Tuesday, January 22, 2013

MAJ GEN SATBIR SINGH TO RAKSHA MANTRI - IMPLEMENTATION LETTERS ISSUED BY MOD NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH COURT ORDERS




IMPLEMENTATION LETTERS ISSUED BY MOD NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH COURT ORDERS
 
 
Dear Veterans                                                                                   Dated: 22 Jan 2013
Letter to RM and three chiefs regarding “Implementation Letters issued by MOD not in conformity with court orders” is enclosed herewith for your information and wide circulation please.
 
With Regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM                                                                
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement                                    
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-4110570                                     








Dated: 22 Jan 2013                                       
To,
Shri A. K. Antony,
Defence Minister,
104, South Block,
13, Parliament House,
New Delhi - 110001

IMPLEMENTATION LETTERS ISSUED BY MOD NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH COURT ORDERS
Dear Shri A K Antony,
1.   References:
(a)    Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench at New Delhi Case O.A. No 270/2010 with O.A. No 24/2010 and decision 14 Sep 2010, Extracts of the Judgement attached.
 
(b)   Government of India Ministry of Defence letter Nos.1 (11)/2012-D (Pen/Policy)   dated 17 Jan 2013.
 
(c)    Report of Committee of Secretaries dated 30 June 2009 issued vide MOF, D/O Expenditure ICI.D. No 7.10/4/2008-IC dated 9.7.2009,Extracts of the Relevant paragraphs attached.
 
2.   We, once again bring to your notice that the implementation letters issued on 17 Jan 2013 with respect to the Govt decision of 24 Sep 2012 regarding One Rank One Pension (OROP) and other pension related issues of Defence Veterans are not in line with the courts judgements and other Govt reports and orders..  Some of the serious discrepancies are brought to your notice for immediate redressal. 
 
Incorrect Effective date of Implementation of Court Judgement
3.    The above Government letter dated 17 Jan 2013 lays down that the implementation of the enhancement of pensions will take effect from 24 Sep 2012.  However, the Court Judgement is an eradication of deliberate mistake made in the implementation of the 6th CPC award in calculation of pensions.  Since it relates to 6th CPC award, it has to applicable with effect from 01 Jan 2006 and not 24 Sep 2012 as has been decided by the Govt.  Relevant extracts of the judgement are enclosed.
 
4.   In addition to the above, when HAG and HAG plus pay bands were created for Additional Secretaries and Lt Generals, these were made applicable with effect from 01 Jan 2006 on the pretext  that since it related to the  6the CPC award it had to be applicable with effect from 01 Jan 2006, the date from which the 6the CPC became applicable.  By the same analogy, since the MoD letter dated 17 Jan 2013 also, pertains to the 6the CPC award, it should also be logically applicable with effect from 01 Jan 2006.  Denying of arrears of approx seven years to the Defence Veterans is grossly unjust..
One Rank One Pension
5.   By partially implementing the Court Judgement, the Govt has partially corrected a serious error in the 6the CPC award.  It is nothing to do with OROP. We are still waiting for the acceptance and implementation of the recommendation of Rajya Sabha Petition Committee on One Rank One Pension (OROP). The all party Petition Committee headed by Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari had strongly recommended grant of OROP holistically to all defence personnel.  The same needs to be sanctioned at the earliest.   Mr. Dfence Minister, we are seeking justice to get our dues.  OROP is removal of the gap and not bridging of the gap between pre and post 2006 retirees.
 
Incorrect issue of orders on Enhanced Family Pension to Armed Forces.
 
6.  The Department of Ex Servicemen Welfare of MoD has issued incorrect orders vide their letter No 1 (14)/2012/D (Pen/Policy) dated 17 Jan, 2013 regarding revision of enhanced rate of Ordinary Family Pension in respect of pre-Jan 2006 armed forces family pensioners. It has been clarified that the provisions contained in Dept of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare New Delhi OM dated 25 May 2012 are mutatis mutandis applicable to armed forces family pensioners. Thus, restricting the family pension calculation to pay in pay band + grade pay only and leaving out the entitlement of MSP and classification allowance, (as applicable) forming part of reckonable emolument for determining family pension is illegal and puts all armed forces family pensioners at a disadvantage. This is a deliberate act to deny rightful dues to the families of Indian Military Veterans. There is need to immediately correct the anomaly to spare the family pensioners of a long and avoidable litigation.
Unnecessary and Avoidable Delay in Issue of One Consolidated Implementation letter
 
7.  The MoD letter of 17 Jan 2013, should have also taken into account the effect of the Rank Pay case of officers and the AFT judgments in the case of Majors to Maj Gen which have stated that pensions would be wef 01.01.2006. It is obviously logical as these are anomalies of the 6th Pay Commission and should thus be resolved from the date of implementation of the 6th PC. This obviously has been deliberately omitted, as the GOI has appealed needlessly in all such cases in the Supreme Court or does the Government of India enjoy issuing amendments after amendments!
 
