Monday, March 29, 2010

Military flounders on family accommodation for jawans - Out Of Almost 2 Lakh Units Approved,Only 42,000 Built In 8 Yrs

New Delhi: Leave alone supersonic fighter jets or complex ballistic missile defence systems, the defence establishment seems incapable of even providing something as basic as decent family accomm-odation to its armed forces. Even as the defence ministry (MoD) flounders,deadlines after deadlines of the much-touted married accommodation project (MAP),touted as a major welfare measure for soldiers, airmen and sailors,are being missed with huge cost escalations. Consequently, while officers have it relatively easy,the majority of jawans are forced to stay away from their families for prolonged periods, which is one of the factors cited for the high levels of mental stress prevalent in the forces. Incidentally, the 13-lakh strong armed forces record over 120 suicide and fragging cases every year. MAP was conceived a decade ago to ameliorate some of the hardships faced by jawans since there was limited housing available for married personnel.Though the aim was to construct just 1,98,881 new dwelling units,in four phases at an estimated cost of Rs 17,357 crore,it was considered to be a good beginning.
But it has flattered to deceive.In May 2002,the Cabinet Committee on Security approved construction of 61,658 dwelling units under Phase-I,which were to be finished by 2005-2006. Eight years later, even after the number of units to be constructed was reduced to 58,391 in 86 military stations at a cost of Rs 5,329 crore,Phase-I is yet to be completed.Only about 42,000 units are ready till now, said an official.

The less said about Phase-II the better.Under it,66,727 units have to be constructed in a compressed timeframe by March 2012.It will simply not be possible, he said. MoD,on its part,says Phase-II will not be branched off to PSUs,like it was done in Phase-I.Defence minister A K Antony has directed senior officials to ensure strict adherence to the March 2012 deadline. While 75% of the work in Phase-II will be executed directly by the directorate general of MAP,the other 25% will be handled by MES (military engineering service),to avoid slippages and cost escalations. But given the track record of both MAP and MES till now,the timely execution of Phase-II,at a cost of Rs 9,938 crore,is likely to remain a mere pipedream. Moreover, no definite timeframes for Phase-III and IV,under which over 70,000 units are to be constructed,have been chalked out in detail.MoD officials, however, said, the government has agreed in principle to combine the last two phases to complete the entire MAP at the earliest.

Pipe Dream

Initially,1,98,881 dwelling units were to be contructed in four phases for Rs 17,357 crore Under Phase I,61,658 units were to be completed by 2005-2006 Though the no of units in Phase I was reduced to 58,391,they are yet to be completed Under Phase II,66,727 units have to be constructed by March 2012 No definite timeframe for Phase III,IV either.

Friday, March 26, 2010


Ministry of Finance has issued the OM No: 1(3)/2010-E-II(B) dated 26.3.2010 for revising the Dearness Allowance applicable to Central Government Employees from 27% to 35% with effect from 1.1.2010. The said order issued in this connection says that the additional instalment of DA payable under these orders shall be paid in Cash to all Central Government Employees. The arrears for DA for the months of January and February 2010 will be paid after the date of disbursement of salary for March-2010. These orders shall also be applicable to civilian employees paid from defence services. In regard to armed forces personnel and railway employees separate orders will be issued by the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Railways respectively


Thursday, March 25, 2010


Monday, March 22, 2010

From: Brig Suryanarayanan

Sent: 20 March 2010 19:27

Subject: DA RATES FROM 1-1-1986 to JAN 2010

Keep this info handy. IF and WHEN, we get the arrears of Rank Pay (Dhanapalan Case), this may be helpful to check!

Brig AN Suryanarayanan (Retd)

* In April 2004 50% DA merged into basic pay/pension and 11% carried forward. Therefore the basic pay/pension became 1.5 into Basic pay/pension. Let us call the (1.5 x basic pay/pension) = RB (Revised Basic)

Therefore, In April 2004 the effective Pay/Pension plus DA became–RB + [11% of (RB)]

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Armed Forces Tribunal inaugurated - 08 AUG 09

07 AUG 2009

The men in uniform will have another reason to cheer when their long-pending demand for justice becomes a reality with the launch of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) tomorrow. Befitting the momentous occasion, the long-awaited tribunal will be inaugurated by the President Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil.

Set up by an Act of parliament in December, 2007, the Armed Forces Tribunal will have its Principal Bench in New Delhi and eight regional benches spread across the country. The Tribunal will have 15 courts in all, - three each in New Delhi, Chandigarh and Lucknow and one each in Jaipur, Mumbai, Kolkata, Guwahati, Chennai and Kochi.

Aggrieved armed forces personnel will now be able to appeal against sentences handed down by the court-martial. The Tribunal will also have powers to grant bail to any person in military custody. It is expected to be functional soon once the government issues the relevant notification. The AFT will provide a judicial forum for redressal of grievances of about a 1.3 million strong armed forces personnel and another 1.2 million Ex-Servicemen. At present about 9,000 such cases are pending before various courts across the country, most of them with the high courts. The AFT will not only result in speedy and affordable justice to the men in uniform but also save the Armed Forces’ resources in terms of manpower, material and time. The decisions of the AFT can be challenged only in the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal will have a Chairperson who has been or is a judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a high court. Justice AK Mathur, a former judge of the Supreme Court, has been appointed the AFT’s first Chairperson and has assumed charge since Sep.01, 2008. Besides, each court consists of a judicial member and an administrative member. There will be in all 30 members in the 15 courts of the nine AFT benches, - 15 judicial including the Chairperson, and an equal number of administrative members. The judicial member must be, or have been, a judge of a High Court while the administrative member would be officers of the rank of Major General or equivalent in either of the three Services or an officer not less than the rank of a Brigadier or equivalent who has rendered not less than one year service as the Judge Advocate General of the Army, Navy or Air Force.

The government has already appointed eight judicial members and 15 administrative members, while seven judicial members are yet to be named. The eight judicial members appointed to the Tribunal alongwith the location of the bench are: - Justice AK Mathur (Chairperson, AFT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Justice Manak Lall Mohta (New Delhi), Justice Ghanshyam Prasad (Chandigarh), Justice Janardhan Sahai (Lucknow – yet to join), Justice SS Kulshrestha (Lucknow), Justice Bhanwaroo Khan (Jaipur), Justice AC Arumugaperumal Adityan (Chennai) and Justice K Padmanabhan Nair (Kochi). The 15 administrative members are: Lt. General ML Naidu, Lt Gen. ZU Shah and Lt. Gen. SS Dhillon (all New Delhi bench), Lt. Gen. Amrik Singh Bahia, Lt Gen. HS Panag and Lt. Gen. NS Brar (all Chandigarh bench), Lt. Gen. PR Gangadharan, Lt. Gen. RK Chhabra and Lt. Gen. BS Sisodia (all Lucknow bench), Lt. Gen. Susheel Gupta (Jaipur), Vice Admiral RF Contractor (Mumbai), Lt. Gen. Madan Gopal (Kolkata), Commodore Mohan Phadke (Guwahati), Lt. Gen. S Pattabhiraman (Chennai) and Lt. Gen. Thomas Mathew (Kochi).


Army Tribunal Grants one Rank One Pension

The Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal has directed Union government to grant OROP or the same pension to personnel belonging to the same rank, irrespective of date of retirement. Deciding on the cases of Babu Ram Dhiman vs Union of India and Sohan Singh vs Union of India, the tribunal on Monday said, “It is quite clear that the State cannot lay down different criteria for grant of pension for same rank of officers and Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) on the basis of the cut-off date of retirement. All pensioners, irrespective of the date of retirement are entitled to (the) same pension.” The judgment also said grant of unequal pay in the same rank was a violation of Article 14 of Constitution that grants equal rights to all citizens. The All India Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare Association, Chandigarh, under its legal aid scheme, filed these two cases seeking a direction to the Ministry of Defence to revise the pension of those who retired before January 2006 to put them on par with post-September 2008 pensioners.

Bhim Sen Sehgal, chairman of the association and Rajesh Sehgal, petitioners’ counsel, submitted that a Havildar who retired before January 2006 gets a pension of Rs 4,060 per month while those retiring after September 2008 get Rs 7,846. Similar are the cases of equivalent ranks of the Army, Navy and Air Force, they said. Amar Preet Sandhu, the central government’s lawyer maintained that the matter was under the government’s consideration.

Comments: bpsingh

Dear Sir,

This is a historical judgement by AFT Chandigarh. But still I am not hopeful, GOI may move to Supreme Court Of India, where authorities in MOD may fabricate hypothetical, wrong interpretation of data's against the interest of Jawans of this country. I pray to Almighty to give them wisdom, so that we pensioners are at par with Oct 2008 retirees. Looking forward from GOI To DO justification!
(source-report my signal)

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Wheelchair-bound brigadier to become major-general

New Delhi: In a stirring achievement, a paraplegic Army officer confined to a wheelchair, Brigadier S K Razdan, is all set to become a two-star officer, a Major General. While this is not the first time that physically challenged officers have reached high ranks,with at least two having even become senior three-star officers or Lt-Generals, the feat is possible only through steely determination and sheer grit. Brig Razdan was a Lt-Col in the special forces when he participated in an intensive counter-terrorism operation in Damal Kunzipur area of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1994 to save several Muslim women taken hostage by militants. While the women were successfully rescued, the brave officer suffered grave injuries to his spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed below the waist. A grateful nation awarded him the Kirti Chakra,the nations second-highest peacetime gallantry award, in 1996 for his act of valour. The wheel chair bound officer later went on to become a brigadier. And now, Brig Razdan has been approved to become a major-general and will pick up his rank once there is a vacancy. As per Army rules, any injury or disability suffered in war, counter-terrorism, which is called a battle casualty, does not come in the way of any soldier in his promotion boards as long as he is capable of performing his duties, said a senior officer.

