Saturday, August 20, 2016

OROP : Interaction with Justice Reddy Committee at PANCHKULA on 17 Aug 2016

SOURCE: CURTSEY http://ex-servicemenwelfare.blogspot.in/



OROP : Interaction with Justice Reddy Committee at  PANCHKULA on 17 Aug 2016



Interaction with Honourable Justice L Narasimha Reddy Committee on ‘One Rank One Pension’ By Representatives of Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM), Panchkula
 
1        The IESM, Panchkula extends a hearty welcome to Honourable Justice L Narasimha Reddy to Chandimandir, and is highly appreciative of his efforts to connect with the veterans and understands the OROP issues firsthand.

2        The first as the most important issue the veterans face is the attempt at dilution of the definition of OROP that already been accepted by the Parliament and the Govt. Lately, even the Union Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitely has tried to sow doubt on the definition of the OROP. The veterans have had to struggle for 40 long years after the historic injustice perpetrated on the veterans as a result the Third Pay Commission (1976) whereby, pension of the military personnel was reduced for earlier 70 percent to 50 percent, and those from the civil side raised from 33 percent to 50 percent without any attendant mitigating measures, or safety basket for the soldiery. Even, the OROP scheme only partially mitigates the soldiers’ troubles. There is hardly any comparison between 80 percent of soldiery being sent home at 40 to 42 yrs age, admittedly with 50 percent  pension (under OROP scheme) as compared to the civil, and police side going on pension after 60 yrs with 50 percent. The OROP is hardly the largesse it is being made to sound.

Definition of OROP

3        One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the armed forces personnel retiring in the same rank with same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancements to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

4        Anomalies in the Govt. Order of November 2015.

a)    Pension Equalisation Every Five Years. Pension equalisation every five years cannot be termed as OROP. Pensions of the past pensioners and those retiring currently would never be equal destroying the very concept of OROP. Besides, many juniors would get more pension than seniors. It has been put out that the exercise is very difficult for the accountants. Firstly, if mean of maxima and minima of pensions can be worked out for 30 Lacs pensioners, there is no reason that this cannot be resolved is this computers age. Secondly, just because there is a degree of difficulty in doing something cannot be reason enough for not doing the right act.

b)   Payment of OROP wef July 1, 2014. OROP was approved in the Budget 2014. As per the norms anything approved in the budget is applicable from April 1 that year. Govt. has issued orders for application of OROP from July 1, 2014. The veterans have effectively lost three months of benefit without any fault.

c)    Fixation of OROP wef Calendar Year 2013. Fixation of OROP wef calendar 2013 would result in past pensioners getting one increment less than those retiring in 2014. This should be corrected to 2014, the year in which the OROP order became effective.

d)   Fixation of Pension as Mean of Maximum and Minimum.  Besides increasing the work load of the paying authorities enormously (of comparing approximately 30 Lacs accounts), there is the question of probity, of checking, and transparency of the method used in order to satisfy the clientele. Military pensions have always had some weightage of service added for pension purpose to compensate for early retirement. Traditionally, pensions of Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) and Other Ranks (OR) have been worked on the basis of maximum rates. Why should the Govt.  now withhold this little munificence instead of improving upon the benefits?

       
 
Anomalies Arising of Implementation
 
of OROP Tables of Feb 4, 2016.

a)    Lt Col (Selection Grade) Pension. Before 1985, army units of Battalion size were commanded by Lt Col (SG). Later, the appointment was made tenable by a Colonel. The reality is that still in the major armies of the world like the United States, and Australia, battalion size units are being commanded by Lt Cols. In India, all Lt Col (SG) are being treated at par with Lt Col (TS) for pension whereas Lt Col (Time Scale) was basically performing the job of a Major.  To meet the ends of justice, Lt Col (SG) need to be granted the pension of Colonel.

