Tables issued for implementation of enhancement of disability and war injury elements of pension based on minimum of pay within the pay band for each rank, rather than minimum of pay-band itself

As most readers would be aware of this post of 21 April 2015, five months after similar orders were issued for civilians, the Ministry of Defence had 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 for each rank, rather than the minimum of pay-band itself.

Though the benefits were granted from September 2012, according to the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, as upheld by the Supreme Court, the benefits are actually to flow from January 2006. The file for extension of the benefits from the correct date is currently pending with the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare.

Meanwhile, the office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) has issued the tables for implementation of the above mentioned orders of enhancement of casualty awards and the same can be accessed and downloaded by clicking here.

Please note that this letter has NO relation with the matter related to broad-banding of disability percentage for cases of release on completion of terms/discharge/retirement/superannuation.

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh 

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

SC upholds AFT's decision to grant disability pension to ailing airman

In a huge relief to defence personnel, the Supreme Court has held that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into service, if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of one's entry.

The apex court has also clarified that in the event of his subsequent discharge from service on medical grounds, any deterioration in his health is presumed to be due to military service. A division bench comprising Justices Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and N V Ramana passed these orders on Tuesday while upholding a decision passed by the Chandigarh bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the case of an airman Angad Singh Titaria.

SC bench also clarified that the provision of disability pension is a beneficial provision, which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to help those who have been sent home with disability at times even before they completed their tenure in the armed forces. "A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The burden to establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon the employer for otherwise the rules raise a presumption that the deterioration in the health of the member of the service is on account of military service or aggravated by it," held the bench while referring to several earlier rulings of the apex court.

Angad Titaria had joined the Indian Air Force on November 13, 1971 in the clerical trade after he was found medically and physically fit as per prescribed standards. In 1987, he was diagnosed for coronary artery disease, namely infero-lateral myocardial infarction, and in 2006 he was diagnosed for diabetes mellitus.

In April 2008, he was released from the Air Force on recommendation of the medical board and was denied disability pension. The board was of the opinion that he had always remained posted at peace stations, and in that situation his disabilities were constitutional in nature and not attributable to or aggravated by service in the Air Force.

Angad moved the AFT, Chandigarh, against the Air Force seeking disability pension. On December 3, 2010, a division bench of AFT comprising Justice Ghanshyam Prasad and Lt Gen H S Panag had ordered the Air Force authorities to pay him disability pension but the Union government had approached the apex court against the decision.

Courtesy: Times of India

Soldier injured on casual leave entitled for disability pension: High Court

CHANDIGARH: An armed forces personnel suffering injuries while on authorized leave will be entitled for disability benefits, ruled the Punjab and Haryana high court.

Holding that the "leave is necessary for maintaining mental equilibrium of a soldier", the HC, in its May 23 order, ruled that a soldier would be "deemed to be on active service" even when he is on casual leave.

"During leave, armed forces personnel are liable to maintain discipline and are governed by the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and in a case of any misconduct, liable to be proceeded against. The corresponding duty of the armed forces is to take care of their personnel when on leave. It is necessary commitment of the Army," held the HC.

Defining the significance of "leave" in soldiers' life, the division bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Fateh Deep Singh said, "Grant of such leave has dual purpose - firstly, to give time to the personnel to attend to their domestic chores, which in their absence family members may not be in a position to handle. The second is that after the arduous duties, some time is required to rejuvenate the personnel while they are in touch with the civil society".

"Grant of leave is a necessity to keep the personnel of the armed forces in good mental shape. The personnel are entitled to periodical breaks to provide mental stimulus, and psychological uplift," ruled the HC.

The order came on a petition filed by Subedar (retd) Barkat Masih. The petitioner was on casual leave on August 21, 1993 and his scooter was hit by an Army truck in the cantonment area at Chandimandir, leaving him permanently disabled. The medical board, however, said the injury was not attributable or aggravated by the service and he was not granted disability pension after discharge from the Army. Disability pension is higher than the normal pension granted to retired soldiers.

His application for the disability pension was also rejected by the Chandigarh bench of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), following which he moved the HC.

Deciding his plea, the HC has directed the Central government to pay him disability pension along with arrears within three months.

 

Source: Times of India

Govt being unjust to disabled soldiers, say MPs

Disabled military veterans have found a voice in the Rajya Sabha. BJP MP Smriti Irani has raised the issue of denial of benefits to disabled soldiers, stating that this is amounting to injustice towards disabled soldiers by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

 

Supported by MPs across party lines, Irani stated in the Upper House that though rules for grating disability pension to disabled soldiers were inherently liberal as also held by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Dharamveer Singh vs Union of India, the same were being technically and restrictively interpreted by the ministry, leading to denial of disability pension.

 

She also stated that while employment of civilian employees was protected in case of disability, the same was not applicable on defence personnel who could be released without any kind of pension on account of non-service connected disabilities if their service was less than 10 years, leading to denial of the right to live a life of dignity.

 

The tendency of the MoD of filing appeals in the Supreme Court against verdicts of high courts and the Armed Forces Tribunal in disability pension related matters was also brought to light by her when she stated that majority of civil appeals and SLPs filed by the MoD in the apex court were against their own disabled soldiers.

 

She further claimed that far from safeguarding the welfare of retired soldiers, sailors and airmen, many of them disabled from battle injuries or the bleak conditions of service, the MoD’s Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW), ironically, stonewalled the benefits of military veterans till they were either dead or broke. More than 1 lakh retired defence personnel have been adversely affected.

 

Military veterans have long protested the policies of the DESW, which they feel harbours an anti-military sentiment and heaps multiple litigation on veterans, disabled soldiers and their families in pensionary matters, unlike the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare for civilian employees which is highly positive in its approach.

 

Even decisions of courts and tribunals are openly defied by DESW on the ground that the decisions are ‘against government policy’. Veterans also feel that that they or the military establishment have no representation at policy formulation level in the Defence Ministry.

It is probably for the first time that the issue has been strongly raised in Parliament and supported by MPs of other parties too. Forced litigation and negatively interpreted policies are a cause of major dissatisfaction amongst ex-servicemen.

 

Courtesy: The Tribune, Chandigarh

Yes, blame it on all and sundry but not your own system!

Resistance to change or rigidity of thought? Can’t say. Can’t fathom. And it is tiring.

The forces can opt to keep their eyes closed, but psychiatric ailments and related incidents such as suicides and fratricides are on the rise and of course now in the public eye.

With growing involvement of the security forces in operations all over, not just the defence services but the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are also facing a steady rise in psychiatric and behavioural disorders.

But what is worth condemning and also a cause of worry is the casual dismissal of such incidents on the grounds of being ‘domestic issues’ and bizarre pretexts such as the growing use of mobile phones and improved lines of communication.