Our Request for Meeting with you on Rank Pay Case

8.   This has reference to Govt letter dated 27th Dec 2012 and our letter dated 01 Jan 2013. We had sought meeting with you to apprise you about the incorrect implementation of Supreme Court Judgement on the issue. We have got no response from your office so far.
 
9.   In view of the above, the following requests are made:-
           (a) As the contents of the Government of India letter dated 17 Jan 2013 emanate from the           recommendations of VI CPC, therefore, like the Report of Committee of Secretaries dated   30 June 2009 pertaining to Lt Gens, in all fairness, the implementation letter dated 17th Jan             2013, pertaining to All Ranks below the rank of Lt Gen, be amended and be made effective with effect from 01 Jan 2006 instead of 24 Sep 2012. This will also ensure full   implementation of the judgement of the Armed Forces Tribunal on this subject.
 
(b)   Rajya Sabha Petition Committee recommendation with regard to OROP be accepted
and All Ranks be granted OROP at the earliest.
 
(c)    Entitlement of MSP and classification allowance as applicable be included for
calculation of Family Pensions of All Armed Forces Family Pensioners.
 
(d)   Our request for a meeting with you vide our letter dated 01 Jan 2013 be accepted and
           the meeting kindly be held at your earliest convenience.
With Regards,
Jai Hind

Yours Sincerely,
 
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
 Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-411057
Email: satbirsm@yahoo.com , satbirsm@gmail.com
Copy to :-
General Bikram Singh,
PVSM, UYSM,AVSM, SM, VSM, ADC
Chief of the Army Staff.
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Army) 
South Block, New Delhi-110011.
With request for the following :-
(a) Letter dated 17th Jan 2013 be got amended and made effective from 01 Jan 2006 instead of 24th Sep 2012 to fully implement the court judgement.
(b) SC judgement with regard to Rank Pay be got implemented as requested vide our letter dated 01 Jan 2013.
(c) Entitlement of MSP and classification allowance as applicable be included for calculation of enhanced family pensions of all defence family pensioners.
(d) OROP be got sanctioned as per recommendations of Rajya Sabha Petition Committee on OROP.
Admiral Devendra Kumar Joshi,
PVSM, AVSM,YSM, NM, VSM, ADC
Chief of the Naval Staff
 
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Navy)
South Block, New Delhi-110011.
Our request as above.
Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne, PVSM, AVSM, VM.
Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of the Air Staff.
Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi 110011.
Our request as above.
 

Extract of Report of the Committee of Secretaries (on One Rank One Pension ) dated 30 June 2009 issued Vide MOF, D/O Expenditure ICI.D. No 7.10/4/2008-IC dated 09.07.2009 on One Rank One Pension. 
 
Report of the Committee on
One Rank One Pension and Related Issues
 
1.1.to  6.7  xxxx                                                           xxxx                                         xxxx
 
Pension of Commissioned Officers who have retired after 1.1.2006
 
6.8   After the implementation of Sixth CPC’s recommendations, the pension of Pre 1.1. 2006 Brigadiers, Colonels and Lt. Colonels have greatly improved and in percentage terms there is very little difference between the pension of Pre 1.1.2006 pensioners based on modified parity granted by Pay Commission and that with reference to minimum of fitment tables.  The difference is around 2% at the level 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 Generals is there a substantial difference of about 26%.  As a result of modified parity granted by Sixth CPC, the minimum pension assured to retired Lt. Generals is Rs.27700 (37400+12000+6000/2).
7.2  to 8 (iv)  -xxxx                   -xxxx-                                      xxx-
 
8 (v).  In order to address the issue of disparity in the pension of pre and post- 1.1.2006 pensioners at the level of Lt. Generals/equivalent/Additional Secretary and equivalent civilian categories, a separate pays scale starting at Rs. 67000 and going up to Rs. 79000 may be created and all officers of the level of Lt. General/Additional Secretaries/equivalent may be fixed in this scales.  As a result of this, the pensioin of pre-1.1.2006 Lt.Generals will get fixed at Rs, 36,500 and those of Additional Secretaries at Rs. 33,500.  This will benefit roughly 4000 officers.  The financial implications for this proposal will be Rs.25 core per annum.  This proposal emanates from Sixth CPC’s recommendations and may be implemented w.e.f 1.1.2006.  Accordingly, arrears will be paid.
 
xxxx                                         xxxx                                         xxxx
 
 
Extract of Judgement, Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench at New Delhi Case O.A. No 270/2010 with O.A.No 24/2010 and Decision dated 14 Sep 2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others …. Applicants
 