b)   Weightage for Calculation Pension. Weightage element has been an inbuilt factor to compensate the armed forces personnel who are subjected to compulsory retirement to keep the forces young in the interest of national security. Till December 31, 2005, certain weightage was given to services for calculating pension benefits. A Lt Col (SG) was given weight benefit of seven years, and a Lt Col (TS) five years. After implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission wef from January 1, 2006, wherein the qualifying service for full pensions for officers was reduced to 20 years, the weightage system was removed for officers. Whereas, the revised rule has benefited the officers on the civil side wanting to go out of service earlier at own request, there is no commensurate advantage to the armed forces officers and men who are compulsorily retired at comparatively younger age in national interest. Lt Col rank officers are as it is retired at 54 Yrs. The protection of weightage and a little extra pension has been taken away from them. There is need to restore the weightage system to the pensions of retiring service personnel. Besides, the manner of calculation of pension after providing weights needs to be made in consultation with affected parties.

c)    Major’s Pension. Currently, no one would go on pension as Major. Officers retired as Major after 01-01-1996 having 21 yrs service have been allowed to earn the pension of Lt Col (TS) There are a few Majors of pre Jan 1, 1996 vintage who have not been considered for this up- gradation. It is recommended that the rule be applied evenly to all cases.

d)   Benefit Under MACP. It is strongly recommended that MACP benefits should to be made to all past pensioners so as not to create fresh grievances just because a new rule regarding MACP has been introduced. The earlier pensioners were basically performing the same job.

e)    Pension Tables Beyond 33 Yrs. It is learnt that the tables beyond 33 yrs are being formulated on the civil side. The defence forces must be treated at par.

f)     OROP for Regular Capt/Lt vs. Hony Capt/Lt. Theoretically, a regular Capt would earn a pension of Rs. 17,010.00 after 28 yrs and a Lt Rs 16,090.00. Same is the pension of Hony Capt/Lt at 28 yrs. In practice, it is most unlikely that any regular officer would retire as Capt/Lt. No change is suggested to the existing scale.

g)    OROP for Invalided out, war injury and liberalized family pensioners. Whatever be the formula adopted, the interests of these categories must be full in concordance with their benefits mandated earlier.

h)   Broad-banding of disability benefit under OROP. As per a December10, 2015 judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court, broad-banding of disability pension benefits has been awarded to 900 litigants. The policy needs to be applied equally to all such cases to avoid unnecessary litigation and heartburn since the highest court in the country had already found merit in the submissions to it.

i)     Pension of Y Gp Hony Nk and Hony Hav. The Pension of Hony Nk is same as that of a Sepoy and that of a Hony Hav same as that of a Nk. Some incentive needs to be worked into it.

Preparation of OROP Pension Tables

6      Large area of the OROP table requires reworking after detailed discussion with the stake holders.  For example, for a Sepoy of Y Gp pension remains fixed at Rs. 6,665.00 from 12.5 yrs to 17 yrs, a good 5.5 yrs without any progress. Similarly, a Major’s pension remains static at Rs. 21,530.00 from 13 yrs to 20 yrs.

Conclusion

7    It hardly needs reiteration that retiring soldiery young is a national compulsion, not an individual desire, or requirement. It is important that soldiers be compensated adequately. Even the OROP is no largesse. An army jawan going home at 40 to 42 yrs loses almost 55 Lacs in his lifetime earnings as compared to a police constable retiring at 60 yrs after having enjoyed multiple increments, rank enhancements, and increased pay having enjoyed the munificence of two more pay commissions. Since armed forces are a rank based hierarchical organization, this loss is suffered all way up even by officer who also retire earlier based on their rank. 

8      IESM, Panchkula has deliberated on the OROP issue. Indeed IESM are grateful to the Govt. for agreeing to the OROP after a long struggle and hiatus. However, the given OROP is truncated, and hope the authorities would consider their submissions in a spirit of magnanimity.
  

Brig Kiran Krishan, SM (Retd.)
 
