One Rank One Pension: Finance Ministry to take call

The Defence Ministry has arrived at a consensus formula of One Rank One Pension (OROP) with the defence forces and has referred the calculations to Finance Ministry for its decision. This was informed by the defence ministry to the parliamentary standing committee on defence.

In a scathing observation, the standing committee observed that the OROP “issue has been protracted for considerably long passage of time and it is beyond the understanding of the Committee as to what reasons are preventing the Government from making necessary decisions and arriving at a solution”.

In September 2013, Narendra Modi, in his first public rally after being made the NDA’s Prime Ministerial candidate, promised the implementation of OROP. The UPA government announced the implementation of OROP in the interim budget of 2014-15 and allotted Rs 500 crore towards it. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley reaffirmed the commitment by allotting Rs 1,000 crore in his first full budget last year.“We are pursuing intensively with the Ministry of Finance also. Our target, naturally, is that these are the commitments of the Government. They have to be honoured as fast as possible,” the defence ministry told the standing committee.

Explaining the sequence of events, the defence ministry stated that meetings chaired by the then-defence minister, AK Antony were held in February and April last year where a Working Group chaired by the CGDA was set up. The Working Group could not arrive at any consensus and no clear recommendation was given in its report submitted on 26 May. Government then referred the implementation of OROP to a committee of secretaries. After intervention by the defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, the defence ministry has managed to reconcile the differences and has arrived at a formula.

The details of the formula are not mentioned in the report. However, it is believed that the problem of variations in rank and last pay drawn has been solved by creating standardised slabs for each rank with a certain length of service. Navdeep Singh, a lawyer in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and an expert on veterans’ issues, says, “Mr Parrikar has proactively ensured a consensus of all stakeholders as per the actual concept of OROP which broadly implies that the pensions of past retirees would be based upon the pensions of fresh retirees and revised periodically. OROP is likely to be applicable from 1st April 2014.”

Rs 54,500 crore have been allocated for defence pensions in this year’s budget. This is 9% more than the Rs 51,000 crore allocated last year.

Courtesy: The Indian Express

5 Ways India Mistreats Its Bravest Men And Women. Yes, We're Talking About Our Ex-Military Officers

Here are just a handful of stories that will make you realise that the men and women who volunteer their lives in exchange for serving India are also endangering their dignity. 

1. Jobs for ex-servicemen are limited

That’s not an ordinary taxi driver – it’s former Havaldar Gurmukh Singh Sahanu. There’s a reason you see ex-servicemen in careers that offer much less than a shadow of the glory and discipline of their former roles – the government isn’t pushing corporate India to hire them. Instead, you find ex-army men working in  blue collar jobs like security and gyms. There are 50,000 men who retire from the armed forces every year, and most are still capable and willing to work. These men have a discipline and mental agility forged in life or death situations. 

India can learn from America, which offers tax benefits to companies hiring veterans (ex-servicemen). For a US corporate employer, the tax credit can be as high as $9,600 for every qualified veteran hired. These tax credit rules applied to all veterans hired before January 1, 2014. Since then, unfortunately, the US Congress has been in a bit of turmoil and the extension of the tax credit remains in abeyance. Last year, on Memorial Day, Wal-Mart, one of the largest retail chains, announced its commitment to hiring veterans. It set a target of 1,00,000 over a five-year span. 

2. Army authorities don’t care about disabled soldiers

Army authorities faced flak from the Supreme Court in a recent judgment ruled in favour of Sukhvinder Singh, who was discharged from the army in 2002, a year after he joined, because he lost his hearing. The court found that not only did the army 'NOT' give him a disability pension for 12 years, but also didn’t even consider if he should be retained in service in any other category. In fact, the Supreme Court has pulled up the army for fighting against giving ex-army soldiers a slight raise in disability pension.

“So what? The government can have at least this much of budget for its soldiers who are dying for the people of this country every day. What is the point of having these memorials and placards saluting our defence personnel if you litigate against the disabled soldiers till the Supreme Court? You should pay them,” said the Supreme Court bench.

