Oped in 'The Hindu' about the attitude of Ministry of Defence towards soldiers and veterans

A wonderfully articulated opinion authored by Ms Chander Suta Dogra, published in ‘The Hindu’ today :

THE HINDU

Opinion / Oped

April 23, 2013

OUT OF STEP ON SOLDIER WELFARE

Chander Suta Dogra

The Defence Ministry’s stubborn refusal to implement orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal is creating disaffection among serving and retired personnel

Navindra Devi’s husband, Nk Rajpal Singh, wandered off from his Army unit in Bikaner, Rajasthan, while being treated for a psychiatric illness. His body was later found in a well. The unit showed him retrospectively on annual leave.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) held the Army responsible for his death and awarded Navindra Devi special family pension with 10 per cent interest from the date of death and Rs10,00,000 as compensation. The order, passed on December 8, 2011, has still to be implemented.

Brig T.S. Sekhon had to undergo an emergency procedure on his heart while visiting Germany in 2008. He was refused reimbursement of medical bills by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) on the grounds that there was no provision of reimbursement when a person undergoes treatment abroad. The AFT, based on a similar Supreme Court pronouncement, directed the ECHS to reimburse the amount at rates that the said procedure would have cost in India had the emergency happened here. The judgment, passed on February 28, 2011, remains unimplemented.

Almost four years after the AFT came into existence to provide an alternative judicial mechanism to serving and retired defence personnel of the Army, Navy and the Air Force for redressal of their grievances, it is becoming increasingly apparent that something is wrong with its functioning and administration. The AFT began functioning from August 2009.

That there is a conflict of interest in having the AFT under the administrative control of the MoD, against which most of the cases are directed, is only one of the problems. As reported in this newspaper on April 4, 2013, the MoD has treated AFT members, a mix of retired judges and senior retired army defence officers, to its largesse by ensuring them foreign trips and canteen cards, “with a view of influencing” them.

MINISTRY’S COUNTER-APPEALS

Presently, the MoD controls the funds and infrastructure of the AFT and also has a say in appointments, an increasingly questionable arrangement. The AFT is mandated to hear grievances relating to appointments and conditions of service, military commission and appeals against court martial.

At another level, the tendency of the MoD to appeal against most judgments of the AFT, even on issues settled by the Supreme Court and against the decisions taken by Army headquarters is leading to much disaffection. Many more are simply not implemented and appeals against them filed much after the mandated period. This is repeatedly being pointed out by ex-servicemen’s organisations and Army Headquarters, but with no let up.

One reason for this is that the AFT does not have power of civil contempt to enforce its judgments. Last month, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence recommended granting civil contempt to the AFT, a move stoutly opposed by the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) within the MoD, leading many to take that as yet another piece of evidence of the latter’s “anti-defence sentiments.”

Already there is much resentment over the absence of any serving or retired defence officer in DESW, a department meant to deal with problems of veteran soldiers.

But first, this is what DESW had to say in its defence before the parliamentary panel regarding non-implementation of the decisions of the AFT. “Generally, all orders passed by the AFTs are implemented unless they are against the settled policies of the government.”

COURT RULING

The Indian ex-servicemen movement reacted strongly to these pronouncements in a letter to the Defence Minister, saying that it appears the “DESW wants to make the AFT subservient to it and intends to treat it as another office of the MoD and not like a judicial body.” Court decisions are binding and have to be implemented unless there is a stay on their operation by a higher court.

A representative of the Ministry of Law lent weight to the allegation that relief granted by the AFT is almost always appealed against by the MoD. The representative told the parliamentary panel: “Against almost each and every matter the appeals are filed.” Not surprisingly, a commonly heard refrain within the defence fraternity is that “the DESW does everything except welfare of retired defence personnel particularly in respect of disabled soldiers and pensioners.”

Some recent actions of DESW in which it has reportedly ignored the instructions of the Defence Minister and protests by the Army substantiate these assertions. The most glaring example is that of Lt.Gen. Vijay Oberoi (retd.), a disabled soldier, on whose petition the Chandigarh bench of the AFT, in 2010 allowed broadbanding benefits to all disabled personnel irrespective of when they left service.