Convener, IESM, Panchkula
 
August 17, 2016  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Friday, August 19, 2016

SARASWATI : Was Sanskrit responsible for holocaust

SOURCE: -  U TUBE
 
 
 
WHY STUDY OF SANSKRIT IS IMPORTANT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROJECT SARASWATI
 
 
 
SARASWATI : Was Sanskrit responsible
For
 Holocaust
 
 
 
The New MOHENJO DARO Movie
 
 
 
 
 
Rajiv fb LIVE 13: The New MOHENJO DARO Movie, What is True & False About Its Depictions of History

    Was Sanskrit responsible for holocaust
                   - Paper Presentations

                        (Part I of IV)  

     [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ6Xk9YCaaY ]


Published on Aug 15, 2016
Theme: Was Sanskrit responsible for holocaust
Part I of IV
Paper presentation by Ashay Naik
Topic: A Purvapaksha of Deep Orientalism

Presentations may be accessed at:
http://swadeshiindology.com/si-1/pres...

                              (Part II  of  IV)  

         [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozdJ_kTaZcc ]
 



Published on Aug 15, 2016
Theme: Was Sanskrit responsible for holocaust

Part II of IV
Paper presentation by K. Gopinath
Topic: Indology and Nazi ideology

Presentations may be accessed at:
http://swadeshiindology.com/si-1/pres...

Link for PPT of K. Gopinath: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2c...

Join Rajiv Malhotra for his FB LIVE Broadcasts
Follow Rajiv on facebook.com/RajivMalhotra.Official
  
                         
                      
                    ******************


                          (Part III  of  IV)  

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7TqlnXF3cA  ]

 
 
 
******************************
 
 
 
                            (Part IV of IV)  

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyKGkDh6WM  ]
 
 
 





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

OROP : Interaction with Justice Reddy Committee at Delhi on 19 Aug 2016

SOURCE: IESM




'Vinod Gandhi'


6:20 PM (4 hours ago)

to iesm_govbody, yahoogroups, REPORT, Inderjit





Dear Members
 
As per plan of Justice Reddy, today on 19 Aug, ESM interacted with Justice Reddy at
 105 TA Battalion auditorium. The meeting was attended by more than 10 . These were DIWAVE, UFESM, IESM AIEWA, IESL, AFA, NAVAL FOUNDATION, WAR WOUNDEDORGANISATION, JCOs AND ORs LEAGUE, VOICE FOR ESM, NEXCC, AIVWA  and  many more organisations and of course JM was represented in large number . There were more than 150 ESM of three services. 

The meeting started at 1100h and finished at 1500h. Justice Reddy was assisted by
 members of pay cell of three services. 

Many ESM expressed their views, following were main speakers who mostly concentrated on anomalies of OROP.
 
  1. Col Handa of Diwave
  2. Maj Gen Satbir Singh UFESM
  3. Col Inderjit Singh UFESM and AIEWA
  4. Lt Gen Balbir Singh IESL
  5. Wg Cdr Vinod Nebb War wounded association and JM
  6. Brig JS Sandhu  JM 
  7. Sgt VS Misra  NEXCC
  8. Sub Sidhu      AIVWA
  9. Sep Sheoran
  10. M/s Sudesh  JM

 
All organisations gave their points and each point was stressed by all organisation. There was complete unity on these points. Some ESM wanted to raise issues which were beyond the purview of the committee, Justice Reddy stopped discussion on these points. The main issues which were discussed and accepted by Justice Reddy are given below