3. The horrors of war and the poor living condition scars them with mental issues

Here’re some facts:

In the last 5 years, 597 military personnel have committed suicide. Out of these, 108 suicides are just from last year.

In 2012, it was noted that over four times more soldiers die battling their internal demons rather than fighting militants in Kashmir or north-east. Stress-related deaths in the shape of suicides and "fragging" (killing fellow soldiers) show no sign of flagging in the Army, with the toll alarmingly crossing the 100 mark year after year.

Those who live long enough to retire aren’t safe either.

Mental hospitals and military hospitals don’t have enough beds or staff to manage the inflow of ex-military men who report anxiety, frustration, and depression.  Many are pushed into disorder due to the combination of low pay, the stress of family, and inability to adjust to civilian life. And the army doesn’t seem to have the concern to do something about it.

4. If they are injured in the line of duty, Indian soldiers might not get war injury pension

After ex-Major DP Singh lost his leg to Pakistani mortar fire, the army refused to recognise him as a war-wounded soldier. He receives only 14,000 Rupees a month, because the army refused to pay him the dues that a war injured soldier gets (matching the salary he was receiving when hurt in the line of duty), and instead scheduled him for a disabled pension. Then, the army reduced his 100% disability pension to 90 percent.  

Today, he is a famous marathoner, and also engaged in legal 7 year marathon with the army for a dignified life. 

More recently, former NSG commando Surender Singh, who risked life and limb while saving Mumbai from the 26/11 attacks didn’t receive his pension for almost 2 years. He is today an AAP MLA, and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal had to intervene to get his pension.

5. They legally are not allowed to file High court cases against the army 

The Armed Forces Tribunal Act kills the right of army people to file High Court cases against the army.  This week, Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM),one of India’s largest ex-servicemen bodies has written to PM Modi asking to amend the act.

By: Kunal Anand

Courtesy: India Times

Disability and War Injury pension enhanced based on the fitment of minimum of pay within pay-band rather than minimum of pay-band itself

Five months after similar orders were issued for civilians, the Ministry of Defence has enhanced the disability and war injury elements of disabled and war disabled defence pensioners based on the fitment of minimum of pay within the pay-band rather than the minimum of pay-band itself.

The Ministry of Defence letter can be downloaded by clicking here.

The earlier post of November 2014 related to similar enhancement for civilians can be accessed by clicking here for a greater understanding of the subject.

Of course, this benefit has been granted only with effect from 24 September 2012 and not from 01 January 2006 despite the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld judicial decisions granting the benefit of such enhancement in pensions of civil and military pensioners from 01 January 2006.

Much credit goes to Disabled War Veterans India (DIWAVE) for thoroughly following this through. 

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

Ex-Armymen body writes to PM on right to appeal in High Courts

Written by Man Aman Singh Chhina | Chandigarh |

Sumitra Devi, whose husband died during Kargil war due to heart attack was refused liberalised benefits by MoD, which are admissible only in operational deaths. AFT, too, dismissed her petition but the High Court quashed AFT’s order and granted relief.

Lt Nishant Karol of the armoured corps died during a battle. AFT allowed the pension to parents only for a period of 6 months prior to filing of the petition. The High Court set aside the order and directed the release of pension from the date of death.

Maj Arvind Suhag suffered 100 per cent disability during an operational move in Kargil area. AFT refused the grant of war injury pension. The Delhi HC set aside AFT’s order and granted him the applicable war injury pension.

All the above cases show that the litigants from the defence community had a potent avenue of appeal in the high courts across the country which has been taken away by an apex court judgment last month. Now, one of the largest ex-servicemen body in the country has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking for an amendment to the Armed Forces Tribunal Act to allow for appeals in the high courts.

Writing to the PM, Major General Satbir Singh (retd), Chairman, Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) has said that the majority of litigants before the AFT cannot afford litigation in the SC where an appeal is in any case not admissible unless one can prove a “point of law of general public importance”.