Versus
 
Union of India &Others….. Respondents
 
(With Lt.Cdr.Avtar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India &Ors)
xxxx                                         xxxx                             xxxx
8. In this revised pay structure according to the applicant the basic pay of in pre revised scale for the rank of Lt. Commander and equivalent rank was Rs.11,600/- and rank pay was 1200 x 1.86 and Rs. 23,810/- has been worked out as minimum pay in the pay band for the rank of Lt. Commander in the Sixth Pay Commission. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that this is the pay in the pay band of this revised pay scale for Lt. Commander and learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the expression used in the implementation order and in the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission is that incumbent shall get 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Rs.23810/- is the minimum pay in the pay band for Lt. Commander and it should be taken up for consideration of the pension of the pre retirees. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since distinction of pre and post has been done away in the Fifth Pay Commission which has also been accepted under the Sixth Pay Commission that means a person who retires on 01.01.2006 as a Lt. Commander and the persons who have already retired prior to 01.01.2006, there will be no distinction for them for pension. In the present case, as per the definition of the pay in the pay band by the Naval Special Order which has to be read as wherever the expression appears would mean that Rs.23810/- will be minimum pay in the pay band for the Lt. Commanders and equivalent rank.
9.  As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously urged before us that the expression „minimum pay in the pay band. should only mean that the minimum of the
scale in the pay band should be taken as determinative factor for the determination of the pension and not the minimum of the pay in the pay band. We would have readily accepted the contention of learned counsel for the respondents but for the fact that the Naval Special Order which defines the expression pay band and had already given a table below that what shall be the minimum pay for the Lt. Commander in the Sixth Pay Commission of the existing Lt. Commanders. Therefore, we cannot add or subtract anything beyond what have already been defined by the respondents. Had this distinction not been there perhaps the example which the respondents have shown from the various documents and the Circulars issued by the Comptroller General of Defence Accounts could have been readily accepted. But the fact that the Government by the Special Order dated 18th October, 2008 themselves have defined the pay in the pay band, therefore, we have to accept the definition given by them and then reading this expression „the minimum of the pay in the pay band. along with the recommendations of the Pay Commission and the implementation order should be taken for determination of the pension has to be accepted. Had this expression not been defined anywhere perhaps argument of learned counsel for the respondents would have been accepted. In this connection, we may further point out that the earlier communication dated 17th December, 1998 in the Fifth Pay Commission, the Government has clearly mentioned that pension of all pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement shall not be less than 50%, the minimum pay was revised from 01.01.2006 for the last post held by the pensioners. Had this expression been repeated, perhaps it would carry the same interpretation. In the present case, pay structure has been revised and now all the pay scales have been categorised in the various pay bands and in the case of Lt. Commander or equivalent fall in the Pay Band-III and minimum of Pay Band-III is 15,600/- at the entry level i.e. minimum of the pay band for this rank. Had this expression used in this pay scale of Sixth Pay Commission, we would not have come to interpretation as was clarified by the Fifth Pay Commission by the Government Order dated 17th December, 1998. But in the present case, the expression pay in the pay band has been defined by the Government in the communication dated 18th October, 2008 that puts the matter beyond any controversy. The expression which has been defined in the scheme of things has to be accepted while interpreting all the provisions of the Pay Commission and the Implementation Order. Here the expression „minimum of the pay in the pay band. is to be taken for the purposes of deciding the pension of pre 2006 pensioners. Therefore, one has to interpret the provisions as exists and we have to take it minimum pay in the pay band for equivalent rank then that comes to Rs.23,810/- determined by the Government in Column 7 of table at para 4 (a) as such we have to accept the figure of 23810/- being the minimum of the pay in the pay band for Lt. Commanders and equivalent ranks. If that is taken then naturally 50% of this will have to be treated as a basic pension and rest of it will be added to it as grade pay and other benefits which are given to the persons of that rank. There is no controversy with regard to grade pay and Military Service pay and other benefits to which we are not concerned. We are concerned with what is minimum has to be taken for pre 2006 retirees and minimum pay scale for the purposes of determining the pension. In our opinion as per the Government order for all pre retirees of Lt. Commander and other ranks their minimum of the pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006 i.e. Rs.23810/-. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of the pay in the pay band i.e. Rs.23,810/- with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months. Both the petitions are allowed in view of aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
A.K. MATHUR
(Chairperson)
M.L. NAIDU
(Member)
New Delhi
September 14, 2010.

2 comments:

  1. In the first line of para 2 of the letter to R M the date of govt. order given is 24 Sep 2013 which should be corrected to 24 Sep 2012.I think a typing mistake which may be corrected. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. good letter...If RM doesnt respond,next what? Ask for a meeting with Rahul Gandhi new Vice Prez Cong party,to apprise him of these anomalies,being ignored by the Govt.

    ReplyDelete