ENJOY THE MUSIC

FORGET DAY-TO-DAY ISSUES THAT TROUBLE YOU.

FORGET THEM AND ENJOY THE FOLLOWING -

1 .  PLEASE CLICK HERE 


2.    ALSO CLICK HERE   ANOTHER SOOTHING MILITARY BAND

(Source- Youtube)

Revision of pension of Pre-2006: Delhi High Court dismissed W.P.(C) 1535/2012 filed by GOI against PCAT Judgement dated 01.11.2011

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

Date of Decision: April 29, 2013

W.P.(C) 1535/2012

UNION OF INDIA & ANR	.....Petitioners
Represented by:	Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL GOVT. SAG & ORS	..... Respondents
Represented by:	Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.K.Ghosh and Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocates
W.P.(C) 2348/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.	.....Petitioners
Represented by:	Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates
versus
D.L.VHORA & ORS.	..... Respondents
Represented by:	Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate
W.P.(C) 2349/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.	.....Petitioners
Represented by:	Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates
versus
PPS GUMBER & ORS.	..... Respondents
Represented by:	Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate
W.P.(C) 2350/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.	.....Petitioners
Represented by:	Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION & ORS	..... Respondents
Represented by:	Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. We note that on January 28, 2013 the petitioners have issued an office order dated January 28, 2013 which reads as under:-

"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners -reg.       The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government's decision on the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, orders were issued for revision of pension/family pensioners vide this Department's O.M. No.38/37/08 P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time. 2. It has been decided that the pension of pre 2006 pensioners are revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time, would be further stepped up to 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay correspondent to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008. In the case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the above-referred OM dated 30.8.2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. 3. The normal family pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners as revised w.e.f. 01-01-2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the OM dated 01-09- 2008 would also be further stepped up to 30% of the sum of minimum of pay in pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale from which the Government servant had retired, as arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No.1/1/2008 - IC dated 30-08-2008. In case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the above referred OM dated 30-08-2008 of Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). 4. A revised concordance table ( Annexure ) of the pre-1996, pre-2006 and post 2006 pay scales/pay bands indicating the pension/family pension (at ordinary rates) payable under the above provisions is enclosed to facilitate payment of revised pension/family pension. 5. The pension so arrived at in accordance with para 2 above and indicated in Col.9 of Annexure will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs. 3500/-p.m. 6. The family pension at enhanced rates (under sub rule (3) (a) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 of pre- 2006 pensioners/family pensioners revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of para 4.1 or this Department's OM No.1/3/2011-P&PW(E) dated 25.5.2012 would be further stepped up in the following manner:- (i) In the case of Government servants who died while in service before 01-01-2006 and in respect of whom enhanced family pension is applicable from the date of approval by the Government i.e.24.9.2012, the enhanced family pension will be stepped up to 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the Government servant had died, as arrived at with reference to the fitment table annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30- 08-2008. & In the case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment table annexed to the above referred OM dated 30-08-2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. (ii) In the case of a pensioner who retired before 01-01- 2006 and in respect of whom enhanced family pension is applicable from the date of approval by the Government, i.e.24-09-2012, the enhanced family pension will be stepped up to the amount of pension as revised in terms of para 2 read with para 5 above. In case the pensioner has died before the date of approval by the Government, i.e. 24.09, 2012 the pension will be revised notionally in terms of para 2 read with para 5 above. The amount of revised enhanced family pension will, however, not be less than the amount of family pension at ordinary rates as revised in terms of Para 3 above. 7. In case the pension consolidated pension/family pension/enhanced family pension calculated as per Para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 01-09-2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same ( higher consolidated pension/family pension ) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension. 8. All other conditions as given in OM No.38/37/08-P & PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time shall remain unchanged. 9. These orders will take effect from the date of approval by the Government, i.e. 24-09-2012. There will be no change in the amount of revised pension/family pension paid during the period 01-01-2006 and 23-09-2012, and, therefore, no arrears will be payable on account of these orders for that period. 10. In their application to the persons belonging to the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. 11 All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the contents of these orders to the notice of Controller of Accountants/Pay and Accounts Officer s and attached and subordinate Offices under them on a top priority basis. All pension disbursing officers are also advised to prominently display these orders on their notice boards for the benefit of pensioners. 12. Hindi version will follow. Sd/- (Tripti P.Ghosh) Director To All Ministries/Departments of Government of India As per mailing list."

2. The only issue therefore which survives is, with respect to paragraph 9, of the office memorandum aforenoted which makes it applicable with effect from September 24, 2012, and thereby denying arrears to be paid to the pensioners with effect from January 01, 2006.