  1. It was very strongly explained that the definition of OROP given to Justice Reddy by the Govt is not the approved definition which has been accepted by Govt in their executive letter dated 26 Feb 2014 and also accepted by NDA Govt in Rajya Sabha on 2 Nov 2014.  
  2. Govt letter dated 7 Nov 15 has fixed pensions of past pensioners on the base year of 2013 where as it should be on the base year of 2014.
  3. Govt letter dated 7 Nov 15 has fixed pensions of past pensioners on the average of max and min pensions of 2013 whereas it should be as per  highest pension of 2014.
  4. Govt letter dated 7 Nov 15 has fixed pensions of past pensioners has started from 1 July 2014 whereas it should be w.e.f. 1 Apr 2014
  5. Govt letter dated 7 Nov 15 has fixed equalization of past pensions at a frequency of every five years whereas it should be every year. Software programs are available to calculate this on press of a key. 
  6. All Hony ranks be given pension of their rank this has been denied to JCOs even after HSC has ruled in their favor.
  7. Pension of widows should not be reduced and she should be paid full pay as  pension till the age of  60 years. 
  8. All Majors ( numbering only 900)  be given pension of Lt Col as officers are not retiring as Majors any more and moreover officers are getting promotion as Lt Col in 11 to 13 years now. 
  9. All Lt col be given pension of Min of Col. 
  10. All pensions be brought to the level of 31 Dec 2015 before applying multiplication factor of 2.57 for calculating basic pay for 7 CPC.
  11. Pensions of regular Lt and Capt be suitably standardized as tables are giving them pension less than hon ranks. 
  12. Tables of OROP need to be corrected as there are many mistakes in them. 
  13. There are many cases in OROP tables where pension of past pensioner of senior rank soldier/JCO/Officers has been fixed lesser than junior rank soldier/JCO/Officer retiring in 2014,2015,2016. This anomaly is against essence of OROP.
  14. It was impressed upon Justice Reddy that our widows are living in penury and whatever corrections are recommended they should first take care of widows, soldiers, JCOs and then officers. 
  15. It was impressed upon Justice Reddy that award of OROP is a concept in perpetuity and cannot be permitted to be tinkered by the Govt. 

Justice Reddy paid full attention to all the points and asked pointed questions to understand the issuest and its implications vividly. Justice Reddy was very receptive and heard ESM with rapt attention. However he firmly rejected the issues which were not in his purview as per terms of reference given to him by the Govt. 

Maj Gen Satbir Singh thanked Justice Reddy for listening to the grievances of ESM with rapt attention. 

Similar points were given by ESM at Chandigarh, these points are enclosed for information of all. 

It is suggested that ESM may please take a note of these points and present it to Justice Reddy during his interaction with ESM in your city. 

Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
OROP is our right. Dilution in OROP will NOT be accepted.

 
IF YOU SEE SOMEONE WITHOUT A SMILE GIVE HIM ONE OF YOURS.

SARASWATI : Ancient Indians – Satya Samhita

SOURCE:
https://ancientindians.in/maps/map-of-epic-cities-of-india-by-jijth-n-r/



                      PROJECT SARASWATI

Thursday, August 18, 2016

SOUNDS OF BATTLE DRUMS FROM SOUTH BLOCK

SOURCE:
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/vk-singh-tried-to-deny-me-promotion-via-false-charges-malafide-intent-army-chief-dalbir-singh/ar-BBvKqf7?li=AAggbRN&ocid=iehp


                                     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAKAERPjTaE  ]




        VK Singh tried to deny me promotion

                                    via

               false charges, malafide intent

              : Army Chief Dalbir Singh





In the first instance of a serving Army chief speaking out against a predecessor and a serving minister, General Dalbir Singh, Chief of Army Staff, has accused General (retired) V K Singh, Minister of State for External Affairs, of trying to stall his promotion “with mysterious design, malafide intent and to arbitrarily punish” him for “extraneous reasons”.

 
In an affidavit submitted in his personal capacity to the Supreme Court Wednesday, General Dalbir Singh has said that in 2012 “I was sought to be victimised by the then COAS” General V K Singh “with the sole purpose of denying me promotion to the appointment of Army Commander”.

 
“False, baseless and imaginary allegations of lapses were levelled against me in the show cause notice” of May 19, 2012 and consequent imposition of an “illegal” discipline and vigilance (DV) ban, the Army chief has stated in his affidavit.
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition moved by Lt Gen (retd) Ravi Dastane who alleged favouritism in Dalbir Singh’s selection as Army Commander, making him next in line to succeed General Bikram Singh.

 
Dalbir Singh was placed under a DV ban by V K Singh between April and May 2012 for alleged “failure of command and control” after a Court of Inquiry was ordered into an operation carried out in Jorhat, Assam on the night of December 20-21, 2011 by the 3 Corps Intelligence and Surveillance Unit.

 
Dalbir Singh was then General Officer Commanding of the Dimapur-based 3 Corps. Referring to the Jorhat operation in his affidavit, he has stated “on that day, I was away on part of annual leave and rejoined duty on 26 Dec 2011”.
His promotion as GOC-in-C, Eastern Command, with effect from June 15, 2012 was cleared by General Bikram Singh who reversed the DV ban after V K Singh retired on May 31, 2012.