However, if a soldier suffers a physical casualty, i.e. gets disabled in training or an accident, then there is no recourse but to put him in a lower medical category. He is allowed to serve if he can perform his duties but there is a bar on him getting promoted or attending some particular courses. Otherwise, he is boarded out. For instance, Lt-Gen Pankaj Joshi, (passed away last year) commissioned into the Gorkha Rifles in 1962, he lost both his legs during a mine-clearing mission in Sikkim in 1967. But through sheer grit after becoming a battle casualty, he went on to command an armoured brigade, an armoured division and a corps before becoming the GOC-IN-C of the Lucknow-based Central Army Command. Thats not all. Lt-Gen Joshi also became Indias first-ever chief of the tri-Service integrated defence staff in October 2001, established in the aftermath of the 1999 Kargil conflict,and retired after a fruitful tenure.

The Army, has also had a disabled Lt-Gen as it vice-chief. Lt-Gen Vijay Oberoi, who lost one of his legs during an operation,served as the vice-chief in 2000-2001 after first serving as the director-general of military operations, a strike corps commander and then chief of the Western Army Command.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Release of additional instalment of Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief to Pensioners due from 1.1.2010

The Union Cabinet today decided to release an additional instalment of Dearness Allowance (DA) to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief (DR) to pensioners with effect from 1.1.2010 representing an increase of 8% over the existing rate of 27% of the Basic Pay/Pension, to compensate for price rise. The increase is in accordance with the accepted formula, which is based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. The combined impact on the exchequer on account of both dearness allowance and dearness relief would be of the order of Rs.6969.36 crore per annum and Rs.8131.20 crore in the financial year 2010-2011 (for a period of 14 months from January, 2010 to February, 2011).  AKT/SH/VK


Cabinet likely to increase DA to 35%

The proposal for Revision of Dearness Allowance Rate from 27% to 35% is likely to be approved by cabinet meeting today (19.3.2010). About 50 lakh central government employees may get 8 percentage points increase in their dearness allowance (DA) Pensioners may also get the dearness relief, highly placed sources said. The increase would be given with retrospective effect from January this year. The DA revision is based on the consumer price index (CPI) for industrial workers, which has been showing a steep increase along with other indices of the price rise. The CPI for industrial workers increased to 16.2 per cent in January from 10.4 per cent a year ago.


Thursday, March 18, 2010

Discrimination between pre and post 2006 pensioners

Lt Col BR Malhotra (Retd) President, Welfare Association of Central Government Employees Absorbed in PSUs, is the author of this guest article.
The discrimination between pre and post 2006 pensioners as regards minimum qualifying service of 20 years for full pension is another example of the total Non-Application of mind and deliberate violation of the Supreme Court Orders on the subject. It is now a well established principle of law that any classification in revised pension formula between pensioners on the basis of date of retirement is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. This has been fortified by a number of rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court starting with the judgment of a five judge bench in the case of D.S. Nakra vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130). The above principle has been clarified in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgement dated 09.10.98 in the case of V. Kasturi Vs MD, SBI in Civil Appeal No.5048 of 98. (1998(5) SCALE page 562) The operative paragraphs of the judgment are as follows: -

“20. It is now time for us to take stock of the situation. From the aforesaid resume of relevant decisions of this Court spread over years to which our attention was invited by learned counsel for the respective parties, the following legal position clearly gets projected.

Category –1

21. If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases.”

A plain reading of the above judgment makes it abundantly clear that no discrimination can be made between post and pre 2006 pensioners who had rendered 20 years service at the time of retirement. A five judge bench in the case of D.S. Nakra vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130) had given its ruling on the subject. As per the Constitution of India all Supreme Court orders are binding on all authorities of the country

It is in-comprehensible that such an important ruling of the Apex court has been ignored. It is the duty of the senior most officers of the country to uphold the Constitution of India and rulings of the Supreme Court. As President of the Welfare Association of Central Government Employees absorbed in PSUs, I have sent representation to the Government but as usual ,they never reply when they are confronted with facts.
VNatarajan, President, Pensioners' Forum,Chennai said on Thursday, March 18, 2010, 14:20

Dear Lt Col Malhotraji/all interested, The status of past pensioners have been reduced to such a state-that even a plethora of the legal conficts in the offing do not open the eyes of the concerned. At least a dozen are lined up from both Civil and Military pensioners. Affiliations/ Federations have no meaning. Nakar, Akkara etc have become deeply curied history and all past pensioners have become “bakras’. One sample of a RTI reply I received from the apex Public Authority dealing with CG pensions states:


Tuesday, March 16, 2010


The following petition was sent to all addressees on 15.3.2010 by me, Under Certificate of Posting, which may kindly  be viewed by all vet.brothers and, they may kindly do the same by incorporating their personal/service/pension particulars, if they wish to do so. 

My petitions were replied by some authorities. The one dated 15.1.10 had been sent to ADPA-III for action by DPP&R, GOI,MOD on 18.2.2010, and  the CGDA, New Delhi informed me vide his letter dated 22.2.2010, that the P&H HC order is challenged in in SC and got STAY and hence the effective date 1.1.96 cannot be implemented for now.

Thanks, Gavini VN








2) GOI MOD LTR NO.PC.10(1)2009-D(Pen/Pol) DATED 08.3.2010
4) GOI, MIN OF PER OM NO.F.NO.45/86/97-P&PW(A)-Part II d/d 27.10.97
5) GOI MIN OF PERS OM NO.45/57/97-P&PG D/D 19.12.97
6) GOI MOD LTR NO.1(2)98/D(PEN/SER) DATED 3/2/98 AND 14/7/98.
7) GOI MOD LTR NO. 1(1)99/D(PEN/SER) DATED 7/6/99.
8) GOI MOF OM F.NO.105/1/2004-IC D/D 1.3.04
9) GOI MOD NO.1(10)/97/D(Pay/Services) D/D 12.3.04
11) GOI MOD LTR NO. 14(3)/2004-D(PEN/SER)/VOL.III DATED 1.2.06.
12) GOI MOD LTR NO. 14(3)/2004-D(PEN/SER)/VOL.V DATED 2.5.06.
14) GOI MOD LTR NO.17(4)/2008(1)/D(PEN/POLICY) DATED 11.11.08.
16) MY PETITION NO.NIL DATED 17.12.2008.
17) AFRO LTR NO.3201/7/P&WW(CBS) DATED 15.1.09
21) AFRO LETTER NO.3201/7/612027/11/89/PP&W(PRE-96) DATED 24.4.09
22) DP ADALAT NO.PA/GTR/102 D/D 12.5.09
25) AFRO LTR NO.RO/3201/7/P&WW(CBS)/612027 DATED 18.6.09
26) DP ADALAT LTR NO.PA/GTR/102 DATED 18.6.09, 30.6.09 AND 12.8.09
27) AFRO LTR NO.RO/3201/7/P&WW(CBS)/612027 DATED 11.8.09
28) AFRO LTR NO.RO/3201/7/P&WW(PRE-96) DATED 03.8.09.
29) AFRO LTR No.RO/3201/7/P&WW(CBS) DATED 08.12.09
30) PB &HAR HC JUDGEMENT (CWP NO.6223/2007 DATED 26.5.2008
32) AIRHQ LTR NO.24229/VI CPC/PP7R-3(i) DATED 18.2.2010


1. Apropos to your Press Release on the Revised Pensions w.e.f.1.7.2010 to the Pre-&Post 10.10.97 Armed Forces Pensioners, vide reference cited at Sl.No.1, and a newsitem published in The Hindu on 27.1.2006, on substantial and improved pensionary benefits to armymen, reference cited at Sl.No.10, my this petition to your honour for kind perusal and favourable remedial orders, as requested in the succeeding paras.

2. That I was sanctioned a Service Pension of Rs.551/- w.e.f. 29.11.1989 vide Pension Payment Order No. CS/14/B/11350/1990 on my discharge from the IAF. On my written and e-mail petitions to revise my pension at correct rates, as envisaged in GOI,MOD orders cited at references Sl.Nos.6,7,8,9,10,11, 12 and 13, the AFRO vide their letter cited at Sl.No.25 above, had informed me that - "The Revised Consolidated Pension (RCP) and Revised Pension(RP) payable to me with 18 years of qualifying service is as per the details appended below:-

RCP Rs.1694/- wef 1.1.96 Table No.135 annexed to GOI MOD ltr No.1(2)/98(Pen/Ser) d/d 14/7/98 (V CPC recommendations).

RP Rs.2541/- wef 1.4.04 Table No.62 annexed to O/o the PCDA(P) Allahabad circular No.350 d/d 19/5/06 (with 50% DP merged).

RP Rs.1837/- wef 1.1.06 ---------------------------do----------------------- (without merger of 50%DP)

RP Rs.2755/- wef 1.1.06 --------------------------do-------------------------(with 50% DP merged)

RP Rs.4218/- wef 11.1.06 GOI MOD ltr No.17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/policy) dated 11.11.08 and O/o PCDA(P) Allahabad Circular No.397 d/d 18/11/08 (VI CPC recommendations).”

However, AFRO vide their letter reference cited at Sl.No.27 have informed that “ hence the above Govt orders aare not beneficial to PBORs. Further, it is clarified that the restructuring of groups viz.X,Y & Z in IAF came into effect ffrom 10.10.97. Hence, this policy is not applicable to Pre-10.10.97 retirees. Further, it is clarified that tthis office being a processing agency is unable to comment on policy matters.”