Let us tackle the ‘domestic issues’ front first. When a person is invalided out or released in a low medical category on account of a psychiatric disorder, military medical boards are quick to term such disabilities as ‘constitutional disorders’ and as emanating from domestic issues and hence ‘neither attributable to, nor aggravated by military service’ thereby denying the person and his family all service benefits including pension.

Now please tell me, even if a ‘domestic issue’ is taken as the source of a disability or disorder, can it not have a link with military service? Well, in most of the cases it would. Most of the year, a member of a security force remains away from his (or her) family in a regimented environment. Domestic issues such as studies of children, safety of family, property disputes, administrative issues or even minor irritants etc are bound to aggravate the psychiatric condition of a person for the simple reason that being away from the family he feels helpless, and coupled with this is the very true fact of an insensitive civil administration and the dipping scale of respect for the profession of arms.

Compare with him a person with ‘domestic issues’ who is a civil employee who stays with his family and is there for them every single minute of their lives. Domestic issues would not affect a civilian employee living with his family but surely would affect a member of a security force who is not there with them, who is not there for them. An encroachment of a person’s house back in his village is definitely a ‘domestic issue’ but his not being there to effectively sort it out is definitely not a ‘domestic issue’ and is linked with military service. The non-issuance of a domicile certificate for a jawan’s child for purposes of admission in an educational institution definitely is a personal problem, but his not being able to resolve it since he is ‘stateless’ or since he is unable to pursue his remedies properly is definitely related to the rigours of military service and its exigencies. The internal mechanism to cope up with such situations would unquestionably be more fickle in the case of members of the uniformed community. So how is it that domestic issues would not have a role to play in aggravating psychiatric or behavioural disorders? If life in the forces cannot be made stress-free, the least that the medical establishment can do is to make it a rule, rather than an exception, to favourably view such disorders for declaration of ‘aggravation due to military service’ in order to at least grant benefits to the person if he is released from service in such a condition. But no, our eyes are closed and so is our mind! I would again pray that one day the office of the Director General Armed Forces Medical Services wakes up and embraces medical science rather than outdated practices and principles of mathematics. 

Senior officers also regularly blame mobile phones for many ills facing the Indian military. Now tell me, do we want our troops to live in the past without any lines of communication? Do we want our youth joining the services to remain backward while their counterparts continue to enjoy the joys of technology? Would we be able to attract the correct talent if we consider improved lines of communication a bane? The answer would be in the negative. Does someone even realise that perhaps mobile telephony may actually be reducing stress levels of troops by helping them keep in touch with their families and reducing ancillary worries? No please, ignorance is not bliss! Not in this time and age. A simple reassuring call that things are alright back home could soothe nerves and not the opposite as is being widely believed. Cuts both ways but the benefits of mobile telephones outweigh the shortcomings. Instead of working on a regressive thought-process, the leadership may well be advised to find ways and means within the four corners of the times we live in. To top it all, there are no clinical psychologists in situations where they are required. Even the number of psychiatrists is pretty low. To further add to the injury,  the system is anti-disabled from all sides with the main thrust of litigation of the defence services being against their own disabled soldiers.

While most armies of democracies move towards recognising and accepting the problem of rising stress levels and thereby addressing it, we on the other hand have our eyes shut and continue to proclaim that fauj is one of most stress free occupations in the world. Keep sleeping.  

 

Yes, blame it everywhere but on your own house!

 

Courtsey: Major Navdeep Singh

Two developments for urgent action of affected serving personnel and retirees

Fresh exercise of 6^th Central Pay Commission Option: Immediate action required by all Units, Record Offices, Services HQ and also pensioners, if affected.

As had been the case in the past, when the recommendations of the 6^th CPC were implemented for central govt employees, they were given an option for either transferring to the fresh pay-bands with effect from 01 Jan 2006 or any other later date such as the date of promotion or upgradation of scale or date of increment if the same happened to be more beneficial as per the fitment formula. For example, if an officer was promoted as Major on 15 Jan 2006, then the officer could have opted for the implementation of the 6^th CPC scale with effect from the date of his promotion rather than 01 Jan 2006 thereby providing him/her a much better fitment stage in the pay-band and of course the cumulative benefits. The option was provided for a limited period of 3 months from the publication of the Instructions promulgating the new pay-bands both for civilians as well as defence personnel. However, as expected, the option could not reach many such employees, especially defence personnel since neither was the option properly explained nor were record offices and PAOs sensitive towards this very important provision. Many civilians also suffered a similar fate. Later, instructions were issued for those affected personnel who were to get their annual increment between Feb 2006 and June 2006 and such affected employees were granted an increment on 01 Jan 2006 as a one-time measure. However, employees affected by the above one-time measure had then raised a demand for allowing them to re-exercise the 6^th CPC option which was then accepted and instructions were issued by the Ministry of Finance for exercising the option afresh. However these instructions were only made applicable to civilian employees. Now the Ministry of Defence has accepted the same principle for defence personnel also and the letter thus issued can be accessed and downloaded by clicking here. The option may be made known to all affected personnel since the last date for exercising the option is 31 May 2013.

Pensionary benefits as affected by implementation of the Rank Pay judgement.

The pensionary and family pensionary benefits of many pensioners and family pensioners are expected to be upwardly revised as a result of the implementation of the rank pay judgement. Such affected pensioners may send in the desired information as available in this notice here thorough email to the office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) on rankpay [dot] cdapension [at] gmail [dot] com. The PCDA (P) plans to issue revised pensionary entitlements by the end of May 2013.

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

Detailed instructions issued to Pension Disbursing Agencies to immediately release enhanced pension in accordance with Govt of India letters issued in pursuance of cabinet decisions

Detailed instructions by way of circulars have already been issued to Pension Disbursing Agencies, including all banks and Defence Pension Disbursing Officers, to release the enhanced pension in accordance with the latest Govt of India letters.

The instructions can be accessed and downloaded as follows.

Detailed instructions and tables for enhancement of pensions and family pensions of Commissioned Officers

Detailed instructions and tables for enhancement of pensions and family pensions of ranks other than Commissioned officers

Detailed instructions and tables for enhancement of family pensions of ranks other than commissioned officers

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

(Updated) Committee of Secretaries Report, as approved by the Cabinet, implemented. Letters issued today.

The below mentioned letters have been issued on 17th January 2013 by the Ministry of Defence to improve the pensionary benefits of defence personnel in pursuance to the report submitted by the Committee of Secretaries as approved by the Cabinet.

The financial benefit of all these letters has been provided from 24 September 2012.

