting behind huge desks. Surely some more DGP vacancies will be created and another force raised to accommodate them!

The government has to take a stand if it does not want the nation to reach the same anarchic state as some of our neighbours. Instead of constantly rewarding non-performers, for our country’s sake please use the same firm and well thought out measures against them, that you are using against the Maoists. We need a similar cleansing of this cancer in our vitals.

The 6^th Pay Commission has been hijacked by the civil servants, despite their poor record in governance (except a very small minority), at the cost of the Defence Services. By denying them and the ESM their legitimate dues you are preparing grounds for swelling the ranks of other unlawful entities. The solution is in our hands we only have to take action and nip corruption at its roots and not let a minority of the government servants milk and destroy the country. I have said it in so many words to the PM but he is not inclined to listen. Possibly, because he does not want to take any stern action against his erstwhile colleagues! I am sincerely hoping that you will stop the drift before it is too late. As a concerned believer in INDIA I hope you will take prompt action to stem this rot any further.

Lt Gen SK Bahri PVSM (Retd)

Mr P Chidambaram

Hon’ble Minister of Home Affairs

Government Of India

North Block

New Delhi 110011

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

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