AFT: Pay military pensioners as per length of service

In a decision that will come as a major relief to military pensioners, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has ruled that the pension payable to such individuals should be calculated on the basis of actual length of service rendered by them, not as per the theoretical ‘maximum terms of engagement’ prescribed for their rank.

Allowing the petition of a 96-yrear-old IAF veteran, Master Warrant Officer Chander Bhan, the AFT’s Chandigarh Bench comprising Justice Virender Singh and Vice Admiral AG Thapliyal has ruled that the master policy of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), as approved by the Cabinet, is clear on the point that pension is now to be regulated as per the rank and length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement.

Bhan, who had joined the erstwhile Royal Indian Air Force in 1944 and was released from service in 1980, had contended that while he had served for 36 years, he was being paid the pension applicable to 28 years of service under the One Rank One Pension on the pretext that though he had served longer, the maximum terms of engagement mentioned in rules for his rank was only 28 years. Hence, in accordance with the implementation instructions issued by the MoD, pension was to be restricted as per maximum terms applicable for the rank held by a person at the time of retirement.

The Bench held that the implementation instructions could not pose any additional impediment since it would amount  to dividing pensioners based upon the maximum terms of engagement applicable at different dates of retirement. The Bench also observed that the earlier accepted recommendations of pay commissions had pegged pension to a maximum term of 33 years and the same could not be reduced through administrative instructions. It added that it was also arbitrary to pay pension for a lesser length of service when he was made to serve much longer.

Incidentally, this was the last judgment by Justice Virender Singh who retired this month after having served as the AFT chairperson. The AFT is currently functioning with only two judicial members against the sanctioned strength of 17. The remaining two members are scheduled to retire in December this year. Though the MoD has advertised vacancies, the appointments would be subject to the outcome of a case challenging AFT rules that is pending before the Supreme Court.

Courtesy: Tribune News Service, Chandigarh, October 30.

Today we mark the 48th anniversary of Vijay Diwas, the triumph of India over Pakistan in the 13-day war that culminated on 16th December 1971. The day commemorates not just India’s decisive military victory, unparalleled in modern military history anywhere in the world, but also the valour and courage of the Indian soldier. About 3,843 Indian soldiers died in this war that resulted in the unilateral surrender of the Pakistan Army and led to the creation of Bangladesh.

From the War emerged stories of extraordinary courage too – a total of 1,313 Indian soldiers from the Army, Navy and Air Force won gallantry awards – including four Param Vir Chakra’s The names and acts of bravery of Param Virs Lance Naik Albert Ekka, 2/Lt Arun Khetarpal, Fl Off Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon, and Major Hoshiar Singh (Later Brig) are legendary.

Among the soldiers who returned home triumphant were also 9,851 injured; many of them disabled. The Indian Army is observing this year, 2018, as the ‘Year of Disabled Soldiers in Line of Duty’ to honour soldiers who have been disabled while serving the nation and to celebrate the undying spirit of ‘Soldiering’. And so today, it is also for us to remember the incredible sacrifices of men like Maj Gen Ian Cardozo, AVSM SM (Retd), Major Sujeet Kumar Pancholy, Captain Bhagwan Singh Jodha and the hundreds of others who fought and suffered disability in 1971.

Maj Gen Cardozo’s remarkable military career saw him losing a leg when he stepped on a landmine in the 1971 war. He cut off his mangled leg with his own khukri and told his Gorkha batman to “go and bury it.” Determined not to let the disability affect his career as a soldier, he later became the first disabled officer in the Indian Army to command a battalion and then an infantry brigade.

I recently had the honour of meeting such heroes who have been disabled, but have never let their disability come in their way. Maj Gen Sunil Kumar Razdan, Kirti Chakra, VSM, is nothing short of an inspiration. A gun shot in an anti-terrorist operation in Jammu & Kashmir in 1994, left him paraplegic for life. Regardless, he has overcame all obstacles to become the first wheel-chair user General in the Indian Army.

Yet, there are many cases of our disabled soldiers being made to run from pillar to post for their rightful dues. The recent case of Ex-Rect Vasa Veera Bhadrudu, a disabled soldier of the Madras Engineer Group invalided out with disability pension in 1976. While his pension payment order was issued, he was never informed of the same. His unstable mental condition meant he did not get his benefits until he was informed in 2012. However, since then, he was harassed and denied his dues with hyper-technical objections by Accounts Officers of the Defence Accounts Department. It was only when his plight was highlighted on social media that the Defence Minister Smt Nirmala Sitharaman directed concerned authorities to take action.