1. Improvement in pension of pre-2006 released Honorary Officers, JCOs and other ranks: Pensionary weightages have been increased for Sepoy, Naik and Havildar to 12, 10 and 8 years respectively. The pensions of Honorary commissioned officers have also been increased. Fresh tables have been notified. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.

2. Increase in pension and family pension in case of commissioned officers: The pension and family pension of commissioned officer retirees has been enhanced based on the minimum of the fitment table (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay) rather than the pay band itself. Fresh tables have been notified too. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.

3. Increase in family pension of post-2006 and also pre-2006 JCOs and other ranks: Changes have been incorporated in the family pensionary modalities of both pre as well as post 2006 cases. The pre-2006 letter can be accessed by clicking here and the post-2006 letter can be accessed here.

 

4. Improvement in Casualty Pensionary Awards for pre-2006 commissioned officers, JCOs and other ranks: Minimum guaranteed Special Family Pension, Liberalized Family Pension, Dependant Pension (Special) and Second Life Awards shall now be determined on the basis of the minimum of fitment table for each rank as per the applicable Special Army/Navy/Air Force Instructions (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay if applicable) rather than the minimum of the pay band itself. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.

 

5. Improvement in Casualty Pensionary Awards for post-2006 JCOs and other ranks:Modalities of some casualty pensionary awards of post-2006 cases of JCOs and other ranks have also been changed. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.

 

6. Improvement in pensionary benefits of post-2006 released JCOs and other ranks: Weightages of pension for the ranks of Sepoy, Naik and Havildar increased to 12, 10 and 8 years and notionally been made applicable to post-2006 retirees also. Ordinary family pension also increased in the case of post-2006 JCOs and other ranks.The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.

 

7. Provisions of Dual Family Pension and Family Pension for life for handicapped family pensioners even in case of re-marriage: Letter for eligibility of dual family pension in case of families of pensioners who were drawing two pensions or were eligible to draw two pensions, and also letter clarifying the eligibility of a handicapped family pensioner even in case of remarriage also issued. It however may be pointed out that both these benefits had already been granted by Hon’ble Courts in the past. For instance, this decision of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and this one of the Chennai Bench may be perused. While the Courts have granted these benefits from the date of eligibility, the letters issued carry financial benefits only from 24 September 2012.

 

Other letters, as soon as they are made available, shall be posted on the blog.
At the outset, it may be pointed out that many of the provisions incorporated are utterly confusing and chaotic, and it is duly hoped that the offices of the CGDA and PCDA(P) clarify the implementation modalities by way of detailed circulars.

 

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

A useful aide mémoire, for retention by pensioners

Courtesy: Wg Cdr (Retd) VG Kumar

 

Recently some Veteran pointed out that SBI in Maharashtra is insisting on having an exclusive account for Pension. This to my mind is contrary to Guidelines issued by RBI. Please see para 3 below - answer to FAQs by RBI

 

Scheme for Payment of Pension to Government Pensioners by Authorised Banks

Reserve Bank of India (the Bank) monitors disbursement of pension by its agency banks in respect of all Central Government Departments (except the Department of Post) and certain State Governments. It has been receiving several queries/ complaints from pensioners in regard to fixation, calculation and payment of pension including revision of pension/ Dearness Relief from time to time, transfer of pension account from one bank branch to another, etc. We have analysed the queries/ complaints, rights and duties of pensioners and put the same in the form of answers to these Frequently Asked Questions. It is hoped that these will cover most of the queries/ doubts in the minds of pensioners.

1. Can the pensioner draw his/ her pension through a bank branch?

Yes. Even the Government employees earlier drawing their pension from a treasury or from a post office have the option to draw their pension from the authorized bank’s branches.

2. Who is the pension sanctioning authority?

The Ministry/ Department /Office where the Government servant last served is the pension sanctioning authority. The pension fixation is made by such authority for the first time and thereafter the refixation of pay, if any, is done by the pension paying bank based on the instructions from the concerned Central/ State Government authority.

3. Is it necessary for the pensioner to open a separate pension account for the purpose of crediting his/ her pension in authorized bank?

The pensioner is not required to open a separate pension account. The pension can be credited to his/her existing savings/ current account maintained with the branch selected by the pensioner.

4. Can a pensioner open a Joint Account with his/ her spouse?

Yes. All pensioners of the Central Government Pensioners and those State Governments which have accepted such arrangement can open Joint Account with their spouses.

5. Whether Joint Account of the pensioner with spouse can be operated either by ''Former or Survivor" or "Either or Survivor".

The Joint Account of the pensioner with spouse can be operated either as ‘‘Former or Survivor" or “Either or Survivor".

6. What is the minimum balance required to be maintained in the pension account maintained with the banks?

RBI has not stipulated any minimum balance to be maintained in pension accounts by the pensioners. Individual banks have framed their own rules in this regard. However, some banks have also permitted zero balance in the pensioners’ accounts.

7. Who sends the Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) to the authorized bank branch?
The concerned pension paying authorities in the Ministries /Departments/ State Governments forward the PPOs to the bank branches wherefrom the pensioner desires to draw his/her pension.

8. When is the pension credited to the pensioner's account by the paying branch?

The disbursement of pension by the paying branch is spread over the last four working days of the month depending on the convenience of the pension paying branch except for the month of March when the pension is credited on or after the first working day of April.

9. Can a pensioner transfer his/ her pension account from one branch to another branch of the same bank or to the branch of another bank?

(a) Pensioner can transfer his/ her pension account from one branch to another branch of the same bank within the same centre or at a different centre;

(b) He/ She can transfer his/ her account from one authorized bank to another within the same centre (such transfers to be allowed only once in a year);

(c) He/ She can also transfer his/ her account from one authorized bank to another authorized bank at a different centre.

10. What is the procedure for payment of pension in the case of the transfer of PPO to another branch or bank, as the case may be?

Pension will be paid for three months on the basis of the photocopy of the pensioner’s PPO at the transferee (new) branch from the date of the last payment made at the transferor (old) branch. Both the branches (old and new) are required to ensure that all the required documents are received by the transferee branch within these three months.

11. Is it necessary for the pensioner to be present at the branch of the bank along with documents for the purpose of identification before commencement of pension?

Yes. Before the commencement of pension, a pensioner has to be present at the paying branch for the purpose of identification. The paying branch shall obtain the specimen signatures or the thumb/toe impression from the pensioner.

12. What is the procedure to be followed by the bank branch if the pensioner is handicapped /incapacitated and is not in a position to be present at the paying branch?

If the pensioner is physically handicapped/incapacitated and unable to be present at the branch, the requirement of personal appearance is waived. In such cases, the bank official visits the pensioner’s residence/hospital for the purpose of identification and obtaining specimen signature or thumb/toe impression.