3. The above rates have been revised as at the latest table No.114 of Circular 430 (vide reference cited at Sl.No. 3) shown below:-

a)PRE-1.1.96 CASES:- V CPC PENSION - Rs.1694/- w.e.f.1.1.96, IMPROVED PENSION WITHOUT DP –Rs.1837/-, WITH DP Rs.2755/- & CONSOLIDATED - Rs.4153/-PM W.E.F.1.1.2006

b)POST-1.1.96 &PRE-10.10.97 CASES:- V CPC PENSION – Rs.1760/- w.e.f.1.1.96, IMPROVED PENSION WITHOUT DP –Rs.1837/-, WITH DP Rs.2755/- &CONSOLIDATED –Rs.4153/-PM W.E.F. 1.1.2006


4. My service pension figure, for 18.5 years after including my boys service period (total service from 19.5.1971to 28.11.1989), shall be revised upward to Rs.563/-pm w.e.f.29.11.1989, V CPC Rs.1730/-, w.e.f.1.1.96, Rs.1875/- (without DP), with DP Rs.2812/-, and consolidated Rs.4239/- w.e.f.1.1.06 and Rs.5647/- w.e.f. 1.7.09 as per circular 430 (table 114) d/d 10.3.2010. This can happen only after my Corrigendum PPO is issued by AFRO as per their letter reference cited at Sl.No.29 above.


5. The GOI have granted a Fixed Medical Allowance @Rs.100/- w.e.f. 1.12.1997 to all Non-CGHS pensioners, including armed forces pensioners vide Orders cited at l.No.5 above. The VI CPC had recommended that this allowance may suitably be revised by the Govt. In these hardprone days, the cost of medical facilities have gone up steeply and hence thee Govt may enhance Fixed Medical Allowance to at least Rs.2000/- pm and release orders most urgently.


6. The GOI have extended the benefit of Classification Allowance (@50%) to Indian Army pensioners w.e.f.10.10.97 and to all three forces pensioners (@100%) w.e.f.1.1.2006 on the recommendations of the V and VI CPCs. This facility may also be extended to me also w.e.f.10.10.97, since I have passed JWO prom examination in 1984-85 and was drawing I,II and III rates of GCB Pay on the date of my retirement, and appropriate orders may kindly be issued to include these allowances into my pension amount.


7. The Panjab and Haryana High Court vide reference cited at Sl.No.30, had quashed the effective date 1.1.06, of improvements in the pensionary benefits to armed forces personnel as per GOM recommen-dations in terms of GOI MOD Order (dated 1.2.06, Para 9), reference cited at Sl.No.11, and directed the GOI to grant revised pensionary benefits to all the Petitioners and similarly situated PBORs within a period of 6 months. Therefore, implementation of this judgement may kindly be done in my case also, and my Service Pension (for 18.5 years total service) may kindly be revised/refixed at the appropriate rates, w.e.f. 1.1.1996.


8. The Govt have granted a Minimum pension of Rs.375/- pm w.e.f. 1.1.1986 (IV CPC rate) was revised upward to Rs.1275/-pm w.e.f. 1.1.1996 (V CPC recommendations) vide GOI Orders reference cited at Sl..No.4 and 6 above. The formula was simple – 50% of the Basic Pay of the Lowest Cadre CG Employee i.e. Lowest starting Basic Pay Scale of Rs.2550/- and was applicable to all CG employees including the Armed Forces Pensioners. The lowest Basic Pay Scale of an Aircraftsman (V Group) was Rs.2975/- w.e.f. 1.1.96 and the minimum pension should have been Rs.1488/- w.e.f. 1.1.96. And therefore, in my case – as Sgt (GP- III) Min. Pension should have been 50% of minimum basic scale of pay of my rank/group Sgt/III Group) - Rs.3775/2 = Rs.1888/-pm as minimum pension w.e.f. 1.1.96. Further, when the Trades/Groups got merged (III merging to II w.e.f.10.10.97) the Minimum Basic Scale of Pay attached to Group II/Sgt was Rs.4320/- and as such my minimum basic pension should have been 50% of this pay scale, i.e. Rs.2160/-pm w.e.f.10.10.97. This benefit of revised rates of pensions w.e.f. 1.1.96 and/or 10.10.97 were not at all extended to me, in terms of STIPULATION OF MINIMUM PENSION OF NOT LESS THAN 50% OF BASIC PAY OF SCALE OF RANK/GROUP HELD BY ME (SGT/III/II).


9. The Govt of India, in terms of recommendations of V CPC, have sanctioned/granted merger of 50% DA with the Basic pay of all CG employees and pensioners including the armed forces pensioners w.e.f. 1.4.2004 vide OM reference cited at Sl.No. 4 and 5 above. This concept of Merger of 50% DA equival-ent amount of Merger with the Basic Pension of all Central Govt employees/pensioners and the Armed Forces Pensioners flowed from the V CPC recommendations, i.e. whenever the DA rates exceed above 50%, the same may be merged with the Basic Pay/basic pension scales and this was done wef 1.4.2004, as the DA rates rose to 59% as on 1.1.2004. Therefore, my Consolidated Pension should have been revised and fixed at Rs.2160/- +1080=Rs.3260/-pm w.e.f.1.4.2004. This formula had nothing to do with the POLICY OF GOI MOD ON IMPROVEMENT IN PENSIONARY BENEFITS TO ARMED FORCES PENSIONERS ON GOM RECOMMENDATIONS OR THE PARITY IN PENSIONS ON THE CoS RECOMMENDATIONS D/D 30.6.09. It appears that this concept was completely MIS-CONCEIVED/MIS-UNDERSTOOD, so far as it relates to the Armed Forces Pensions, and was wrongly applied in my pension by including ERRRONEOUSLY in PCDA(P) ALLAHABAD’S MOST IMPORTANT CIRCULARS NO.350 AND 430. The resultant effect of these orders – my Pension Consolidated pension rates were adversely affected, with a substantial financial loss.


10. The GOI, MOD orders cited at reference cited at 6 and 7 have, once again, clearly mentioned the MINIMUM BASIC PENION shall not be less than 50% of the MAXIMUM OF THE PAY SCALE OF THEE RANK/GROUP HELD by the pensioner, subject to a MINIMUM PENSION OF Rs.1913/-. In other words, simply the 5th CPC Minimum Pension has been upped by 50% i.e.Rs.1275/- + 1275/2 = Rs.1913/-.wef 1.1.96, (but implemented w.e.f.1.1.2006 - this date struck down by P&H HC Orders). These orders shifted the focus, of fixing the minimum pension based on the MAXIMUM PAY SCALE OF RANK/GROUP, W.E.F.1.1.96, as per the recommendations of the Group Of Ministers which were accepted by the Govt. The Maximum Basic Pay of my rank Sgt/Gp.Y w.e.f.10.10.97 is Rs.5595/- (1.7.09 pensions determined on this figure in my case). As a result, naturally my pension fixation undergoes further change i.e. Rs.5595/2 = Rs.2888/- at the minimum level w.e.f.10.10.97/1.1.96, and   the consolidated pension as on 1.4.2004 should have been Rs.2888/-+1444(50% DA Merged) = Rs.4332/-, and upto 31.12.05. And as such, wef 1.1.06, my pension should have been fixed at Rs.4332/-pm in terms of these orders, but the same was again not incorporated in the PCDA(P) Circulars cited at reference Sl.Nos.3 and 13 above, thus negating the very Concept of Minimum Pension formula as prescribed in GOI orders.


11. Since my basic pension as on 31.12.05 should have been Rs.4332/- pm (MINIMUM) and  my revised basic pension as per VI CPC formula should have been Rs.2888/-x2.26=Rs.6527/-pm, had the all the above Govt orders were properly implemented.

12. You are, therefore, requested to kindly intervene, bestow personal attention and pass orders so that my correct pension is revised/refixed by AFRO as stated above and issue a Corr.PPO at an early date.

4. Thanking you sir.

Yours faithully,
Date :-15.3.2010      (GV Narayana)Ex-sgt

Copies for kind information and necesssary action - To.

1) AIR HQ(RKP),DPP&R-3(i), West Block VI, New Delhi-110066
3)CGDA, WEST BLOCK, RK PURAM, New Delhi- 110066.
5) Jt.CDA(AF),C/O AFCAO,SUBROTO PARK, New Delhi-110010
6) AFRO, SUBROTO PARK, New Delhi -110010


Lt Col BR Malhotra said on Saturday, March 13, 2010, 8:35

The Punjab Government desreves praise for revising its previous orders regarding Pre 2006 Pensioners. Most of the Cental Government Pensioners were at the maximum of the Pay scale when they retired but their Pension has been restricted to the Minimum of the Pay Band of the revised 2006 scales. In case of employees who were in service on 1/1/06 and were even at the minumum of the pay scale in the pre revised scale, their pay was not fixed at the minimum of the pay band but was fixed many stages upward. It is unfortunate that the officers of Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare only looks after their own welfare and has the most negative bias against old pensioners. It is a matter of fact that the Officers of that department relish at the prospect of old and infirm pensioners going to Administrative Tribunals. Even when they get relief from thr tribunal, the department files appeals right upto the Supreme Court. If you see the past record of the cases, the department lost 90% of  cases but in the process delayed the implementation by several years in which many pensioners pass away. I suggest that the Department should be renamed as the Department of Pension and the Suffix Pensioners Welfare dropped because they are only known to make Anti Pensioners Rules and even the judgments are interpreted negatively. It is a sad fact that Senior IAS officers in that department hardly apply their mind and merely act as rubber stamps to the subordinates who get sarcastic pleasure in denying Pensioners even their legitimate dues.


1. An EX-SERVICEMEN RALLY was held at Bengaluru on Sunday, 14 March 2010; whereat, 250 Ex-Servicemen led by Veteran Rear Admiral BR Vasanth, Brig JS Narasimhan, Brig Sudandiram and Brig B Chandrashekar signed in Blood, a Memorandum addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, in support of their demand for grant of MILITARY PENSION by way of ONE RANK, ONE PENSION.