This bureaucratic apathy towards the disabled soldiers is not new. In 2011, I wrote to the then Defence Minister Shri AK Antony to adopt a compassionate approach towards veterans on the issue of litigations regarding disability and pension benefits to disabled soldiers. The Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) had issued a memo stating that the veterans who took the MoD to court for disability and pension benefits would have to fight their cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. It expressed callousness on the part of the UPA Government since it involved thousands of veterans who had lost their limbs and/or eyesight and/or sustained grievous harm in the service of our nation.

In February 2014, I again wrote to Mr. A.K Antony to withdraw the DESW order which required its legal officers to appeal automatically to the Supreme Court in all cases decided by lower courts against the MoD in matters relating to ex-servicemen disability and pension benefits. The order was withdrawn after my intervention. The current government conceded to my request of keeping the litigations/appeals to the minimum and ensured that there is no denial of disability benefits by incorrectly branding in-service disabilities as “neither attributable, nor aggravated by service”.

Seeing the extent of automatic appeals being filed against soldiers’ disability pension/benefits, former Defence minister Shri Manohar Parikkar constituted the Raksha Mantri’s Expert Committee to suggest measures for reducing Litigation & Public Grievances in July 2015. The report made several important recommendations to bring down frivolous appeals against soldiers. While many recommendations have been agreed to for implementation, no further action has been taken for their implementation or for withdrawal of all pending appeals has been taken. The flip flop of contradictory instructions on filing and not filing appeals has sadly continued.

The Supreme Court too has more than once given scathing observations on these frivolous appeals. Most recently, the SC has again passed strictures in April this year deprecating MoD’s tendency to continue with appeals in settled matters.

That our men and women in uniform and their families suffer insensitivity, apathy and painful battles to fight for their disability pension/benefits is a matter of deep concern and I have taken up the matter strongly with successive governments as well as in Parliament.

In November, the Official handle of Defence Spokesperson tweeted that the Ministry has been pursuing the issue of litigations against disabled veterans, and acknowledges the efforts by stakeholders in reducing them, and aims to find ways to withdraw the remaining cases. I hope that this time, the Ministry will make good its assurance to the soldiers.

Our men and women in uniform bravely defend the country, even at the cost of their lives and limbs. The least we can do is to show them the respect and honour they deserve and to assure them that the Nation is indebted to their service and sacrifices.

By Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP (Rajya Sabha)

Published in Times of India

Controversial order concerning military status withdrawn

The controversial order downgrading the status of military ranks vis-a-vis appointments held by officers of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQCS) issued on 18 October 2016, has been withdrawn on the directions of the Defence Minister.

Many have asked about the correction of status equation of ranks other than commissioned officers. To put you at ease, the said letter did not affect the status equation at lower ranks and the said ranks continue to enjoy their status vis-a-vis other services as before.

There used to be some confusion of relativities at the PBOR level between the military and the police, but thankfully this has been cleared by the 6th CPC. Following is the order of ranks (with Grade Pay) as recommended by the 6th CPC and accepted by the Government.

(The amount in brackets is the Grade Pay)

AC & LAC = Constable of Police (2000)

Corporal = Head Constable of Police (2400)

Sergeant = Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (2800)

JWO = Sub Inspector of Police (4200)

WO = Inspector of Police (4600)

MWO = Assistant Commissioner of Police (4800)

Assistant Commissioner of Police after 4 years of service (5400)

Confusion between Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) and Military Service Pay (MSP) and the need to ignore unnecessary rumours and false hopes

There are certain messages floating on social and other media that the Supreme Court of India has passed directions to pay ‘Military Service Pay’ with effect from January 2006 rather than from 2008 as was granted by the Government.

This is incorrect and there are no such directions. People are probably confusing the recent judgment on Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) with the concept of Military Service Pay (MSP). Even otherwise, de hors the absence of any such decision, no parallel can be drawn between the two issues.

As explained in the post of 17^th December 2017, the Sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended the implementation of the ‘Modified Assured Career Progression’ Scheme (MACP) providing for the grant of three financial upgradations of pay at the gap of 8, 16 and 24 years of service in case of stagnation, for the defence services.

The Special Army Instructions (SAI) on the subject had also been issued with effect from 01^st January 2006 and which contained therein the stipulation of MACP. However later, despite the existence of the said SAI, another fresh letter was issued by the Government stating that MACP will be prospectively implemented from 01^st September 2008.