13. Has the pensioner got right to retain half portion of the PPO for record and to get it updated from paying branch whenever there is a change in the quantum of pension due to revision in basic pension, dearness relief, etc.?

Yes. The pensioner has right to retain half portion of the PPO for record and whenever there is a revision in the basic pension/Dearness Relief (DR), etc. the paying branch has to call for the pensioner's half of the PPO and record thereon the changes according to government orders/notifications and return the same to the pensioner.

14. Whether the paying branch has to maintain a detailed record of pension payments made by it in the prescribed form?

Yes. The pension paying branch is required to maintain a detailed record of pension payments made by it from time to time in the prescribed form duly authenticated by the authorized officer.

15. Can the pension paying bank recover the excess amount credited to the pensioner’s account?

Yes. The paying branch before commencement of pension obtains an undertaking from the pensioner in the prescribed form for this purpose and, therefore, can recover the excess payment made to the pensioner's account due to delay in receipt of any material information or due to any bona fide error. The bank also has the right to recover the excess amount of pension credited to the deceased pensioner’s account from his/her legal heirs/nominees.

16. Is it compulsory for a pensioner to furnish a Life Certificate/Non-Employment Certificate or Employment Certificate to the bank in the month of November?

Yes. The pensioner is required to furnish a Life Certificate/Non – Employment Certificate or Employment Certificate to the bank in the month of November. However, in case a pensioner is unable to obtain a Life Certificate from an authorized bank officer on account of serious illness / incapacitation, bank official will visit his/her residence/ hospital for the purpose of recording the life certificate.

17. Can a pensioner be allowed to operate his/ her account by the holder of Power of Attorney?

The account is not allowed to be operated by a holder of Power of Attorney. However, the cheque book facility and acceptance of standing instructions for transfer of funds from the account is permissible.

18. Who is responsible for deduction of Income Tax at source from pension payment?

The pension paying bank is responsible for deduction of Income Tax from pension amount in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Income Tax authorities from time to time. While deducting such tax from the pension amount, the paying bank will also allow deductions on account of relief to the pensioner available under the Income Tax Act. The paying branch, in April each year, will also issue to the pensioner a certificate of tax deduction as per the prescribed form. If the pensioner is not liable to pay Income Tax, he should furnish to the pension paying branch, a declaration to that effect in the prescribed form (15 H).

19. Can old, sick physically handicapped pensioner who is unable to sign, open pension account or withdraw his/ her pension from the pension account?

A pensioner, who is old, sick or lost both his/her hands and, therefore, cannot sign, can put any mark or thumb/ toe impression on the form for opening of pension account. While withdrawing the pension amount he/she can put thumb/toe impression on the cheque/withdrawal form and it should be identified by two independent witnesses known to the bank one of whom should be a bank official.

   
20. Can a pensioner withdraw pension from his/ her account when he/she is not able to sign or put thumb/toe impression or unable to be present in the bank?

In such cases, a pensioner can put any mark or impression on the cheque/ withdrawal form and may indicate to the bank as to who would withdraw pension amount from the bank on the basis of cheque/withdrawal form. Such a person should be identified by two independent witnesses. The person who is actually drawing the money from the bank should be asked to furnish his/her specimen signature to the bank.

21. When does the family pension commence?

The family pension commences after the death of the pensioner. The family pension is payable to the person indicated in the PPO on receipt of a death certificate and application from the nominee.

22. How the payment of Dearness Relief at revised rate is to be paid to the pensioners?

Whenever any additional relief on pension/family pension is sanctioned by the Government, the same is intimated to the agency banks for issuing suitable instructions to their pension paying branches for payment of relief at the revised rates to the pensioners without any delay. The orders issued by Government Departments are also hosted on their websites and banks have been advised to watch the latest instructions on the website and act accordingly without waiting for any further orders from RBI in this regard.

23. Can pensioners get pension slips?

Yes. As decided by the Central Government (Civil, Defence & Railways), pension paying banks have been advised to issue pension slips to the pensioners in prescribed form when the pension is paid for the first time and thereafter whenever there is a change in quantum of pension due to revision in basic pension or revision in Dearness Relief.

24. Which authority the pensioner should approach for redressal of his/ her grievances?

A pensioner can initially approach the concerned Branch Manager and, thereafter, the Head Office of the concerned bank for redressal of his/her complaint. They can also approach the Banking Ombudsman of the concerned State in terms of Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 of the Reserve Bank of India (details available at the Bank’s website www.rbi.org.in) This is applicable only in respect of complaints relating to services rendered by banks. For other issues the complainant will have to approach the respective pension paying authority.

25. Where can a pensioner get information about the changes in the pension/ Dearness Relief or any pension related issue?

The pensioner can visit the Official Website of the concerned Government Department as also Reserve Bank of India Website (www.rbi.org.in) to get the information about pension related issues.
26. Whether a pensioner is entitled for any compensation from the agency banks for delayed credit of pension/ arrears of pension?

Yes. A Pensioner is entitled for compensation for delayed credit of pension/arrears thereof at the fixed rate of 8% and the same would be credited to the pensioner's account automatically by the bank on the same day when the bank affords delayed credit of such pension / arrears etc without any claim from the pensioner.
------------------------------
These FAQs are issued by the Reserve Bank of India for information and general guidance purposes only. The Bank will not be held responsible for actions taken and/or decisions made on the basis of the same. For clarifications or interpretations, if any, the readers are requested to be guided by the relevant circulars and notifications issued from time to time by the Bank and the Government.

Final order of the Supreme Court on the Rank Pay issue dated 04 September 2012

The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04 September 2012 wherein the Application filed by the Union of India praying for recall of the order of the Court dated 08 March 2010 on the rank pay issue was disposed, can be downloaded by clicking here.

As informed earlier, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused to modify or vary the earlier order except that the interest part has been modulated to be granted from 01 Jan 2006 rather than 01 Jan 1986. Hence, while the arrears of pay would be released from 01 Jan 1986, the interest on the arrears shall now be payable with effect from 01 Jan 2006.

The statement of the Solicitor General has also been recorded that the amount shall be paid within 12 weeks from 04 September 2012.

The original order of the Supreme Court dated 08 March 2010 can be accessed by clicking here.

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

Rank Pay forms a part of basic pay, release arrears to affected officers : Supreme Court, today, 04 September 2012

Source: http://www.indianmilitary.info/

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

 

Perhaps historically the most important litigation involving the military has culminated today.

 

A three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court today decided not to interfere with its earlier decision granting the cumulative benefits and arrears of Rank Pay with effect from 01-01-1986 to all affected officers. However, the interest component has been modified and interest @ 6% per annum would now be admissible on the arrears from 01-01-2006 rather than 01-01-1986.