“We have reasonable information to believe that one of the grounds raised by the MoD/Army in the appeal for denying the right of judicial remedy, like other citizens of India, was that fundamental rights can be restricted/abrogated under Article 33 of the Constitution for defence personnel and hence a judicial remedy under writ jurisdiction of high court would not be available. If it is true that this argument was raised, then it is the most unfortunate that the system itself is pleading for placing defence personnel on a lower pedestal than other citizens and pleading before the Supreme Court that the military community does not deserve the enjoyment of fundamental rights like others,” said Singh.

The letter goes on to say that it is not understood how the defence ministry expects poor litigants, including disabled soldiers and widows from all over the country, to travel to Delhi and engage lawyers in SC to fight their cases. Most of the cases in the AFT involve issues such as disability benefits, pension, minor allowances, pay fixation, ACRs etc and litigants would now be expected to suffer in silence if they feel that they have not got justice from AFT.

Speaking to The Indian Express, Major Navdeep Singh, a former President of the Bar Association of AFT Chandigarh bench said that the decision of the SC based on the appeal filed by the MoD makes access to justice impossible and illusory for veterans and widows since on one hand the high courts have been asked not to entertain writs against AFT orders and on the other hand there is no provision of appeal in the Act to the SC.

“The situation is in teeth of constitution bench decisions of the SC including the L Chandra Kumar’s case, Kartar Singh’s case and more recently the National Tax Tribunal judgement of 2014,” he said.

According to Singh, AFT functions under the MoD and even its members are appointed by the MoD and selected by a committee which has the Defence Secretary as its member. “We request you to kindly abrogate Sections 30 and 31 of the AFT Act so that AFT orders can be challenged on the lines of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) thereby making justice accessible and practical for defence personnel, ex-servicemen, widows and their families,” said Singh in the letter.

Courtesy: The New Indian Express

SOLDIERS, NOT SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS - Deepak Sinha

Both the print and the broadcast media have focussed on the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court, abrogating the repugnant Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008 as unconstitutional. In doing so, the apex court has shown itself to be a powerful defender of the citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Sadly, at around the same time, another landmark order received little media coverage. The highest court of the land turned approximately five crore members of the military community, that includes serving soldiers, veterans and their families, into bona fide second-class citizens.

In this retrograde action, the military members received no support from civilian bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence, who — and this will certainly come as a big surprise to most of readers — are considered by most military men to be even more dangerous than the most fearsome militant they may have met!

In fact, one can go so far as to state that there are many within the military who believe that the damage that the civilian bureaucracy has inflicted on the military over the years, in every aspect of its functioning, far outweighs anything that any of our enemies has ever been able to do us.

To be fair to the bureaucracy, senior officers of the military too have certainly played their part and supported them in their shenanigans, some deliberately for their own ends, but most because, they were unable or unwilling to comprehend the intent or ramifications of the issues involved.

In this particular case, in an appeal by the Ministry of Defence, based on Article 33 of the Constitution that empowers the executive to restrict or abrogate the fundamental rights of members of the Armed Forces — an article that incidentally, is also applicable to other uniformed services including the police — a two-judge Bench in its order of March 12, has taken away the right of High Courts to hear writ petitions that are filed against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

It has, instead, directly taken upon itself, the burden of such litigation. You can be forgiven for believing that by its actions, the Supreme Court has ensured that members of the Armed Forces will receive speedy justice, something that many citizens can only wish for in this country.

Unfortunately for us, the implications of the ruling, as lawyer and tireless advocate for the rights of the military community, Navdeep Singh, has explained, is nothing short of disastrous. The Supreme Court only entertains appeals that concern a ‘point of law of general public importance’ involving the case.

The issue in question here is the fact that, as per the Supreme Court itself, ‘public importance’ does not include issues that are personal to litigants, such as matters pertaining to disability or to other kind of pensions, pay, promotions or annual confidential reports. This implies that most petitioners will never be able to challenge any order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that they are dissatisfied with.