Hence ultimately, unlike other pay related modalities which were implemented with effect from 01^st January 2006, MACP was implemented with effect from 01^st September 2008, thereby not including in its scope the personnel who were released from service between the two dates. The Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), however, ruled that the pay commission had granted all pay and pension related benefits from January 2006 and the prospective implementation was only effectuated for ‘allowances’ and hence MACP was also to be implemented from January 2006 since it pertained to upgradation of pay. While ordering so, the AFT had followed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had earlier ruled upon the implementation of improved pay-scales of defence personnel from 1996 rather than 1997 in an anomaly emanating out of the Fifth Pay Commission. The decision of the AFT was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court but the Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India thereby upholding the grant of MACP from 01 January 2006 rather than 01^st September 2008.

The aspect to be noted however in the above is that in case of MSP, the pay commission had itself noted that it shall be applied prospectively without any arrears (Para 2.3.12 of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report). Further, when the SAI 1/S/2008 was issued, while it applied benefits of all modalities from 2006 (including MACP), it had specifically stated in Paragraph 5 (d) that arrears of MSP shall only be paid with effect from 01^st September 2008. There was no such negative stipulation for MACP. Further MACP was a replacement for the earlier ACP while MSP was completely a new element.

Hence, as the above would show, while the MACP was applied from 2006 but later tacitly retrospectively withdrawn and made applicable from 2008, an action was at the heart of the debate in Courts, there was no such controversy with regard to MSP which was always meant to be paid prospectively from September 2008.

Though, at the surface, both issues might appear to be similar to the untrained eye, there is actually absolutely no parallel between the concepts of MACP and MSP, and hence it is in the interest of sanity to ignore messages being circulated that MSP arrears will be paid to all personnel with effect from 01 January 2006. One should avoid forwarding such messages since it may promote unnecessary litigation and propel false hopes.

Important decision for ranks other than Commissioned Officers who retired between 01-01-2006 and 30-08-2008

The Sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended the implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) providing for the grant of three financial upgradations of pay at the gap of 8, 16 and 24 years of service in case of stagnation.

Unlike other pay related modalities which were implemented with effect from 01 January 2006, the MACP was implemented with effect from 01 September 2008, thereby not including in its scope the personnel who were released from service between the two dates.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had however ruled that the pay commission had granted all pay and pension related benefits from January 2006 and the prospective implementation was only effectuated for ‘allowances’ and hence the MACP was also to be implemented from January 2006 since it pertained to upgradation of pay. While ordering so, the AFT had followed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had earlier ruled upon the implementation of improved pay-scales of defence personnel from 1996 rather than 1997 in an anomaly emanating out of the Fifth Pay Commission.

The decision of the AFT was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court but the Apex Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India thereby upholding the grant of MACP from 01 January 2006 rather than 01 September 2009. This will affect the pay and pensionary benefits of those personnel who retired during 01-01-2006 and 30-08-2008. 

Pre-2016 Airmen & NCs (E) retirees are to submit their service details to get corrigendum PPOs

Dear Air Veterans,

As per DAV  letter No. Air HQ/99798/Misc/7th CPC/O/RP/DAV dated 13^th October 2017 and Air HQ letter No. Air HQ/99798/9/SP/DAV dated 23^rd October 2017, in order to issue corrigendum PPOs to all ex-airmen, NCs (E) and their eligible family pensioners they are to submit the details in given format. The required information in case of Airmen may please be forwarded to DAV email dav.airmen@gov.in and NCs (E) to dirav.nce@gov.in by fax on 011-25696359 or by post on the following address:

            Director AV-III

            3^rd Floor

            AFRO

            Subroto Park

            New Delhi-110 010

            The details can be viewed by clicking here.

On Reemployment, Dignity of Labour and an Egalitarian Society

A few days ago, I responded to a tweet wherein a Subedar Major was driving a cab to earn his living. I found the situation odd because of reasons I would articulate in due course, within this write-up.

There were mixed reactions to my response on twitter. Some agreed with me, while some, including a few of my very good friends, stated that we should respect dignity of labour and that there was nothing wrong in driving a cab to earn one’s living.

I fully stand behind the concept of dignity of labour. I also firmly believe in an egalitarian society. I further believe in living a life shorn of redundant ceremonial regalia and working with my own hands. But that is not the point that I wish to make.