 

All payments have been directed to be made within a period of 12 weeks from today and the benefits shall be released to all officers irrespective of whether they had approached a judicial forum or not.

As many would be aware, after the 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC), an integrated pay scale of Rs 2300-5100 was implemented for officers from the rank of 2/Lt to Brig. In addition, rank pay was authorised to officers from the rank of Capt to Brig ranging from Rs 200 to 1200 which was to be added into the basic pay for all intents and purposes.

However, while fixing the pay in the new scales, an amount equal to the rank pay was deducted from the emoluments resulting in financial loss to all affected officers. Hence all officers holding the rank of Capt to Brig as on 01-01-1986 suffered cumulative losses.

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in a case filed by Maj AK Dhanapalan had termed illegal this deduction of rank pay. The SLP filed by the Union of India was also dismissed, albeit not on merits but on technical grounds of limitation.

 

Soon thereafter, many similar petitions were filed in various Hon’ble High Courts all over the country which were clubbed together and transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be heard alongwith an SLP of similar nature which had arisen out of a case that was allowed on the basis of the judgement in Dhanapalan’s case.

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08 March 2010 upheld the said verdict and granted relief to all similarly placed officers alongwith an interest of 6%. Things were however not to end there since the Govt constituted a committee to look into the amount involved and went back to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing an application for recall of the order dated 08 March 2010 on the grounds of burdening of the exchequer and also stating therein that many more issues on the subject were not taken into consideration by the Court and hence the order needed to be recalled.

 

The case thereafter remained pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was finally argued today when the Hon’ble Court, after hearing marathon arguments of the Solicitor General appearing for the govt, decided that there was no infirmity in the order passed on 08 March 2010. As informed above, only the modification in the grant of the interest component was effectuated.

 

The case was not without surprising developments which can now be shared since the issue no longer remains sub judice.

 

First was the total incorrect and skewed presentation of the status and pay of military officers vis-à-vis officers of the civil services projected in the affidavit appended with the recall application filed by the Union of India. The speciousness thereof has already been discussed by me on the blog in November 2011 and all those falsities were exposed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the affected officers before the Hon’ble Court.

 

Secondly, which can be disclosed now, is that when it was being projected by the Govt that the Services HQ were also in favour of getting the verdict recalled / reversed, the three services on the basis of a decision taken at the apex level, clearly, officially and categorically informed the Solicitor General in writing that the Armed Forces were not in favour of the matter being contested against the affected officers and in fact were in favour of getting the verdict of the SC dated 08 March 2010 implemented. Thereafter, the Ministry of Defence wrote to the Services HQ asking them to withdraw the communication to the Solicitor General, however to the credit of the Services, the said communication was ultimately not withdrawn. Besides showing utter disregard for the opinion of the services in this matter, this incident also shows as to how the MoD tries to browbeat the services into accepting its views. Needless to state, in litigation, one party to a particular litigation can never direct another to take a particular stand. However this has been continuing unabated in the MoD wherein they force the Services to reflect the stand of the MoD before Courts and not project their (services’)independent views as is permissible under law. And unfortunately, it’s also seen that elements of the JAG Branch usually toe the line of the MoD rather than the Services.

 

The biggest ‘Thank You’ for this win goes to Retired Defence Officers’ Association (RDOA) who had been unflinchingly following up the matter with great zeal in a very objective and balanced manner.

 

Jai Hind.

Incorrect letter regarding pay fixation of veterans in Banks and other financial institutions withdrawn by Ministry of Finance

Source: http://www.indianmilitary.info/ 

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

 

Based on the newly introduced concepts of 6^th CPC, fresh instructions were issued by the Govt of India, Department of Personnel and Training vide Letter No 3/19/2009-Estt (Pay II) dated 05 April 2010 in which all modalities of pay fixation of re-employed ex-servicemen pensioners were explained. The said letter however was vague and ambiguous as far as the treatment of Military Service Pay (MSP) was concerned. As a result, civil organisations including banks, started deducting MSP from the pay fixed in the re-employed organisations, meaning thereby, that MSP was not being included in the protected pay in such organisations.

 

Accordingly on the issue being raised by ex-servicemen, a clarification was sought from the Ministry of Finance and a fresh letter was thereafter issued by the DoPT of even number dated 08 November 2010 in which the following was explicitly clarified by the Govt of India :-

 

“Hence in respect of all those defence officers/personnel, whose pension contains an element of MSP, that need not be deducted from the pay fixed on re-employment”

 

The above clarification, wherein it was provided that MSP would not be deducted from the pay fixed on re-employment, was endorsed by the Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, to all Banks etc for compliance vide Letter No 4/1/2010-SCT(B) dated 22 Nov 2010.

 

However later, on receiving letters for clarification of the subject from The Indian Banks’ Association, the Department of Financial Services issued another letter No F No 4/1/2010-SCT(B) dated 23 March 2012 based on the earlier DoPT letter dated 08 Nov 2010 but in which it was surprisingly incorrectly stated in the last lines that MSP shall not be included in pay fixation, meaning thereby that MSP shall be deducted from the pay fixed on re-employment. This however was actually in contravention of the actual DoPT letter dated 08 Nov 2010 which in fact clearly states that MSP need not be deducted from pay fixed on re-employment. The following lines of the letter dated 23 March 2012 created chaos:-

 

“Therefore Ex-servicemen re-employed in the banks who retired on/or after 01.01.2006 are eligible to pay fixation in banks based on the pay drawn by them at the time of discharge from the Defence Services which would include band pay Plus grade pay but does not include MSP”

 

The said clarification dated 23 March 2012 signed by Mr LK Meena, Director of Financial Services, rather than clarifying the issue unnecessarily created confusion and banks thereafter started deducting MSP from the pay fixed on re-employment while the DoPT had stated just the opposite.

 

When I pointed out the anomaly to the Department of Financial Services, no action was taken by them and even RTI Applications were stonewalled.

 

However, it goes to the credit of Mr LK Meena, Director, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India, that on my pointing out the fact that his staff had not briefed him correctly before getting the letter issued, he has promptly withdrawn the incorrect direction dated 23 March 2012 and has now directed all Banks and Insurance Companies to follow DoPT directions dated 08 Nov 2010 in letter and spirit. The letter withdrawing the earlier letter and containing the aforesaid directions has been issued on 28 Aug 2012. Mr Meena has also stated that his Public Information Officer had not replied to the RTI Application in a proper manner.

 

With this, the problem of not taking into account the Grade Pay and MSP of defence personnel on re-employment in Banking and Insurance institutions stands resolved.