2. ‘One Rank One Pension’ implies that uniform pension be paid to Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. Military Service is UNIQUE, with a highly demanding 24 by 7 work culture under hostile environments; and secondly, Military Service is the only Service wherein a Jawan is bundled out at the young age of 35, when he has a wife, two small children, unmarried sisters & parents to be taken care of; without the STATE bothering to give him an alternative employment. It is absolutely callous. A young man who joins Govt. service in civil as a LDC or a Police constable; serves comfortably till the age of 60 years and retires in a much higher position with a good amount as pension. Not so in the case of a Jawan. 85% of the Sepoys retire as Sepoys only after 15 years service. Most civilians who retire at 60, would live to see only one Pay Commission after retirement, considering their longevity to be 70-75 years and may be a few, two pay commissions; but a Sepoy would live to see nothing less than four Pay Commissions after retirement. ‘ONE RANK, ONE PENSION’ is equally applicable to Officers, as bulk (85%) retire in the rank of Colonel, at the age of 54 years; thus losing out on pay for six years & enhanced pensionary benefits. It is the older pensioners of the Army, Navy & Air Force who are the worst sufferers. It is not only the serving soldier that the STATE is duty bound to take care of; but also the Veterans who have sacrificed their youth in service of the Nation with no other thought but, DUTY, HONOUR and COUNTRY.

3. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, comprising 44 eminent Members of Parliament, had in their Report to Lok Sabha on 19 Aug 2003, strongly recommended the grant of ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) to Ex-Servicemen. Para 99 of the said Report is reproduced below:

“The Committee has been recommending grant of `ONE RANK ONE PENSION’ to the armed forces personnel time and again. The Committee observes that successive Governments and Pay Commissions have made improvements in the pension structure keeping in view the cost of living index. This has accentuated the disparity of pensionary benefits between pensioners of the same rank. The older pensioners who have become infirm in ability and capability and burdened with a larger social obligation receive pension calculated at the rate of pay at the time of their retirement in 1950s or 1960s or 1970s, which is quite paltry and the Dearness Relief quite inconsequential in today’s context of inflation and shrinking purchasing value of money. The nation must repay its debt to those Defendents of the motherland with gratitude and humility. We should, instead of, looking for precedents in this regard, create precedents for the others to emulate. Any amount paid in this regard would be small token of our gratitude to them. The Committee, therefore, once again reiterates their earlier recommendation for providing `ONE RANK ONE PENSION’ to the armed forces personnel”.

4. The Ex-Servicemen in their Memorandum addressed to the Hon’ble Prime minister have requested convening of a JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE [JPC] by 15 Apr 2010, to study the subject matter in its entirety and submit its Report within sixty days (ie. by 15 Jun 2010).

5. Col Rajan, the IESM Convenor said that the Memorandum is being signed by Ex-Servicemen in their own BLOOD, to impress upon the Hon’ble Prime Minister that Ex-Servicemen are indeed anguished & pained; and to request him to initiate immediate steps to ameliorate their problems of Pension and Re-settlement. The Ex-Servicemen in their Memorandum addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister have clearly stated that that in case their request for amelioration of our problems relating to Pension and Resettlement are not suitably addressed, the Ex-Servicemen, all over the Country, will be forced to further intensify their struggle; and the next and final step would be to launch a nation wide Satyagraha, undertaking FAST UNTO DEATH, commencing on 02 Oct 2010.

Colonel Rajan
Bangalore, 9449043770

Haryana STF team dissolved for role in extortion racket

Panipat/Gurgaon: A special force created to fight terrorism and crime in Haryana was disbanded on Monday after 8 members, including Chief of the Crack Unit, were accused of dacoity and extortion. All the 8 Cops of the Special Task Force (STF), including an Asst Superintendent of Police, had been detained and were being questioned at the Panipat city police station. Senior SP Rajender Singh told that among those detained was ASP Ashok Sheoran, who is a Haryana Police Service officer.Others include policemen of ranks of head constable and constable. Sources said more policemen could be involved in the case. On March 11, Members of STF had barged into an office of a share broker in Panipat & looted Rs 6 lakh after tying up its owner. Later, they tried to extort Rs 10 lakh from the owner of Malhotra Jewellers, claiming they were members of a vigilance team from Chandigarh. The owner of the shop,VK Malhotra, pleaded that he did not have the money and handed over Rs 1 lakh with the promise that he would pay the rest of the amount in a short while. When they returned, Malhotra told them that he had informed the police and would hand over the money only in their presence. Hearing this, the extortionist slipped out of the shop on the pretext of calling other members of his team.

During subsequent investigations, the police zeroed in on Jagbir Singh, who had served Panipat police before joining the STF, after going through CCTV footage of the shop. The police also traced their location in the area of crime.
S P S Rathore stripped of his police medal

The Centre on Monday finally stripped disgraced former Haryana Police Chief SP S Rathore convicted for molesting teenager Ruchika of his police medal. The (formal) notification was issued in the light of the decision taken by the home ministry in this regard in January, said a senior official.He said the home ministry has also written to the Union Public Service Commission and the ministry of personnel, seeking their views on reducing/discontinuation of the pension and other post-retirement benefits of convicted retired cop. The Centre has also asked all the states and Union Territories to send information about those cops convicted for moral turpitude. Detailed information is sought to initiate the process of stripping individual of his or her police medal in due course on a case-to-case basis, said the official.

Four jawans die in blast at Pokhran range

New Delhi: In yet another mishap caused due to suspected defective ammunition,four soldiers were killed and three others injured when the barrel of a 81mm mortar burst at the Pokhran field firing range on Sunday. The mishap took place when the victims,belonging to the Maratha Light Infantry and Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry units from the 35 Brigade based in Delhi,were taking part in routine night-firing exercises. The 81mm mortars barrel burst with a high-explosive shell inside it. A court of inquiry has been ordered to ascertain the exact reason for the accident, said an official. While one of the jawans died on the spot,three others succumbed to injuries on the way to the Jodhpur military hospital. They have been identified as Gopal Appawasan, Kadam Subhash Suresh, Raviraj Vishnu and Mohammad Ishaq. The condition of the three injured is also serious. Even as the Army inducts advanced weapon systems, the fact remains that some of its ammunition, bombs, artillery shells and mines are of old vintage, well past their use-by dates, or simply defective in nature.

In March 2008, for instance,three soldiers were also killed in a mortar burst during the Brazen Chariots exercise at Pokhran.Last year,a young officer had died at the Deolali artillery school after a shell had burst near him.Continued use of old ammunition also rudely came through during the laying of the staggering 10.5 lakh mines during the troop mobilisation along Indo-Pak border after Parliament attack.
Ballistic missile test aborted mid-way

New Delhi: India is at least a decade away from deploying an effective missile defence shield, which will require extensive overlapping networks of reliable early-warning and tracking radars, foolproof command and control posts, and of course land and sea-based batteries of advanced interceptor missiles. This is the ground reality, even if DRDO proclaims that its largely home-grown two-tier ballistic missile defence (BMD) system will be far superior than the American Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3 ) and Israeli Arrow-2 BMD systems once it becomes fully operational. BMD technology is incredibly complex, far more than the task of stopping an incoming bullet by firing another bullet at it.

Even the US BMD systems, with over $100 billion being spent on PAC-3, Aegis BMD-3 and other systems, are yet to be proven in actual conflict till now. That India is miles away from an effective missile shield was underlined once again when the fourth test of its fledgling BMD system was aborted mid-way off the Orissa coast on Monday. The modified Prithvi missile, mimicking the target missile, could reach an altitude of only 75-80 km instead of the designated 110 km due to some on board system malfunction. This enemy missile, while descending on its parabolic trajectory,was to be hit by the endo-atmospheric interceptor missile at an altitude of 15 km above the earth. But since it failed to achieve the desired altitude profile, the mission control centre computer did not instruct the interceptor missile to take-off and intercept the incoming missile. It will take a month or more to conduct a fresh mission, said a senior scientist. Incidentally, the first three tests of the BMD system, designed to track and destroy hostile missiles both inside (endo) & outside (exo) earths atmosphere, were quite successful. In Nov 06, Dec07 and Mar 09, the enemy missiles were killed at altitudes of 48-km,15-km and 80-km respectively. The real test will, however, come when both the two-stage exo and single-stage endo interceptor missiles are tested in an integrated mode, to first engage outside the atmosphere and then intercept the leakers inside to ensure a near 100% kill probability.
KVs to scrap quota system in admissions

New Delhi: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on Monday is said to have decided to scrap the discretionary quota system in admission of students.The meeting of the board of governors (BoG) of KVS chaired by HRD minister Kapil Sibal is said to have decided to end discretionary quota enjoyed by the ministers and MPs, sources said. Sibal, who is the chairman of the BoG of KVS, has been supporting the scrapping of the quota system in admission to make it fair. As per the quota system, while the HRD minister can recommend names of candidates for 1,200 seats under his discretionary quota, an MP can recommend two candidates for admission into the central schools. While a Lok Sabha MP can recommend two candidates from his constituency, a Rajya Sabha MP can recommend two candidates from anywhere from the state which is represented by him.

There are nearly 10 lakh seats in 981 KVs across the country. The decision comes months after Sibal was flooded with requests for admissions soon after taking over as HRD minister last year. His predecessor Arjun Singh had exhausted 1,000 seats available under the discretionary quota. PTI
(source toi)

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Cong in Kerala renominates Antony to RS

The Congress in Kerala on Saturday renominated defence minister AK Antony for the Rajya Sabha. His current term comes to an end this month. Antony's name was recomme-nded by the election committee of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee(KPCC). There were some initial hiccups though as Congress ally Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) claimed the seat. The issue was, however, sorted out and IUML gave it up in favour of the Congress leader. "The KPCC election committee's decision to propose Antony as the candidate was unanimous.Considering his national stature as the defence minister,his continuance in the Rajya Sabha is inevitable,"state Congress chief Ramesh Chennithala told reporters. The CPM also announced the names of K N Balagopal,political secretary to Kerala chief minister, and TN Seema, head of the All India Democratic Women's Association's state unit. The party, too, had its share of problems with its ally RSP demanding a seat.But this was turned down by the Left Front. All the three are expected to be elected unopposed as no other candidate is likely to enter fray considering the political composition of the state assembly.While the Congress can win one seat,the ruling Left will return two candidates. Besides Antony,A Vijayraghavan of the CPM and P V Abdul Wahab of the IUML are the other two candidates retiring from the Rajya Sabha this month.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Take a leaf out of Punjab Govt’s Book- Revision of Pre-2006 Punjab State Pension

Similar situation of the times of D.S. Nakara case is around us consequent on implementation of 6th pay commission recommendations. A detailed study on D.S.Nakara’s Case is :-

The evergreen D.S. Nakara case judgment confirmed that `Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and quality of treatment. It is attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In other words, there ought to be causal connection between the basis of classification and the object of the statute. The doctrine of classification was evolved by the Court for the purpose of sustaining a legislation or State action designed to help weaker sections of the society. Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained by the court if the State satisfies the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. A discriminatory action is liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.