My plain and simple argument is that as a society and a nation we have failed to harness the skills of our military veterans, in this case, a Subedar Major of the Corps of Engineers of the Indian Army who would have served in uniform for at least three decades and who retired from a Group B (Formerly known as Class II) level gazetted appointment. Would a Subedar Major be driving a cab if offered a commensurate post-retirement placement by us as national policy? the answer would probably be in the negative. Would an equivalent gazetted police or civil officer be found driving a cab like him? The answer to that too would probably be in the negative.

Egalitarianism and dignity of labour is one thing, however making use of skills and providing a dignified post-retirement re-settlement to soldiers is a different issue altogether. Our soldiers start retiring in their 30s, while some of us may be happy to see them stand guard at the neighbourhood ATMs that simply is not what they are worth. All organisations have a certain hierarchy based upon skills and experience, and that hierarchy cannot be merely brushed aside or stretched to absurd levels in the name of ‘dignity of labour’, since if that be so, then there would be no harm in a retired Colonel or a retired DIG of Police taking up the appointment of a security guard after retirement! If that be so, then there should be and would be no reason for holding on to any hierarchy in any organisation or establishment.

Though much effort is going into it today, the state of resettlement of our soldiers is not worth praise. To take an example, the Railways, with much fanfare keep initiating special drives for recruitment of ex-servicemen. But what are the appointments? -the jobs of cleaners and helpers and khalasis at Group D level (junior even to a newly recruited Sepoy) being offered to all ranks, including to Junior Commissioned Officers of the rank of Naib Subedar, Subedar and Subedar Major. Appointing a former senior functionary of the Army as a cleaner or even a driver is not dignity of labour, it is an affront to the dignity and experience of the military rank, it is indignity of skill sets, it is exploitation of human resources. A fauji lives and dies for his izzat but there is no protection of his military status on re-employment on the civil side. This old news-report would also show how such appointments were accepted with heavy hearts by ex-servicemen and not willingly. Our society also is blissfully unaware that if soldiers are unable to find a suitable vocation after their early release from the defence services at the peak of their lives, they at times develop complexes and even psychiatric ailments, which, of course is an area not even documented or researched upon this side of the world.

Of about 60,000 personnel who retire every year, the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR) is able to adjust only about 4000. Even after the DGR had written to all Defence Public Sector Undertakings on directions of the Defence Minister, just 8 PSUs even cared to reply with only about 9.5% vacancies utilized. If such is the response of the official establishment even to the right intentioned moves of the political executive, one can well imagine the overall state of affairs.

Familial and societal responsibilities are at peak levels when soldiers retire in their 30s and 40s. Their income drops down exactly to half when they are released, unlike their civilian counterparts who continue in guaranteed employment till the age of 60. To thrust upon any kind of job onto such veterans in the name of ‘dignity of labour’ not commensurate to their skills or experience, would thus be a disservice, to say the least, in my humble opinion. 

Courtesy: Maj Navdeep Singh

“Babu Hatao, Fauji Bachao”: Trifling with the Fauj and National Security

Civil-military relations are today at an all-time low and although the decades-long continuity of the bureaucratic hand is obvious in the current NDA-2 dispensation, there is also evidence of the political leadership humiliating the military. Let us begin with the CBI’s arrest of Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi, India’s former Air Chief, in connection with the Agusta Westland helicopter purchase deal. It raises some questions not only about the functioning of the political leadership and the bureaucrat-police network, but also about hidden motivations and unintended compromise of national security due to its effect on the morale of India’s military.

Questions arise as to why ACM Tyagi was arrested when others involved were not. Was it done deliberately to humiliate him and thereby India’s military? Was this the handiwork of bureaucrats and/or the police? Who among the political hierarchy authorised his arrest?

These questions are not about whether or not ACM Tyagi is guilty of receiving bribes or any other offence. That matter will be settled by the courts after examining all evidence. But when evidence is still being collected, when ACM Tyagi is cooperating with the CBI in collection of evidence, and there is no prima facie case against him, his arrest raises the question: Why was ACM Tyagi singled out for humiliation?

Humiliating the Military

Let us recall that during the NDA-1 rule under PM Vajpayee, Defence Minister George Fernandes summarily dismissed Navy Chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat from service. It is clear that the government wanted to show its power over the military by summarily dismissing a Defence Service Chief, because the proper and sensible thing to do was to summon Admiral Bhagwat and ask him to resign. Dismissing him in a peremptory manner was an act of cowardice. The most generous view one can take is that the government (politician-bureaucrat) had no clue as to the repercussions that public humiliation of a serving Defence Chief would have on the morale of the Indian Navy and the sister services. Or was the summary dismissal by design? What was the purpose served by humiliating Admiral Bhagwat and the military as a whole?