Very Positive development: Finally, a time-bound committee to look into, and implement the resolution of anomalies affecting defence personnel and veterans

The defence community would be pleased to know that the Prime Minister’s office has directed the constitution of an anomalies committee to look into many vital anomalies affecting serving and retired personnel and also their families.

The best part of the directions signed this week is that the committee is to submit its recommendations within a month and the implementation of the accepted recommendations may also be announced on 15 August 2012, thereby marking a radical signal of positivity.

Though a chunk of the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Defence was not inclined to let any such committee come through, this has been possible due to multiple channels of Track-II diplomacy and the stellar efforts of the Chairman COSC and the Pay Cells of the three services which evoked direct response from the Raksha Mantri who then took it upon himself to get this committee approved from the Prime Minister personally and directly without being blinded by comments of lower bureaucracy of the MoD.

The only negative offshoot is that the committee does not have any serving or retired military member and that a proper consultative process was not initiated before identifying the anomalies which required immediate examination. Ideally, the stake-holders should have been a part of the process. However, the saving grace is that the committee has been granted the authority to co-opt any additional member if required. The Committee shall function under the Cabinet Secretary with the Defence Secretary, Secretary Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Secretary DoPT, Expenditure Secretary and Principal Secretary to PM, as members.

Howsoever we may view the development, many important issues such as Non-Functional Upgradation, enhancement of pensions of widows, One Rank One Pension, dual family pension, fixation of pay of Lt Cols/Cos/Brigs, enhancement of Grade Pays, universalisation of scales, grant of HAG+ to all Lt Gens, removal of pay anomalies of other ranks etc have been listed in the charter of the committee. Five anomalies concerning serving personnel and four concerning veterans and pensioners shall be taken up. One surprise (and actually infructuous) entry in the list of anomalies is that the committee would be looking into the issue whether a handicapped family pensioner could be granted family pension on marriage since as per the current interpretation, family pension to handicapped family pensioners is discontinued on marriage. However this issue already stands addressed by the Hon'ble AFT in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs UOI and the judgement also already stands implemented and hence the inclusion of this point in the committee seems totally redundant once it has been judicially adjudicated.

It is however surprising that while the PM had directed that the constitution of the committee may be publically announced, the same has not been done by the staff at MoD till date despite the fact that the directions were conveyed by special courier (by hand) to the MoD for immediate action by the PMO.

Online Pension Calculation software for defence pensioners goes online

‘Suvigya’ is a software developed after great research by the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) to provide exact calculation of pension for various categories of defence pensioners.

Since the canvas of defence pension is very vast with pension varying with each rank, year of release and trade/category, effectively compiling and effectuating the software was an enormous task for CGDA. To complicate matters, orders issued from time to time had resulted in confusing even the pension disbursing authorities in this regard.

The said system is now online and can be accessed through the following link:

http://cgda.nic.in/Suvigya

Pensioners / family pensioners have to enter basic details on the website for obtaining the correct amount of pension admissible to them under various orders issued from time to time.

There is however a disclaimer on the website that the amount calculated therein cannot be quoted as authority.

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

Darkness engulfs decision-making authorities in the Ministry of Defence.

The decision making process at the Defence Ministry can put any organisation to shame.

Consigning all precedents of governance and administration to the bin, the Ministry is not being run by authorities competent to take decisions but by lower-level bureaucrats who have spent better part of their lives in the South Block and Sena Bhawan. What is shocking is that significant welfare related provisions related to the defence services which require a decision at Raksha Mantri or Government level including even those which have received an in-principle assent of the political executive, are junked by junior babus who do not even care to put up the file to their seniors and reject such proposals at their own end by initiating misleading file notings.

On this blog, Major Navdeep Singh has many-a-times addressed the subject as to how lower level appointments of the MoD hijack the system and ensure that the defence services do not get what is due. Some of the blog-posts signifying the above can be accessed here, here and here where may readers have differed by stating that the onus is on seniors in the chain rather than the juniors.

Now comes direct proof related to something which is dear to every commissioned officer of the Indian Military – Non Functional Upgradation (NFU).

For the uninitiated, NFU basically implies that whenever an IAS officer gets empanelled at a particular appointment at the Centre, all other Group-A service officers are also upgraded to the same level after a period of two years from the date of empanelment, on a non-functional basis irrespective of whether they are actually promoted or not. For example, if an officer of the IAS of 1982 batch is empanelled as an Additional Secretary to Govt of India, then all other Organised Group-A civil officers of the 1980 batch shall also be placed in the ‘Addl Secy to Govt of India’ pay grade of Rs 67000-79000 (Higher Administrative Grade/HAG) which is the same as a Lt Gen of the Army. As a result, almost all organised Group-A civil officers are retiring with the pay and pension of a Lt Gen whereas less than 1% of defence officers are retiring in the said grade. Interestingly, in many arenas, civilian officers serving under senior military officers are drawing a much higher pay (and consequently pension) under the system of NFU than their seniors from the defence services.

As stated earlier, the Chief of Staffs’Committee (COSC) had strongly conveyed to the Raksha Mantri the requirement of extending NFU to the defence services. This was followed by many letters and communications. Now comes the shocker. On endorsement of the proposal from the Services, the file was ultimately processed to the Pay/Services Wing of the MoD where a mere Under Secretary rejected the entire proposal in two short paragraphs covering one fourth of a page by concluding that the ‘proposal of the services cannot be agreed to’. The proposal which originated from the Apex body of the Services, the COSC and the PPOC, was junked by the lowest rung of the MoD who shockingly did not even consider it appropriate to send the file upwards to the Defence Secretary. The file was only sent for perusal upto Joint Secretary level and then the rejection letter was endorsed to the Services ostensibly on behalf of the Government by the same Under Secretary who had rejected the proposal in the very first note on the file.

Though the issue is not closed and the military top brass is alive to the subject, what the above shows is the kind of smartness being displayed by junior secretarial staff in hoodwinking the entire system. The political executive is blissfully unaware of what is happening around and the IAS & Military officers come and go.
More information would roll out in the near future.

Who rules the roost – the note maker.

In Delhi, it’s wake-up time for the Minister, the bureaucrat and the fauji.

Stark discrimination between disabled employees of the defence services vis-à-vis their civilian counterparts

The tragedy of our country is that while there is ample lip service and pseudo-respect available to the cause of defence veterans, theory does not translate into actual action on ground. While there are many in the nation who perpetually brag about the facilities and benefits provided by the government to defence personnel, not even a fraction can actually fathom how innocuous sounding provisos and exceptions have been carved out to the detriment of the men and women in uniform.

The following paragraphs contain a self-explanatory letter endorsed by Major Navdeep Singh to various addressees which would go to show how disabled defence veterans are unduly being discriminated vis-à-vis their peers in other government services. While some of the addressees have replied stating that the cause and the grievances reflected are genuine, again not much has moved except lips, symbolically speaking.