In the instant (D.S. Nakara) case, looking to the goals for the attainment of which pension is paid and the welfare State proposed to be set up in the light of the Directive Principles of State Policy and Preamble to the Constitution it is indisputable that pensioners for payment of pension form a class. When the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme in order to augment social security in old age to government servants it could not grant the benefits of liberalisation only to those who retired subsequent to the specified date and deny the same to those who had retired prior to that date. The division which classified the pensioners into two classes on the basis of the specified date was devoid of any rational principle and was both arbitrary and unprincipled being unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the guarantee of equal treatment contained in Art. 14 was violated in as much as the pension rules which were statutory in character meted out differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of computation of pension from the dates specified’.

Minimum Revised Pension:

The significant question involved in the said aspect is–What constitutes a Minimum Revised Pension in
absence of a single revised scale corresponding to a single pre-revised scale? The question necessitated owing to introduction of pay band by grouping the 29 pre-revised scales into four independent pay bands

What serving employees and post-2006 pensioners get:

In the case of serving employees and Post 2006 pensioners the revised pay in pay band is determined using a fitment table that consists of revised pay for each stage in pre-revised pay scale. Here, it may be noted that pay in the pay band applicable, necessarily correspond with the pay drawn as on 1.1.2006 in  pre-revised scale that was held by serving employee or post 2006 pensioners. In the case of retirement after 1.1.2006, 50% of pay in pay band and 50% of grade pay drawn is assured.

What Pre-2006 Pensioners get:

Whereas, in the case of pensioners retired prior to 2006, in accordance with the modified version of para 4.2 of initial OM dated 1.9.2008 clarified in the OM dated 3.10.2008, 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus 50% of grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, only has been made entitled as minimum revised guaranteed pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Illustration:- To illustrate, seven Old pay scales starting from S9-5000-8000 to S15-8000-13500 have been bunched as New Pay band called PB-2 with pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with varied grade pays starting from Rs.4200 to Rs.5400. So, if a pre-2006 pensioner who served in the pay scale equivalent to the pre-revised pay scale of S15-8000-13500 that carries grade pay of Rs.5400 would end up with minimum pension of Rs.7,350/- (50% of minimum in the pay band and grade pay) at par with an pre-2006 pensioner served in the pay scale equivalent to pre-revised pay scale of S-9-5000-8000 that carries grade pay of Rs.4200, who will receive a minimum pension of Rs.6750/- (50% of minimum in the pay band and grade pay)

While a person retiring with bottom of the revised pay after 1.1.2006 will be drawing 50% of the same as revised pension, a similar person retired prior to 1.1.2006 even at the top of the corresponding pre-revised scale, will get lesser pension than the said post-2006 retiree (the qualifying service for the pre-2006 pensioners being 33 years and for post-2006 pensioners, it is only 20 years – which is another aspect of the situation, kept reserved for discussion through a separate article for the time being).

Concept of Initial Pay as per Pension Order of Punjab State Govt:

Under the aforesaid circumstances surrounding the pre-2006 pensioners of the Central Government, at present, there comes an Order from the State Govt. of Punjab dated 22.2.2010, which also follows the recommendations of the 6th CPC. As per the said Order, the full pension in no case shall be less than 50% of the initial pay against corresponding to pre-revised scale in which the pensioner had last worked.

Why initial Pay is relevant to pre-2006 CG Pensioners

Neither Pay Band/Pay in the Pay Band nor Grade Pay element is so crucial as that of initial pay in the revised structure, and ultimately for determining the minimum revised guaranteed pension as per para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, just like the initial pay as notified vide the Punjab Govt., the revised pay should be the crucial point for the pre-2006 pensioners of the Central Government.

This is so, because, the modified parity aspects had been very clearly specified vide para 5.1.46 of the 6th CPC recommendation and a precedence was set already by the DOP&PW vide their OM dated 17.12.1998 to the extent that 50% of bottom of the revised scale to be minimum revised pension.

The excuse that the 6th CPC revision do not have a single revised pay is totally incorrect, as long as there exists an INITIAL PAY in the revised structure for a serving employee. A loud speaking order has been issued by the Punjab State Govt. to dispel any sort of confusion or doubt that can arise in the minds of disbursing agency even.

Ultimately, while 50% of initial pay can emerge as minimum revised pension for a pre-2006 pensioner retired from the state govt. Of punjab, the same 50% of initial pay must very well emerge as minimum revised/assured/guaranteed pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for a pre-2006 pensioner of the central govt.

(Mr.Nagarajan Sundararajan, an active member in GConnect Discussion Board is the author of this article. The views expressed in this article are those of the guest author and are not intended to represent the views of GConnect.)


P.K.Mukherjee said on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 12:43

For a pre-2006 CG pensioner,the minimum pension is being further reduced proportionately based on the no of years of qualifying service.Is it correct ?


VNatarajan, President, Pensioners' Forum,Chennai said on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 16:10

Thanks to Shri Sundarar for his nice persenteation and summary of the PUNJAB STATE GOVT ORDER. He has brought out all the implications of this “enlightening order” which must wake uo those in authority in the Central Govt. Govt of India’s pension orders for pre-2006 pensioners are a bundle of controversies and violation of every norm/ rule/ articles of Constitution/ pronouncement of judgements at various times and they are discriminative. The most ambiguous, autocraticeand “authority-less” successive Orders have resulted in numerous disputes to get justice. Mr Sundarar’s concluding paragraph on initial pay hits the “nail very hard” on the heads of those who matter and who appear to pose they are not concerned-as it offers a powerful ever-lasting solution to the pre-2006 pensioners’ problems. Kudos to PUJNAB GOVT for setting their own house in order and for showing the way to setthe CG’s house also in order.

Thursday, March 11, 2010



Circular No.430 Dated: 10.03.2010.


1. The Chief Accountant, RBI, Deptt. Of Govt, Bank Accounts,
Central office C-7, Second Floor, Bandre- Kurla Complex, P B
No. 8143, Bandre East Mumbai- 400051
2. All CMDs, Public Sector Banks including HDFC Bank
4. CMD IDBI Bank
5. CMD AXIS Bank
6. Military and Air Attache, Indian Embassy, Kathmandu, Nepal
7. The Defence Pension Disbursing Officer
8. The Treasury Officer
9. Pay and Accounts Officer
10. Pay and Accounts Office, Govt of Maharastra, Mumbai
11. The Post Master Kathua (J&K), Camp Bell Bay

Subject: Improvement in the pension to bridge the gap in pension of Pre-01.01.2006 and Post 01.01.2006 discharged Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) of Armed Forces.

A copy of Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. PC10 (1)/2009-D (Pen/Pol) dated 08.03.2010 on the above subject is forwarded herewith for information and necessary action which is self explanatory.

2. The above Government letter provides improvement in pension to bridge the gap in pension of Pre- 1.1.2006 and Post 1.1.2006 discharged PBOR of the Armed Forces.

3. The revision of pension as per the above Government Order is to take effect from 01.07.2009 and payment is to be made in a time bound manner at the earliest in any case within 2 to 3 months.


4.1 The provisions of the Government letter, however, do not apply to the Commissioned officers and their families and to all family pensioners of PBOR. These orders also do not apply to UK/HKSRA pensioners, Pakistan and Burma Army pensioners.

4.2 The provisions of this letter, do not apply to JCOs granted Hony. Commissioned rank of Lieutenant and Captain in Army and equivalent rank in Navy and Air Force vide Para 5.1 of MOD letter dated 08.03.2010.

4.3 These order also do not apply to Reservist Pensioners.


5.1 These orders apply to the PBOR pensioners discharged prior to 1st January, 2006 and who were/are in receipt of the following types of pension as on 01.07.2009-

(a) Service Pension
(b) Special Pension
(c) Invalid Pension
(d) Ordinary Pension/Mustering Out Pension to Pre 01.06.1953 retirees.
(e) Service Element of Disability Pension
(f) Service Element of War Injury Pension
(g) Service Element of Liberlised Disability Pension.

These orders also apply to TA personnel and non combatants (enrolled) (NC’s (E)) of regular Army and Air Force and Ex-State Forces Pensioners drawing pension as on 1.7.2009 under the respective Pension Regulations as well as pension rules of erstwhile state forces and under various orders issued from time to time.

5.2. Special pension/Invalid pension/Service element of disability pension in r/o PBOR discharged with less than 15 years qualifying service and service Pension to TA personnel irrespective of their qualify-ing service would also need to be revised in terms of these orders by PSA. Specific table indicating revised rate of pension for the purpose have not been prepared. PDAs will refer such cases to PSAs concerned as per specimen given in Annexure-A to Ministry of Defence letter dated 08.03.2010.