Now that ACM Tyagi and the military have been humiliated by the NDA-2 Government, in retrospect Admiral Bhagwat’s dismissal appears to fall in place, especially because in between the Bhagwat and Tyagi incidents, there have been incidents in the NDA-2 tenure which appear to have been directed at humiliating the military and adversely affecting the soldiers’ morale, and thereby compromising national security. To name a few in random sequence:

• Sending police to manhandle peacefully agitating Veterans at Jantar Mantar;

• Stating that OROP would be given to military Veterans by taking it from dues to poor farmers;

• Notwithstanding reservations of the Defence Services Chiefs, peremptorily directing the three Service Chiefs to implement the 7CPC award without delay;

• Keeping the military without access to the 7CPC Anomalies Committee which was secretly arranged for civilians;

• Raising the salaries of the CRPF above that of soldiers;

• Downgradation of military ranks vis-a-vis civilian officials;

• Granting NFU to IPS but not to the military;

• The issue of pay parity with IAS/IPS;

• Lower hazard allowance than IAS/IPS;

• Stating that the Army did not know its own capability to carry out the post-Uri surgical strike until it was told so;

• Reducing disability pension immediately following the post-Uri surgical strike;

• The military commander being pushed aside by a bureaucrat at the 2016 Red Fort Independence Day function; and

• Insulting military war memorials and guard of honour by a functionary deliberately dressing inappropriately or casually.

These and more are apart from the Department of Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare appealing as a matter of policy against every judicial decision given in favour of individual Veterans.

Meddling with military leadership

The recent unprecedented step of “deep selection” of Lt Gen Bipin Rawat as the Army Chief-designate by superceding two senior officers, even though this is within the discretionary powers of the Cabinet, has caused disquiet among soldiers and Veterans. The reason for disquiet is that the government appears not to understand that Lt Gen Rawat is not superior in merit to his two seniors whom he has superceded, and if his experience in counter-insurgency is the criterion for his selection, it glosses over the fact that the Army is deployed in counter-insurgency only because of the decades-long failure of the bureaucracy-police in its primary role of internal security. If however deep selection was a political decision, this could seriously compromise the Army (the military in general) remaining as India’s last bastion of secular practice, and encourage sycophancy among officers to the permanent detriment of military professionalism.

It is necessary to note that previous governments, including NDA-1 and the Congress regimes preceding and including UPA-1 and UPA-2, had undoubtedly given the military a raw deal, particularly with regard to successive Central Pay Commissions and the OROP demand. Gen Vaidya was appointed the Army Chief by superceding Lt Gen Sinha, and Army Chief Gen Rodrigues was publicly castigated for his “bandicoots” remark. Even though the political leadership was primarily responsible, the hand of the bureaucracy was clear to every serving and retired soldier.

The precipitous dip in civil-military relations is because the bureaucrat-police machinations are increasingly blatant, and rather than taking control of the military and releasing it from the Babu-stranglehold, some top political leaders are thoughtlessly causing humiliation. Questions are being asked as to who will bring this to the notice of the National Security Council. One Veteran even suggested a slogan on the lines: “Babu hatao, Fauji bachao”, so that civilian control of the military is actually with the Union Cabinet.

Considering that the NSA is a police officer with enormous clout at the topmost level, upgrading of the status of the police over the military while simultaneously humiliating the military is extremely dangerous for the security and safety of India.

Major General S.G. Vombatkere, VSM, retired as the Additional DG Discipline and Vigilance in the Army HQ AG’s Branch. He is a member of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). With over 520 published papers in national and international journals and seminars, his area of interest is strategic and development-related issues. He can be contacted at e-mail: sg9kere[at]live.com

Maintenance allowance cases within armed forces should be dealt in civil courts: MoD panel

Accepting the recommendations of an experts committee, the Ministry of Defence has instructed the military authorities to avoid ordering grant of maintenance allowance to estranged spouses from pay and allowances of military personnel, saying civil courts are the right forum to approach in such cases.

The MoD panel, set up last year, submitted its report in February this year and its recommendations were accepted recently. The panel had earlier criticised the defence services for passing such orders, especially in Army, without due investigation and scrutiny.