Following is the reproduction of the letter referred above. If you find the data a little heavy on your time, may just have a look at the table in the middle.

Addressed for independent action to:

A. The Defence Minister, South Block, New Delhi

B. Chiefs of the Army / Naval / Air Staff, New Delhi

C. Secretary, Ex-Servicemen Welfare, South Block, New Delhi

D. Law Minister, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

E. Minister-in-Charge, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, New Delhi

F. Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, New Delhi

NON-AVAILABILITY OF PENSION OR ANY KIND OF MONTHLY FINANCIAL ALLOWANCE TO DISABLED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO ARE INVALIDED OUT / DISCHARGED WITH DISABILITIES THAT ARE DECLARED NON-SERVICE CONNECTED (NEITHER ATTRIBUTABLE TO, NOR AGGRAVATED BY SERVICE) WHICH IS IN STARK CONTRAST TO PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OTHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 47 OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION) ACT 1995

1. As you must be aware, Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Annexure-A) protects the employment of disabled government servants. This proactive and welfare oriented provision provides that the government shall not dispense with the services of a disabled government employee. The said provision also further provides that even in case a disabled government employee cannot be adjusted on any suitable post, he or she may be kept on supernumerary strength till the age of superannuation (60 years in case of Central Govt) and resultantly be paid full pay and allowances, and pension thereafter, even if the affected employee is unable to attend to any official duty. The Act is applicable to State Govt also.

2. The Govt however, as per proviso to the above Section 47, can exempt certain organisations from the operation of the said section through a gazette notification. In pursuance thereof, the central govt has exempted combatants in the armed forces from the applicability of the protection under Section 47 (Annexure-B) and similar notifications have also been issued for employees of certain other security organisations. The issuance of such notifications and the exemption of such organisations from the scope of Section 47 is well understood and well appreciated in light of the fact that security forces have to retain a young and fit profile in order to perform the cardinal duties set out for them.

3. The problem however is that this exemption, which was primarily undertaken to retain a fit fighting profile for such organisations, has unwittingly resulted in a grave form of injustice for the disabled members of such forces who suffer disabilities on accounts of reasons declared as non-service connected or neither attributable to, nor aggravated by service. While in all government services, the employment, pay, allowances and pension of a person who suffers any kind of disability (whether connected with service or otherwise) are fully protected due to the applicability of the above Act, on the other hand, in the armed forces, neither the employment, nor the pay, allowances nor pension are protected and such individuals are discharged or invalided out of service without any kind of pension/disability pension or protection which may be very much required for leading a dignified life. It may be important to point out here that as per the current pensionary provisions, a member of the armed forces who is discharged or invalided out with a disability attributable to or aggravated by or connected to service conditions is entitled to ‘disability pension’ irrespective of length of service, but the same is not admissible to those who are discharged or invalided with disabilities not connected with service such as injuries sustained on leave. It is common practice for persons with disabilities to be discharged from military service on account of disabilities and the minimum service requirement for earning an ‘Invalid Pension’ for injuries, diseases and disabilities due to non-service reasons is 10 years whereas civilian employees cannot at all be discharged on account of disabilities and can enjoy full tenure with full pay & allowances till the age of superannuation and pension thereafter.

4. Non-availability of any kind of monthly financial assistance or pension to such disabled military personnel with less than 10 years’ service who are invalided out or discharged with disabilities directly infringes their right to enjoy a dignified life. Such personnel are unable to support themselves or their families while their civilian counterparts face no such impediment. In a common recruitable population, it is highly demoralising to experience a disabled military personnel fighting against odds to make both ends meet for himself/herself and his/her family while his or her peer in civil employment enjoys complete protection in this regard. A major chunk of such disabled personnel are from the category of persons who suffer injury while on authorised military leave – even such personnel are not entitled to any form of disability or invalid pensionary benefits on being discharged as per current provisions. It may not be out of place to point out that in all developed democracies, personnel suffering injuries on authorised leave are entitled to disability pensionary benefits but the same has been denied to Indian soldiers, sailors and air force personnel despite the passage of more than 6 decades of freedom. It may also be pointed out that the Pensionary Entitlement Rules of the Indian Military are modelled after the American provisions (and not the British Rules) and the American Rules fully provide for disability benefits for disabilities suffered on authorised leave (Title 38, United States Code). In Canada, there is an Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan (ADIP) for non-service related injuries suffered by members of Canadian Forces which involves payment of a monthly amount. Even in Bhutan, which has just embraced full democratic principles, a disabled member of the forces is paid full pay and allowances till age of superannuation in case of inability of performance of military duties. In other countries even where service benefits are not admissible to such cases, a handsome disability allowance is admissible which is adequate to ensure a life of dignity.

5. The stark variance between a civilian vis-à-vis a defence employee in this regard is discernible from the following tabulation :-

Civil Govt Employee with 9 years of service who suffers a disability

Military Employee with 9 years of service who suffers a disability

Protection of Service

Full protection under Section 47 of the Act.

Will not be discharged on account of disability.

Armed Forces exempted from operation of Section 47. Hence no protection of employment available in case of disability. Employee can be discharged on account of disability.

Pay and allowances

Full pay and allowances admissible till the age of 60 even if unable to attend any official duty. Can even be kept on supernumerary post and paid all pay and allowances.

NIL admissible.

Pension

Entitled to full service length till superannuation and pension thereafter.

NIL admissible.

Right to life of dignity for self and family.

Full pay and pension and complete govt protection/cover with entitled facilities admissible to dependants.

NIL. No facilities or protection for self and dependants.

6. The above would show that it is only in our country where members of the armed forces who suffer non-service related disabilities are made to suffer the life of ignominy with no protection whatsoever. Equity demands that our disabled who are discharged from service due to reasons not under their control should be made entitled to atleast some minimum allowance, irrespective of their length of service, that may be required to lead a decent dignified life. The lack of any such protection is not only dispiriting but also demoralizing for persons joining the armed forces vis-à-vis their peers joining other services. This also is a great disservice for our youth and highly discouraging for the men and women in uniform. Lack of protection of Section 47 hence has not only resulted in guarantee of employment in case of disability but also denial of pension and a right to a dignified life for military personnel and their families, a viewpoint that may not have been taken into account earlier. As stated above, while the reason for exemption from Section 47 is much appreciated, it should not have a detrimental effect in other arenas which could not have been visualised.