5.3. Similarly revision of Service element of war injury pension and Service element of liberalised disability pension cases will also be required to be done by the PSAs concerned. Such cases will also be forwarded by the PDAs to the PSAs concerned through respective Record office in the enclosed Annexure- B to Min of Defence letter dt.08.03.2010. The addresses of Record offices are given below
Annexure-B to this circular. Revision of Pension with reference to Pension Tables Matching of Existing

6.1 PDAs are required to revise the pension on their own as per these tables after ascertaining the qualifying service and rank and group for which pensioned from the initial grant PPO matching Existing Pension as shown in relevant columns of the tables without calling or waiting for any applications from the affected pensioners. Existing pension as on 01.01.1996 in respect of Pre- 96 pensioners is the same as shown in RCP Column of respective Tables to MOD letter No. 1(2)/98/D(Pen/Sers) d/D 14.7.1998.
There may be instances where Existing Pension in these cases may not match because of either of the following reasons: -

(i) PDAs may not have revised pension wef 1.1.1996, correctly as per ibid- MOD letter No.1(2)/98/D(Pen/Sers) dated 14.7.98 and wef 1.1.2006 under orders of improvements in pension vide Circular No. 350 and under 6th CPC orders as contained in Circular No.397. In such cases, correct amount of RCP may be ascertained as per MOD letter dated 14.7.1998, MOD ltr No.14(3)/2004-D(Pen/Sers)/VOL-V d/d 2.5.2006(Circular No. 350) and MOD letter No.17(4)/2008(1)/D (Pen/Policy) dated 11.11.2008 (Circular No. 397 dated 18.11.2008).

(ii) Pension may have been sanctioned as per special orders of the Government in individual cases.

6.2 Existing Pension of Post 1.1.1996 and Pre – 10.10.1997 pensioners and Post 10.10.1997 pensioners will be the one as notified in the original Pension Payment Orders issued by PSAs. For this, PDAs have to carefully see the relevant PPOs of the pensioners for matching the pension notified in PPOs with the existing pension (EP) shown in the Pension Tables.

6.3 The Government had also merged 50% of DR as Dearness Pension (DP) with basic pension w.e.f 1.4.2004. Therefore the appended tables indicate the improvement rate of pension with as well as without Dearness Pension (DP) as per Min of Defence letter No. 14(3)/2004-D (Pen/ser)/Vol-V dated 02.05.2006 circulated vide this office circular No. 350 dated 19.05.2006 which has been paid by the PDAs are also shown separately.

6.4 Consolidated/Revised pension (Annx–I or Annx–III) of MOD ltr No.17(4)/2008/(1)/D(Pen/Ser) dated 11.11.2008 (Circular No. 397 dated 18.11.2008 VI th CPC) is also shown separately. Wherever the revised pension as per Circular No. 397 dated 18.11.2008 is not matching with that shown in the enclosed tables, then exiting revised pension may be revised and corrected. Such corrected pension should be then used as the basis for pension revision as per the present circular.

Qualifying Service.

7.1 The PSAs have shown qualifying service rank & group for pensioner for whom PPOs have been issued since year 1988. Therefore qualifying service can be ascertained from PPO & revised pension as appearing against the qualifying service as per last column of relevant table can be arrived at and paid.

7.2 In case of pensioner who was discharged prior to 1988 or in cases of discharge in 1988 onwards, where the qualifying service for which pensioner was pensioned is not available from records,PDA may ask the pensioner to produce his discharge certificate (IAFA-369)where qualifying service rendered is endorsed. In such a case, the PDA will also match the pension paid to pensioners at different intervals for qualifying service (available from discharge certificate) as shown in respective table with reference to rank and group and period of discharge. If the existing pension at different dates does not match, the case may be referred to PSA concerned on Annexure -A for intimation of qualifying service and revised rate of pension w.e.f 1.7.2009 and applicable table. If in this case the pension paid by PDA at different interval differs from the relevant Tables the same may be adjusted.

7.3 PBOR of Army who were discharged on or after 10.10.1997while serving in undermentionedTrades in the Group D or Group E have been regrouped in Z and Group Y respectively wef 10.10.1997. Pay Group E equated to group Y on 10.10.1997. Trade - Religious Teachers (RT, Lab Asstt in AMC, Dresser in RVC and Driver MT. Pay Group D equated to Group E on 10.10.1997 Trade - Sowar, Horse Cart Rider in Armored Crops, Cook Hospital in AMC, upholster in EME, Farrier in AVC and Cook special. Therefore such PBOR who were discharged during period 1.1.1973 to 9.10.1997 their pension will be revised as for Group Y and Z from Table No. 4 and Table No. 5 respectively. In these cases exiting pension as on different dates will not match in the respective Tables. Accordingly, where PPO indicates qualifying service or corroborative evidence for qualifying service is available, revised pension may be paid with reference to the qualifying service only. Where qualifying service is not available/ascertainable, such cases may be referred to PCDA (P), Allahabad.

Pensioners in receipt of two pensions

8.1.  In case of pensioners who are in receipt of more than one service pension these should be revised as per the relevant tables.

8.2 The DSC personnel who are receiving two pensions, one from regular Army another from DSC, their pension for DSC will not be revised by the Tables No. 47 to 64. Their pension for regular Army service will be revised under these orders by the PDAs. A reference for revision of pension for DSC service will be sent to PCDA (P)on Annexure A to the Ministry of Defence letter enclosed. However, DSC pensioners receiving only one pension for DSC service their pension will be revised under these orders from Tables No. 47 to 64.

Payment of Life Time Arrears (LTA)

9.1 In cases where the pensioner was alive on 1.7.2009 and died/dies subsequently before receiving payment, his legal heir/heirs is/are entitled to the LTA with effect from 1.7.2009 till death of the pensioner. In such cases, payment will be regulated under Para 8 of MOD letter enclosed.

9.2 A suitable entry regarding revised pension should be made by the PDAs in Check Register/Payment Register/Pension Payment Scroll/Register/Pension Book/Certificate.Where qualifying service for which pensioner was pensioned is not available in PPO and qualifying service as now intimated by PSA or accepted by the PDA from corroborative document shall be noted prominently for future reference.

Miscellaneous instructions

10.1 No arrears on account of revision of pension will be admissible for the period prior to 01.07.2009.

10.2 Any overpayment of pension coming to the notice or under process of recovery shall be adjusted in full by the Pension Disbursing Authorities against arrears becoming due on revision of pension on the basis of this Government letter.

10.3 The following elements will continue to be paid as separate elements in addition to the pension revised under these orders. Payment on account of these elements will not be taken into account for purpose of revision as well as for applying minimum limit of Rs. 3500/- p.m. as the case may be.

(a) Monetary allowance attached to Gallantry Awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Ashok Chakra etc.
(b) Constant Attendance Allowance (CAA) where admissible to disability Pensioners.
(c) Disability Element,/ war injury element if any, as sanctioned from time to time.

10.4 As usual, Dearness Relief is also not payable on these elements except for the element mentioned at (c) above.

11.1. The Govt. has also desired that all Public sector Banks/ICICI Bank Ltd, HDFC Bank Ltd, AXIS Bank and IDBI Bank Ltd, disbursing pension would render a monthly progress report as per proforma (Annexure- C) prescribed under Ministry’s above quoted letter dated 08.03.2010 to the office of the PCDA (P)Allahabad. All PDAs are therefore, enjoined upon to ensure rendition of said report. It is also enjoined upon them that all the columns in proforma prescribed by Ministry must be filled in complete and correct manner before its rendition to office of the PCDA(P)Allahabad by name to Shri DC Hansda, DCDA(P). It is also requested that one more copy of requisite proforma be invariable sent separately along with the pension payment scrolls regarding payment of arrears of pension.

11.2 The DPDOs will render the monthly progress report as per Annexure C to the office of the PCDA (P) Allahabad as well as to their respective CsDA i.e. CDA(PD)/CDA Chennai as the case may be.

11.3 A copy of the said Annexure C will invariably be provided by the Pension Disbursing Agencies to the pensioners concerned for their information.

Dearness Relief:

12. Dearness Relief is also payable in addition as issued by Government Order from time to time.

13 Points of doubt, if any, relating to revision of pension under the subject Govt. order may immediately be referred to the concerned PSAs, by name as under:

Army: - Shri R.K. Saroj, DCDA (P), The PCDA (P) Allahabad- 211014

Navy: - Shri V.K. Pandey, ACDA, The PCDA (NAVY), Mumbai- 400039

Air Force: - Ms Nistha Upadhayay, JCDA, The CDA (Air Force) New Delhi- 110066

A copy of this circular along with the GOI, Min of Def letter No. PC10 (1)/2009-D (Pen/Pol) dated 08.03.2010 is also available on the Website of this Office

Please acknowledge receipt.

No. Grants/Tech/0167/IV

Dated:-10th March 2010 



T.P. (C) No. 56/ 2007
Union of India …Petitioners


N.K. Nair & Ors. …Respondents


Date : 08.03.2010 --------- Court – 07 ----- Item 84.

1. The recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission were accepted by the Central Government in respect of its employees including Armed Forces Officers and Men and given effect from 01.01.1986 vide Notification dated 18.03.1987. The IVth Pay Commission introduced rank pay for various ranks of the officers from Captain to Brigadier (equivalent ranks in Navy & Air Force) in addition to the pay in the integrated scale. However, while implementing the same. The rank pay was reduced from the new scale fixed for the officers.

2. One Major A.K. Dhannapalan – SL 7805 challenged this reduction in his O.P. No. 2448/1996 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum. The Hon’ble Single Judge of the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition on 05.10.1998 and held that the respondents have completely misunderstood the scope of extending benefit of rank pay to Armed Forces Officers. According to the High Court, rank pay is something which has been given to the army officers in addition to the existing pay scale. The Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to confirm the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge and dismissed the Appeal filed on behalf of the Union of India and Others vide W.A. No. 518/1999 on 04.07.2003. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. (Civil) no. CC-5908/2005 on 12.07.2005, filed by Union Of India & Ors. against the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala on grounds of delay.

3. While implementing the judgment in the case of Maj. Dhannapalan, Union of India gave all benefits to him alone and did not take any action on several representations submitted by the officers. This resulted into filing of a large number of writ petitions by similarly situated Armed Forces Officers all over India.