The MoD has also accepted the recommendation that the grant of maintenance by military authorities should be an exception and, wherever awarded, should be preceded by a proper probe some kind of an inquiry related to the allegations and counter-allegations of the parties and executed by a proper speaking order.

The Army, Navy and the Air Force Acts provide that the competent authority can impose a cut up to 33 per cent on pay and allowances which can be paid to the spouse as maintenance on an application.

There has been a rise of litigation on the subject in the past.

Recently, a Lt Col had averred his wife held a doctorate and was also working in a real estate firm, but still was awarded maintenance by the Army. Another officer complained his wife was an MSc and BEd and earning a huge amount from tuitions while he had elderly parents to look after, but still deduction of arrears of maintenance had resulted in disbursement of more than Rs 30,000 to the wife per month. Another serving Colonel stated he was being expected put his earnings at the disposal of his wife who was fully qualified and competent to work and was actually working.

With growing matrimonial disputes, the number of such applications has only increased in the last few years, especially with the Army granting maintenance to the spouses on almost all applications through non-speaking orders without providing reasons.

The MoD panel has observed that the exceptional provisions are being invoked in a routine manner by defence authorities. It has also found that the system does not have the wherewithal or ability to examine the veracity of the allegations and counter-allegations of both parties, which is basically a matter of evidence that can only be weighed and dealt with by civil courts.

The panel has said that this exercise can only be carried out under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant Marriage Acts, rather than the defence services getting into what may fundamentally be a civil or private dispute between a husband and his wife.

The panel has also observed that even the Army HQ has expressed concern on the issue and that maintenance is meant to tide over a difficult financial situation and not to lead life on someone else’s expense. It has recorded that the award of maintenance results in grave civil consequences for an individual wherein a cut is imposed on his pay.

The panel has stated that though defence personnel have a bounden duty to maintain their families, such issues should be left to courts to decide based on evidence.

Source: The Indian Express

Review of novel "Love @ Air Force".

An unhappy Sergeant, Sushil Awasthi, feels that his circumstances dumped him into doing drudgery in the Air Force and that he deserved better out of life. Grumbling often, he accuses his wife, his parents and even Air Force for his agonies. When he finds that, the newly posted medical officer, Wing Commander Shabd Mishra, is his best friend of school days, his inferiority complex plunges further down.

The Wing Commander is still hankering after his school day’s crush Soumya despite knowing of her being married to another Air Force Officer, who too is posted at the same Station. How things shape up when three classmates get together? What fate does the love story of the lovelorn Wing Commander meet? How do others around, the officers and the non officers, react to the friendship between a Sergeant and a Wing Commander?

I tend to believe that authors who bring in their own personal experiences into writing need a higher level of self-introspection while writing their stories. Reason that there is so close to the material, they tend to lose objectivity over its plot, nuances, length and most importantly, relevance to the main characters. Love@ Air Force suffers heavily on this account. As a result, the book never becomes a solid love story in the back drop of Air Force nor it acts as a much simpler story of three individuals stuck in complex circumstances.

Gaurav Sharma, who himself is a mathematician, borrows heavily from his father's life and experiences who has served in Air Force. There are things to admire in this novel. Notably, the mature romance between the three lead protagonists, the complex power structure in Air Force,  the monotonous life officers usually get sucked into and the obsession of ranks. But all these high points are buried under long passages of self-introspection and a running commentary of Air Force that as a reader you tend to lose patience and readability with the characters by the end of the book. The novel had to be much shorter and less of all this clutter to have a better impact on it's readers

The author maintains a soft tone to the characters, the flow is easy but there are numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes to encounter in the first print of the book. I am going with 2/5 for Gaurav Sharma's 'Love@ Air Force'. By the end of the book, you could just feel a tinge of disappointment. This book could have been so much more. An opportunity wasted.

Instructions for revision of pension of pre-2016 retirees, based on 7th Central Pay Commission orders, issued.

The Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, New Delhi, has issued the instructions for revision of pension of Pre-2016 Defence Forces Pensioners and Family Pensioners based on the recommendations of the 7^th Central Pay Commission.

The same can be downloaded/accessed by clicking here.

Instructions for revision of pension of pre-2016 retirees, based on 7th Pay Commission orders, issued.

The Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, New Delhi, has issued the instructions for revision of pension of Pre-2016 Defence Forces Pensioners and Family Pensioners based on the recommendations of the 7^th Central Pay Commission.

The same can be downloaded/accessed by clicking here.