7. I hope that the above would be appreciated in a pragmatic light and a way out of this acute problem would be addressed. Since the protection of disability laws is not available to armed forces, either the requirement of 10 years of service for invalid pension should be abrogated, or disability pension (for which already there is no minimum service requirement) should be made admissible for non-service related disabilities also, except perhaps those disabilities that may have been incurred during any illegal activity. This would not only be a great service to our brave armed forces but also to the disabled population as a whole. I am confident of positive action in this direction with your intervention.

Thanking You

Sd/-

(Navdeep Singh)

Copy to:

1. Adjutant General, South Block, New Delhi

2. Chief of Personnel (COP), Indian Navy, Sena Bhawan, DHQ PO, New Delhi

3. Air Officer-in-Charge Personnel (AoP), Air Headquarters, New Delhi

4. Director, PS-4 (Legal), PS Directorate, Sena Bhawan, DHQ PO, New Delhi

5. Chairman, Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), New Delhi

6. President, Disabled War Veterans (DIWAVE)

7. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

8. Secretary to Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

9. Directors General CRPF, BSF, ITBP

ANNEXURE-A

THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995

PUBLISHED IN PART II, SECTION 1 OF THE

EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS

(Legislative Department)

New Delhi, the 1st January, 1996 / Pausa 11, 1917 (Saka)

Section 47

47. (1) No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service.

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits.

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.

ANNEXURE-B

EXTRACT FROM THE GAZETTE OF INDIA PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (ii)

Appearing on Page Nos. 3489-3490

Date: 13.4.2002

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2002

S.R.O. 1179.- In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) the Central Government having regard to the type of work carried on hereby exempts all categories of posts of combatant personnel of the Armed Forces from the provision of the said section.

(No. 16-27/2001-NI.I)

Sd/-

Smt. RAJWANT SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

Pension enhancement of pre-2006 widows : more movement

The enhancement of pensions of widows is on the anvil.

Though the Raksha Mantri had accorded an in-principle approval to the policy revision, the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) and Defence Finance had forwarded the file to Department of Expenditure which had then further endorsed it to the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW) for its consideration whether such a revision would invite similar demands from other services.

The IESM informs that the DoPPW has written back on the subject with neutral notings and the file is soon going to be back in the Defence Ministry.

With the new Secretary DESW, Mr Samirendra Chatterjee in chair for a few more months and who seems to be strongly in control of the situation without being over-reliant on the lower level staff of the DESW, positive movement can be expected soon related to the file on which the Raksha Mantri has already in fact given his word of approval.

Increment as a one-time measure w.e.f 01 Jan 2006 : Pay and pension to be consequently re-calculated.

Various staff organisations had time and again requested that those employees who were due to get their annual increment between February to June during 2006 may be granted an increment on 01 Jan 2006 in the pre-revised scales.

The Govt has finally decided to accede to the request and the orders to the effect stand issued by the Ministry of Finance for civil central govt employees. The same can be accessed by clicking here.

The following is the operative part of the order :

“…The President is pleased to decide that in relaxation of stipulation under Rule 10 of these Rules, those central government employees who were due to get their annual increment between February to June during 2006 may be granted one increment on 1.1 .2006 in the pre-revised pay scale as a one-time measure and thereafter will get the next increment in the revised pay structure on 1.7.2006 as per Rule 10 of CCS(RP)Rules, 2008. The pay of the eligible employees may be re-fixed accordingly…”

As is the general trend, similar orders shall be issued by the Defence and the Railway Ministries for their employees.

The cumulative arrears of pay and revised fixation of pension (in case of those who have retired) would now have to be re-calculated and released in case of affected employees/pensioners.

The much awaited Parliamentary Committee Report on Military Pensions submitted

The Parliamentary (Rajya Sabha) Committee on Petitions submitted its report today.

For those who want to peruse the full report may click here to download the entire copy.

As a keen observer of developments in the field, my observations are as under :

A. The Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) of the MoD, with Ms Neelam Nath at the (then) ceremonial helm, and with two Under Secretaries actually and practically running the entire show, has been less than truthful with the committee with its inputs. The first proof of the same being the figure of Rs 3000 crore per year for OROP projected by the said department which tacitly has been contradicted by the Department of Expenditure which in turn has pegged the annual expenditure for the first year at Rs 1300 crore.

B. The DESW had put forth the reasons of financial, administrative and legal impediments in implementing OROP. While projecting administrative difficulties, it was pointed out that the information regarding pensioners was not available since military documents are weeded out after 25 years. This, my friends, is a bundle of lies. Firstly, the 25 years limit applies to non-pensioners and not to pensioners. Secondly, naturally OROP is to apply to pensioners only and if a person is a pensioner, he or she would obviously be in receipt of pension based on a PPO which would contain all requisite information such as the length of service and rank which is all that is required.

C. Even the legal difficulties expressed by DESW have no legs to stand upon. The DESW commented that the Supreme Court had upheld the implementation of cut-off dates in pensionary matters in various cases. However, what DESW did not mention is the fact that there are many more decisions in which cut-off dates have been deprecated, including very recent ones.

D. The representatives of the Army, Navy and Air Force supported the cause of OROP. A mere reading of the report also seemingly indicates that while the representatives of the Services were very much present in the initial meetings and very fairly assisted the Committee, they were probably not present during the final meeting of deliberation when the Secretaries were again heard on 14 Nov 2011. Perhaps chary of the proper and fair assistance provided to the Committee by the Services, the military reps were not brought in by the DESW on the penultimate date. This is the impression that I get, perhaps the Services HQ would be able to elaborate if my guess is correct.

E. The findings of the Committee were appreciable and pro-veteran. The Committee has observed that the demands of veterans were included in Election Manifestoes of various parties but not given effect. The Committee has also observed that OROP was existing in a way till 1973 when it was withdrawn in an ex-parte manner by the 3^rd CPC which linked the pensionary system of the armed forces with that of civilian employees. The committee also observed that there was no comparison with civilian employees and defence services faced much harsher conditions coupled with an early retirement age. The committee also observed that given the economy of the country, Rs 1300 crore per year was not a heavy figure.

F. However, most importantly, the following observations of the committee summed up the essence of the entire exercise :-

“…They (defence services) serve the nation with utmost devotion and selflessness but their demands are consistently being ignored, not by the heads of the Armed Forces, but by bureaucrats. It’s a typical example of bureaucratic apathy. To continue this apathy, the Ministries apprised the Committee that if OROP were to be implemented, similar demands may be raised from civilian employees. This argument the committee finds is a baseless apprehension...The defence personnel in the PBOR category retire when they are around 35-40 years of age. Even the officers retire when they are around 55 years of age. That is the time when they have family and social responsibilities to discharge for which they need sound financial support. This is certainly not the case with civilian work force where the age of retirement is 60 uniformly…The committee is not convinced with the hurdles projected by the DESW in implementing OROP for defence personnel…”

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Sing