4. A Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56/2007 was filed on behalf of the Union of India & Ors. on 13.12.2006 under Article 139-A (1) of the Constitution of India with order 36-A of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 before the Apex Court praying for transfer of all the writ petitions pending before the various High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme court was pleased to issue notices in the aforesaid transfer petition on 05.02.2007 and passed orders for interim stay of further proceedings in all the High Courts. In this transfer petition, we filed appearance on behalf of about 50 petitioners in Kerala High Court led by N.K. Nair & Ors. (The main matter) and also filed a counter affidavit. On 03.11.2008, while hearing the I.A. filed on behalf of N.K. Nair & Ors., The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the counter affidavits in the main matter be treated as counter affidavit filed in all the matters mentioned in the transfer petitions and the matter be taken up for final disposal without waiting for completion of service on un-served petitioners of various writ petitions in the High Courts. by the similarly situated In the meantime, several intervention applications were filed in the aforesaid transfer petition apart from two Writ Petitions under Article 32 of Constitution of India. We also filed an intervention application on behalf of Retired Defence Officers Association, Disabled War Veterans (India), The Naval Foundation & Akhil Bhartiya Poorva Sainik Sewa Parishad.

5. The matter was heard and finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme court by the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markendey Katju & Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha today i.e. 08.03.2010 (Court-7, Item-84). The Apex Court has held that the judgment dated 05.10.1998 of the Hon’ble Single Judge of Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 2448/1996 as confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the same High Court in W.A. NO. 518/1999 (Appeal) was correct and reasonable and as such the benefit of this judgment be extended to all eligible officers of Armed Forces. The Hon’ble Apex Court awarded 6% interest on the amount due to the officers. The Hon’ble Supreme court disposed of the transfer petition and allowed the writ petitions of the petitioners.

FINALITY IN MAJ AK DHANAPALAN CASE - SC relief to officers over pay anomalies Orders arrears with 6 pc interest to all affected

 Vijay Mohan, Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 9

Ruling that rank pay forms part of basic salary, the Supreme Court, in a significant decision affecting thousands of armed forces personnel, granted arrears arising out of anomalies in the fixation of pay consequent to the Fourth Pay Commission. Upholding an earlier High Court ruling, the apex court has also ordered that interest at the rate of 6 per cent be paid on the arrears. The Fourth Pay Commission recommendations were implemented with effect from January 1, 1986.

Legal experts are of the opinion that this would require re-fixation of pay based on the Fourth and in some cases Fifth Pay Commission. Though the calculation of the exact amount of arrears could be a time consuming and tedious exercise, some officers estimate that they could amount from several thousand rupees to a few lakh rupees, depending upon the rank and length of reckonable service of an individual.
After the Fourth Pay Commission, an integrated pay scale of Rs 2,300-5,100 was implemented for officers from the rank of second lieutenant to brigadier. In addition, rank pay ranging from Rs 200 to Rs 1,200 was authorised to officers from the rank of captain to brigadier, 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 captain to brigadier as on January 1986 suffered cumulative losses.

Deciding a case filed by Maj AK Dhanapalan, the Kerala High Court had termed this deduction of rank pay as illegal. An SLP filed by the Union government against this order was also dismissed, though not on merits but on technical grounds of limitation. Soon thereafter, many similar petitions were filed in various high courts all over the country. These were clubbed together and transferred to the Supreme Court to be heard along with an SLP of similar nature that had arisen out of a case that was allowed on the basis of the judgement in Dhalapalan’s case.

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the judgement in Dhalapalan’s case, delivered in 1998, and the apex court granted relief to all similarly placed officers. Some officers had also contended that incorrect fixation for pay in 1986 also had an adverse effect in pay fixation during subsequent pay commissions.
A large number of veterans and ex-servicemen’s organisations had also written to the defence minister and the prime minister in this regard. In their letters to the government, some veterans had estimated that about 40,000 to 50,000 officers, both serving and retired including widows would be directly affected.

Ex-servicemen to finally receive pending pensionary benefits -Cong Flays Advani For Questioning PM On Move

In a belated move to provide relief to over 12 lakh ex-servicemen, the defence ministry has now issued orders to implement pending pensionary benefits to them involving an annual expenditure of about Rs 2,200 crore. This comes after an assurance in this regard by PM Manmohan Singh in the Lok Sabha recently after a spat with BJP veteran L K Advani. Congress, faulted Advani for questioning the PM in Parliament about the pension parity among ex-servicemen of the same rank without ascertaining the facts from defence ministry. Its only a question of a couple of weeks before the decision announced on the floor of the House will take effect and the beneficiaries will start receiving the amount due to them with retrospective effect, said party secretary Praveen Davar. With the fresh orders, all 7 recommendations of committee on pensions have now been implemented,which brings it closer to the one rank,one pension demand of ex-servicemen. MoD officials said the government had on March 8 issued orders for implementation of the remaining two of the seven recommendations. One, parity between pensions of personnel below officer rank who retired pre and post October 10,1997. And two, further improvement in PBOR pensions based on the GoM award.

Orders issued for pensionary benefits to ex-servicemen

In a move that will bring relief to over 12 lakh ex-servicemen, the Defence Ministry has issued orders to implement pending pensionary benefits to them involving an annual expenditure of about Rs 2,200 crore. The decision followed recommendations by a high-level committee and recent assurance in this regard in the Lok Sabha by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. With these orders, the ministry has implemented all the seven recommendations of committee headed by Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrasekhar on pensions, which would now be close to the 'One Rank-One Pension' demand of ex-servicemen, senior ministry officials said today. "The Defence Ministry issued the orders on March 8 this year to implement the remaining two of the seven suggestions of the Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrasekhar-headed committee on 'One Rank-One Pension' demand," they said.

(source-PTI News)
Further, some more good news pouring in....

The  AFT Chandigarh had ordered that the Central Govt sanction OROP to all af pensioners, as per the newspaper reeports. PLEASE CLICK   AFT Grants OROP


Sunday, March 7, 2010

Simplification of procedure for payment of family pension to handicapped son/daughter of Govt servants/pensioners: Submission of Certificates -NOW ONCE AN YEAR

Circular No. 143
O/o the Pr. C.D.A. (P)

Date : 08.01.2010

Sub: Simplification of procedure for payment of family pension to handicapped son/daughter of Govt servants/pensioners: Submission of Certificates

A copy of Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, public grievances & Pension, Department of pension & pensioners welfare OM No 1/16/08-P&PW(E) dated 9th March 2009 and Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-servicemen welfare letter No906/A/D(Pension/Sers) 05 dated 10th November 2009 on the above subject are reproduced as Annexure I & II respectively for information and guidance of all concerned.

As per existing practice and as laid dawn in dauses (iii) & (vi) and the explanation (d) there under below the proviso to sub-rule 6 of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, the son, or daughter of a government servant/pensioner to whom family pension has been sanctioned and is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind (including mentally/retarded) or physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn livelihood even after attaining the age of 25 years were hitherto been required to furnish a certificate to the Treasuries/Banks as the case may be, every month, to the effect that (i) he/she has not started earning for his/her livelihood; and (ii) in case of daughter, that she has not yet married.

For simplification of existing cumbersome procedures with regard to payment of family pension to handicapped/disabled son/daughter of government servants/pensioners particularly with regard to submission of a certificate to the Treasury/Bank as the case may be, every month by the guardian or son or daughter. The Ministries have now decided vide their ibid OMs that in all such cases the guardian or son or daughter shall furnish a certificate to the Treasury/Bank as the case may be, every year instead of every month as provided in the existing provisions, subject to the conditions that in case of any eventuality taking place at any point of time during the year, the same shall be reported by the guardian or son or daughter to the Treasury/Bank at the earliest possible.

In view of the above, it is requested that all pension paying branches/treasuries/DPDOs/PAOs under your jurisdiction may be instructed to follow the above mentioned instruction for obtaining the certificate for continuance of payment of family pension to son, or daughter of a government servant/pensioner suffering from any disorder or disability of mind (including mentally retarded) or physically crippled or disabled.

Dy.CDA (P)


The PM's reply (extract) in LS on 5.3.2010, is posted below :-
"Advaniji had also raised the issue of One Rank One Pension to ex-servicemen. He has stated that the commitment I made in my last year's Independence Day speech and Finance Minister’s promise in his budget speech of July 6, 2009 have not been honoured. This is not correct. The factual position is that we had constituted a Committee under the Cabinet Secretary to look into the issue of One Rank One Pension and other related matters. The Committee did not recommend One Rank One Pension. But whatever recommendations the Committee made to substantially enhance the pensionary benefits of persons below officer rank and commissioned officers were accepted by the Government and this is what I had stated in my Independence Day speech. The recommendations which have been accepted cover what the Finance Minister had promised in his budget speech of 2009. Of the seven recommendations that the Committee made, five have been implemented. The two recommendations which have not been implemented will be implemented very soon. "


Did PM mislead House on pension?-Advani demands clarification after receiving letter from ex-servicemen

New Delhi : The BJP has demanded a clarification from the Government on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement in Parliament on Wednesday that ex-servicemen were getting enhanced pension. Although senior BJP leader LK Advani had then expressed satisfaction over the Prime Minister’s response, the need for the party to revisit the issue comes after Advani received a letter from an ex-servicemen panel stating that the pension scheme had not been implemented. Addressing the BJP Parliamentary Party meeting on Thursday, Advani said he had got a letter from the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) stating that “till today no jawan or JCO has received any orders for enhancement of pension”. He had on Wednesday also expressed satisfaction over the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government had honoured its promise of enhancing pension and it was implemented.
Informing reporters about the issue, BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu said after the meeting that Advani had told his colleagues that the Prime Minister should have studied the matter and then spoken about it.