Joseph Heller of Catch 22 fame would have certainly appreciated the humour of the situation. Thus, in practical terms, the court has ensured that the Armed Forces community does not deserve what every murderer or rapist, or for that matter, what even Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab took for granted: The right to appeal against the orders of every court till it was finally disposed of by the highest court of the land. The Supreme Court has, in one fell swoop, demolished the cardinal principle of democracy — the right of appeal against what one may consider an unfair judicial ruling.

The tragedy does not end here because most cases before the Armed Forces Tribunal pertain to military veterans or widows and next of kin, none of whom are affected by Article 33, which among others was invoked to justify the ruling. Moreover, this ruling is only specific to the Armed Forces and not to others in uniform. Ironically, it does not apply to the bureaucracy that pushed for it, since the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal can be challenged in the High Court.

We need to ask ourselves: What was the necessity for the Ministry of Defence to have appealed against High Courts’ entertaining writs by Armed Forces personnel if they were dissatisfied with judgements of the Armed Forces Tribunal, especially since other Union or State Government services, including the paramilitary and police forces, can continue to do so in similar circumstances?

Is this just another deliberate attempt, in a long series of such measures, to ensure that the military continues to eat the humble pie before the civilian bureaucracy?

(The writer is a  former military veteran and consultant with Observer Research Foundation)

One Rank One Pension Will Be Announced Before Govt Completes One Year of Rule-Defence Minister (TV report on 13.04.2015)

One Rank One Pension Will Be Announced Before Govt Completes One Year of Rule-Defence Minister (TV report on 13.04.2015)

Putting things in perspective, Defense minister Manohar Parrikar has justified the decision to go for govt to government route for purchase of Rafale jets from France. He also indicated that the announcement for one rank one pension will be made before govt completes one year in office. Defense Minister visited DD news studios for a frank and candid chat .

'One Rank One Pension' rollout just weeks away

Military veterans are finally set to get their dues following Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar's assertion that the 'One Rank One Pension' scheme is just weeks away from being implemented, reports Nitin Gokhale.

The long-pending 'One Rank One Pension,' scheme meant to ensure that a uniform pension is paid to defence personnel who retire at the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement, is now weeks away from actual implementation, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has said.

Speaking to this correspondent in Delhi on Thursday, April 9, the minister said: "All hurdles, including a political clearance on its financial implications, have been removed. Now the actual calculation and administrative details are being worked out. We are sure to get the scheme rolling in the next few weeks."

Admitting that there is huge scepticism over the implementation of the One Rank One Pension scheme, Parrikar said: "This time we have ensured that nothing goes wrong."

The long-standing demand has been an emotive issue with defence pensioners for almost half a decade with many of them even marching in protest several times to Rashtrapati Bhavan between 2008 and 2010 to return their gallantry medals.

Courtesy: Rediff.com

‘Ex-servicemen entitled to pension on basis of rank last held’

The pension payable to ex-servicemen should be calculated on the basis of the rank they held last before retiring from service even if it was held for a day and more for months as perceived, the Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in Chennai has reiterated.

Justice V. Periya Karuppiah and administrative member Lt. Gen. K. Surendra Nath (Retd.) of the Bench also held that all ex-servicemen were entitled to their pension on the basis of their rank last held and not just for pensioners, who retired before 1996.

Citing recommendations made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission and an order by the Ministry of Defence, the Bench said, “We have already observed that the requirement of 10 months’ service in the last held rank or Group to earn pension of that rank or Group has been removed and it is sufficient for a personnel of Armed Forces to hold the post even for one day at the time of his discharge to earn pension for that rank.”

When the benefits conferred upon the Armed Forces personnel on the changed policies have been laid, “it ought to have been issued by the respondents without any request from the applicant,” they said in a recent order.

Arrears sought

P. Gopalakrishnan, who retired as Junior Warrant Officer (JWO) in the Indian Air Force, applied for an appeal seeking the AFT to direct authorities to re-fix his pension in his last held rank as JWO in X Group from the date of his discharge in 2005 and sought for payment of arrears.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Bench directed the authorities to issue corrigendum for the restructured pension in the rank of JWO and to pay the arrears of revised pensions within three months.

Courtesy: The Hindu