In March 2011, the Supreme Court in a similar case ruled that broadbanding benefits were to be provided to all disabled personnel and not just those who were invalided out, and dittoed it in another case in April 2011.

In August 2011, the Army headquarters and the Chief of Army Staff also directed that no further appeals were to be filed in such cases and that the judgments of the AFT and the Supreme Court implemented in favour of disabled personnel. However, in February 2012, DESW under the MoD appealed against the AFT’s judgment in Lt.Gen. Oberoi’s case.

In March 2012, the Defence Minister directed that no further appeals were to be filed in such cases till a final call is taken and that even the pending cases in the Supreme Court should not be argued by the government. However, in April and May 2012, the MoD/DESW filed more such appeals in similar matters.

AGAINST SHIFT

Notwithstanding the growing demand to shift administrative control of the AFT from the MoD, the latter has been consistently opposing it.

In November 2012, the Punjab and Haryana High Court also directed that its control be transferred to the Ministry of Law and Justice.

The judgment quoted from an earlier Supreme Court ruling that has suggested that all departmental tribunals like the AFT, should be brought under a wholly independent agency to ensure that the independence of the members of the tribunals is maintained. A proposal to set up a Central Tribunal Division under the Ministry of Law is in the pipeline.

Besides the principal bench in Delhi, there are eight regional benches in Jaipur, Chandigarh, Lucknow, Guwahati, Kolkata, Chennai, Kochi and Mumbai. Together, these nine benches have 15 courts, each with a judicial member (a retired high court judge) and an administrative member (a retired general officer).

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

Would a separate Pay Commission for the Armed Forces be beneficial, after all?

There are indications that the process for constitution of the 7^th Central Pay Commission may be initiated soon with the background idea that the recommendations are accepted well before 01-01-2016 so as to give effect to the same on the said date.

The PMO, after the 6^th CPC fiasco vis-à-vis the defence services, had opined that there would now be separate pay commission for the defence services. Many of us have already started professing for a separate pay commission and the voice is getting stronger by the day.

But in the ultimate analysis, we should first ponder over this concept threadbare and reach a considered conclusion whether a separate pay commission would be beneficial or not, and in what form.

The greatest fear with a separate panel is that it may result in detached recommendations wherein pay-scales and pension formulae totally different than other central govt employees may be recommended which may ultimately hamper our cause. Also, as pay commissions are only recommendatory in nature, any proactive or progressive recommendations may not ultimately be accepted by the govt. There could be an element of delay as well.

So what is the solution.

The first and the best solution would be that rather than having a separate pay commission, we insist on proper military representation on the regular pay commission with formal members representing the defence services and veterans. This way, while not being totally disconnected from the civil services, the defence services would be able to have a say as far as uniqueness of military service is concerned.

The second solution would be to have a separate pay commission for the defence services which may be constituted only after the main pay commission has submitted its recommendations but with a time bound mandate to offset any kind of delay of release of benefits to defence personnel. It, for example, could be notified that the separate pay commission would submit recommendations within 3 months of the central pay commission and acceptance could be mandated within total of 6 months from the recommendations of the central pay commission, loosely on the lines of pay panels constituted for academicians with support of the UGC. Of course this would not be possible without proper appreciation and notification by the govt.

I’m not presenting any solutions but in my humble opinion, veteran organisations should hence hold their horses till the time a considered call is taken on the issue by all stake-holders, which must include veteran bodies, the Services HQ through the COSC and the Govt, by properly weighing the pros and cons. It would also be much appreciated if adequately sensitised (and sensitive) officers having expertise in the area are posted on key appointments dealing with the subject rather than based on service profile, ACRs, courses attended or posting profile.

I’m sure the current apex establishment understands the importance of expertise and internals rather than ceremonials or externals as far as posting of officers is concerned, and since the hopes this time are very high, attempts must be made to deliver in a deliberated and considered manner.

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Singh

A Long Overdue Humanitarian Gesture - Dignified Last Rites for Air Veterans

Please give vide publicity.

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