The letter by ex-servicemen, which the BJP said was sent to Advani after his clash with the Prime Minister during the Presidential Address debate, was written by Vice Chairman IESM, Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh. The IESM has cited the Government order of July 6, 2009 on enhancement of pension of ex-servicemen and maintained that even enquiries from the Service Headquarters have confirmed that orders for the same have not been received. “It is a very serious matter of impropriety by the person no less than the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on the floor of the House,” the letter states. Naidu said, “This matter should be taken seriously. The Parliamentary Party will see how the matter can be taken up further as it involved intervention of the Prime Minister. We demand the Government to respond.”The verbal duel between Advani and Singh had taken place when the BJP leader noted that Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee had specifically said he had accepted Rs 2,100-crore increase in expenditure per year for the purpose. “I am told that it has not been implemented, it has not been done,” Advani said. When the Prime Minister remarked that it did not “behove for anyone in this House to create a rift between the services and the Government of the day”, Advani refuted the charge saying he was not creating a rift.

The Prime Minister had informed the House that whatever the FM had stated in his Budget speech had been implemented. Advani then expressed satisfaction saying, “Well, if it has been implemented, I am very happy. But I can tell you that this is not the feeling that I got from the ex-servicemen." Incidentally, ex-servicemen have been agitating for the last couple of years on the issue of one-rank-one-pension. Many of the decorated soldiers also returned their medals to the President as a mark of protest.

The government last year set up a committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary, but the panel did not find the one-rank-one-pension demand administratively feasible. However, the committee suggested some steps to bridge the gap between the pension of soldiers who retired before 1997 and after it. The government also created another slab of soldiers who retired after 1997 but before 2006 and those after 2006, instead of four slabs existing earlier. Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Rajya Sabha in a written reply on Wednesday that these two recommendations were now under the consideration of the Finance Ministry and around 12 lakh ex-servicemen would be benefited.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

BJP accuses PM of misleading Parliament -No Jawan Received Orders For Pension Enhancement

New Delhi: A day after locking horns with Manmohan Singh during the debate on Presidents address, senior BJP leader L K Advani said the Prime Minister had breached parliamentary propriety by making false claims that enhanced pension announced for army personnel had been met. Advani informed BJP MPs about the PMs claim in Lok Sabha on Wednesday that the government had implemented its decision on enhancement of pension to JCOs and jawans.No JCO or jawan has received any such orders.This is a very serious matter of parliamentary impropriety, senior party leader M Venkaiah Naidu told reporters, quoting Advani.

Advani,who is chairman of the BJP parliamentary party,was speaking at a meeting of BJP MPs here on Thursday.He cited a letter written by Maj Gen (retd) Satbir Singh,vicechairman of Indian Ex-Service-men Movement,where the latter had mentioned the July 6,2009 order. The PM had intervened several times on Wednesday while Advani was replying to the motion of thanks for the Presidents address in Lok Sabha,including on the issue of enhancement of pension to exservicemen.Advani had on Wednesday pointed to Singhs Independence Day speech in which he had referred to steps regarding exservicemen demand on one-rank-one-pension.In the Lok Sabha,Singh said whatever promises had been made were delivered by the government and that Advani should not create a rift between the Services and the government. Advani said that the Prime Minister should have studied the matter properly and then spoken on it.This impropriety should be taken seriously, Naidu said.The government had earmarked Rs 2,100 crore per year for the benefit of 12 lakh JCOs and jawans.

Advani praised his party MPs for their performance in Parliament on cornering the government on price rise.On the future strategy,he said the Kashmir issue and US pressure on Indias foreign policy matters should be emphasised by BJP in Parliament.


Friday, March 5, 2010

Revision of Pre-2006 Punjab State Pension - GO Issued on 22.2.2010

The following is posted for the benefit of information of all veteran brothers:-
Mr.Nagarajan Sundararajan, an active GConnect Discussion Board member posting in the name of ’sundarar’ feels that this Order (NO.3/39/09-3FPPC/201 DATED 22.02.2010 ISSUED BY GOVT OF PANJAB FOR REVISION OF PENSION IN RESPECT OF PRE-1.1.2006 PENSIONERS) though relates to Pensioners of Government of Punjab, might draw the attention of Central Government in certain aspects.
Even if the similar orders are extended to the Armed Forces Pensioners, the element of (50%)MSP is to be added, thereby fixing the Minimum Pension at Rs.4500/-(civ.pen 3500+1000msp), for Y group AC/LAC and Rs.5200/-(3500+1000+700) for X Group AC/LAC. In addition, Classification Allowance at the lowest rates(100% FULL NEW RATES i.e. Rs.100/_) and the Good Conduct Badge Pay (I,II,III rates=Rs.240/-)shall also to be included. Therefore, the minimum pension of a 15 year service AC/LAC shall have to be fixed at about this rate i.e. Rs.4500/-+100+240=Rs.4840/- for Y group AC/LAC and Rs.5540/-(Rs.5200+100+240) w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
Rank Recommended Pay Band Grade Pay MSP Gp X Pay

MWO 9300-34800 4800 2000 1400
WO 9300-34800 4600 2000 1400
JWO 9300-34800 4200 2000 1400
SGT 5200-20200 2800 2000 1400
CPL 5200-20200 2400 2000 1400
AC/LAC 5200-20200 2000 2000 1400 )




Posted by Gavini VN at 21:30 0 comments Links to this post
LK Advani said - Govt went back on pension promise : PM insisted that the promise had been completely redeemed
New Delhi: BJP leader L K Advanis remark in Parliament on Wednesday that the government was close to a clandestine deal with Pakistan over Kashmir under US pressure provoked a usually calm Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and led to a brief spat between the two. The Lok Sabha also witnessed Congress president Sonia Gandhi encouraging Sriprakash Jaiswal to challenge Advanis claim that the government was contemplating a secret deal.But she was less than enthusiastic over a National Conference MPs loud support for Jammu and Kashmirs pre-1953 status.

The PM took on Advani over the latters claims that the one-rank,one-pension promise had not been fully implemented. It does not behove anyone to create a rift between the government and the Services, the PM said. Singh insisted that the promise had been completely redeemed.

Opening the discussion for BJP on the motion of thanks to the Presidents address, Advani accused the government of going back on its promise to implement the one-rank,one-pension policy for the armed forces. On Advanis point that former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf had claimed that he was close to an understanding on Jammu and Kashmir with India in 2007,Singh was sharp.You are using the forum of Parliament to sow the seeds of... he said,leaving the retort incomplete. Singh was perhaps provoked by the BJP leaders pointed charges raising doubts about the governments stand on the Kashmir issue.

Posted by Gavini VN at 08:20 0 comments Links to this post
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A time limit cause is holding up a national honour for an IAF fighter pilot who made the supreme sacrifice.Honour eludes a war hero -Flying Officer K.P. Muralidharan.

Kochi: Morbid red-tapism is hindering a well-deserved honour from coming to a valiant young air warrior who is believed to have made the supreme sacrifice in the Indo-Pak war in 1971. Almost three decades after Flying Officer K.P. Muralidharan was first declared ‘missing in action’ (MIA) and then ‘presumed killed [for official purposes]’ in a rather unsuccessful air raid over Peshawar in Pakistan on the second day of the war, a national honour for gallantry still eludes the Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter pilot who was with the magnificent No.20 Squadron ‘Lightnings’.

Apparently, what is holding up his case is a time-limit clause recently introduced by the government in conferring such medals. “I am given to understand that acting on my petition to Defence Minister A.K. Antony last year, the Air Force Hq. pitched for the award of the Mahavir Chakra to Muralidharan after it was convinced that the officer had gone down fighting like a hero. But a two-year bracket recently set by the government has now brought the case in limbo,” says K. Rajendran Nair, a relative of Muralidharan.
Last week, the former Supreme Court Judge V.R. Krishna Iyer despatched a powerfully-worded letter to Mr. Antony advocating Muralidharan’s case. Terming the alleged denial of the Mahavir Chakra a “betrayal of the nation’s duty to honour an act of self sacrifice,” he wrote: “Those who plead the bar of limitation to withhold this legitimate honour have done an act of disgrace by the neglect…I entreat you on behalf of the nation to hasten and reverse the neglect so far made.”

INTERCEPTED - Muralidharan, 26, who was born to Padamanabhan Thirumulpad of Nilambur Kovilakam and Malathi, was hardly two years in service when he took off from Pathankot on a Hunter aircraft on that fateful day, December 4, 1971, for a strafing run on the Peshawar airfield. Squadron Leader K.N. Bajpai, flying another Hunter, was also part of the mission. As it turned out, they were intercepted by Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) F-86 Sabres, as it was IAF’s second attack on Peshawar that day. Flying to Peshawar meant stretching the Hunter to its limit which forbade any probable combat as it would cause fuel shortage. While Bajpai managed to return, Muralidharan went missing in the ensuing dogfight with one of the Sabres. Overtime, it was deemed that he was among the 54 Prisoners of War (PoW) Pakistan was believed to have interned in its jails post the war.

That was the case until a few years ago when a retired PAF officer, Wing Commander Salim Mirza Baig, who was in the thick of action in 1971, revealed in a personal war account that the Hunter flown by Muralidharan was among the two Indian fighter aircraft brought down by him in separate air battles in the war. (The second was a Gnat flown by Flying Officer Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon, who took on six marauding Sabres over Srinagar before being gunned down by Baig). Sekhon was posthumously decorated with the Param Vir Chakra, the IAF’s sole PVC till date. In his tale of the battle over Peshawar, Baig admires the Hunter (flown by Muralidharan) that he took on, calling it a ‘tough nut to crack’ and conclusively says that the pilot was killed in air combat. "Even as time limit is said to be standing in way of a belated honour to the war hero, there’s precedence to the contrary,” says Mr. Nair.

“Squadron Leader A.B. Devayya was posthumously awarded the Mahavir Chakra 23 years after the 1965 war based on a PAF officer’s account of his bravery. After the Kargil war, Pakistan conferred its highest military award the ‘Nishan-e-Haider’ posthumously on Captain Karnal Sher Khan based on an Indian officer’s war account. What, then, impedes Muralidharan’s case?” he asks.

As Mr. Iyer highlights in his letter to Mr. Antony: “… bureaucracy sometimes delays and in an ungrateful manner defeats what is due.”