 
Dalbir Singh was placed under a DV ban by V K Singh between April and May 2012.© Provided by Indian Express Dalbir Singh was placed under a DV ban by V K Singh between April and May 2012.


This delayed promotion, after reserving the vacant Army Commander’s post for 15 days, was challenged by Dastane in the Supreme Court. He contended he was eligible to be Army Commander but was denied the opportunity by General Bikram Singh who favoured Dalbir Singh despite the latter being under a DV ban at the relevant time.

 
In February 2012, months before he moved against Dalbir Singh, V K Singh had lost his legal battle on the age row in Supreme Court which held that the government’s decision on his date of birth would apply to his service matters, prompting him to withdraw his petition. The court told V K Singh that he could not go back on the commitment he made to abide by the government decision to treat his date of birth as May 10, 1950 and rejected the contention of “prejudice” and “perversity” against him.

 
In his affidavit in response to Dastane’s petition, Dalbir Singh has mounted a direct attack on V K Singh: “The passing of directions for initiating administrative action against me after about one month of having already finalised the Court of Inquiry smacks of a motivated, biased, arbitrary and malicious intent to punish me which the then COAS executed apparently as planned by him.”

 
He has underlined it is now “revealed clearly that the imposition of DV ban and issue of show cause notice to me by the then COAS was illegal and premeditated”.
“Despite their being no evidence against me at the Court of Inquiry, the show cause notice was issued malafidely. no material whatsoever of attendant circumstances was provided to me. The show cause notice issued, beside suffering from vagueness, was premeditated and also against the principles of natural justice,” his affidavit states.

 
He has pointed out that V K Singh, in his order on April 23, 2012, recommended “action against some officers of the Eastern Command without recommending any action to be taken against Respondent No. 3 (Dalbir Singh)... how and on what basis he had changed his mind on 18.05.2012 is not forthcoming

 
Stating he was “victimised for extraneous reasons”, he said the “illegal imposition of DV ban” could not be made a basis for Dastane to challenge his appointment as Army Commander. “In fact, it is the answering respondent (Dalbir Singh) who is the victim and not the appellant (Dastane),” his affidavit states.
Referring to the reply filed by the Ministry of Defence in June 2014, Dalbir Singh’s affidavit states “it is now clearly established that the authorities, including the Government of India, Ministry of Defence were satisfied of gross injustice meted out to me and my honour and military reputation including my innocence...”.

 
The Ministry, in its affidavit, had not only rejected Dastane’s challenge but also censured the manner in which V K Singh had placed Dalbir Singh under the DV ban saying “the entire exercise to issue show cause notice was premeditated and as per records, the directions issued in this regard, including imposition of the DV ban and issue of show cause notice, were found to be illegal”.




















 

OROP : OROP PANEL WON'T ADDRESS KEY ISSUES

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/orop-panel-won-t-address-key-issues-say-ex-servicemen/281874.html



    OROP  PANEL WON'T ADDRESS
                           KEY ISSUES

Chandigarh, August 17
 
The one-man Judicial Committee comprising Justice L Narasimha Reddy set up by the Central Government to look into the implementation of “one rank, one pension” (OROP) formula for the ex-servicemen and address anomalies arising thereof held its first public hearing at the Chandimandir Military Station today. Ex-servicemen contended that major points of discord were not included in the committee’s terms of reference.

A large number of retired armed forces personnel across all ranks attended the hearing to present their views and opinions before the committee, which is scheduled to submit its reports to the government in December. Justice Reddy is a former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.

Ex-servicemen said major points of discord that did not form part of the committee’s mandate included the definition of OROP, not equalising the pension annually, not fixing pension according to the highest rate for the particular rank and instead basing it on the average rate of the rank, fixing the date of implementation and base year for calculations.

Veterans said unless these key issues were resolved, OROP would lose its real essence. It would not only deprive them of full benefits, but also lead to more disparities later on. This, they claimed, would lead to more unrest and bad blood.