3. In short, the Government of India has tacitly admitted that it was in the wrong and that the Tribunal is correct.

4. As is well known, the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission did away with the hitherto fore applicable pay scales; replacing the same with pay bands having grade pay. For example, pay band I (PB-I) was Rs.5200-20200 and embraced 12 previous pay scales between Rs.2750-4400 and Rs.8000-13500, but with 12 grade pays between Rs.1800-5400.

5. How would the existing pensioners get pension was decided by the Government as per a resolution dated August 29, 2008 which accepted para 5.1.47 of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission to the following effect:-

"All past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired."

6. The respondents had made many submissions in their favour; two of which pertained to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1990 (4) SCC 270 D.S.Nakara Vs. UOI and (2008) 9 SCC 125 UOI Vs. S.P.S.Vains. The Tribunal has negated said pleas. However, reasoning of the respondents on other plea pertaining to resolution No.12 aforesaid has found favour with the Tribunal.

7. We find that a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court deciding W.P.(C) No.19641/2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. has referred to the decision impugned by the Tribunal, with reference to an identical question which arose in the State of Haryana because Government of Haryana had adopted the same policy decision of the Central Government. In the decision dated December 21, 2012, in paragraphs 21 to 26, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reasoned as under:-

"21. On the recommendations made by VI CPC, which stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it was argued before the Tribunal that principle for determining the pension has been completely altered under the garb of clarification. It was argued that on the basis of the aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. 22. The Tribunal has accepted this contention and because of this reason, it is held that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 purportedly issued to clarify para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 were contrary to the plain meaning of the said para and whereby the criteria and principle for determination of the pension had been completely changed that too when these two subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were issued by the lower authorities having no power to issue such clarification. 23 After considering the arguments of learned counsels for all the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not even necessary to go into the various nuances and nitty grittys, which are insisted by learned counsels for the petitioners based on D.S. Nakara line of cases and N. Subbarayudu and others and S.R. Dhingra and others (supra), wherein ratio of D.S. Nakara is explained. We proceed on the basis that fixation of cut off date by the government was in order and to this extent we agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal where similar arguments, as advanced by the petitioners before us, were rejected. The issue can be resolved on the interpretation of OM dated 29.08.2008 itself. It is not in dispute that vide resolution dated 29.08.2008, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the government and the pension was also to be fixed on the basis of formula contained therein. We have already reproduced the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as contained in para 5.1.47, which was accepted by the government vide Item No. 12 of resolution dated 29.08.2008 with certain modifications. Based on this resolution, OM dated 01.09.2008 was issued. We have also reproduced para 4.2 thereof. This states in unequivocal terms that "revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale------". The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who retired before 01.01.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired. However, notwithstanding the same and without any provocation, the junior functionaries in the Department of Pension nurtured a doubt "though there was none" and note was prepared on that basis, which led to issuance of OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. The effect of these two OMs was to make revision in the pension of pre-2006 retirees by giving them less than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band. To demonstrate this, Mr. H.L. Tikku, learned senior counsel appearing in some of these cases drew our attention to the following chart:- Min of Pre- revised scale Pay in the Pay Band Grade Pay Revised Basic Pay (2+3) (Rs.) Pension 50% of (2+3) (Rs.) 1 2 3 4 5 S-24 (14300) 37400 8700 46100 23050 S-25 (15100) 39690 8700 48390 24195 S-26 (16400) 39690 8900 48590 24295 S-27 (16400) 39690 8900 48590 24295 S-28 (14300) 37400 10000 47400 23700 S-29 (18400) 44700 10000 54700 27350 The first 4 columns of the above table have been extracted from the pay fixation annexed with MOF OM of 30th August, 2008 (referred to in para 4.5 (iii) above). Revised pension of S 29 works out to Rs.27,350 which has been reduced to Rs.23,700 as per DOP OM of 03.10.2008 (para 4.8 (B) below). 24. As per the impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24 officers the corresponding pay in the Pay Band against 14,300/- is shown as 37,400/-. In addition, Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- was given totaling Rs.46,100/-. Similarly, revisions concerning all the other pay scales were accepted by the aforementioned OM dated 14th October, 2008. The illegality which has been perpetrated in the present matter is apparent from the fact that whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and receiving a pay of Rs.14,300/- would now receive Rs.37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs.8700/- and his full pension would accordingly be fixed at Rs.23,050/- (i.e. 50% of 37,400/- pay plus grade pay Rs.8700/-) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 01.01.2006, whereas a person retiring before 01.01.2006, who was drawing a pay of Rs.18,400/- or even Rs.22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the pre-revised S-29 scale will now be getting pension as only 23,700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of Rs. 37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs.10,000/-). 25. This has arisen because of resolution dated 29.08.2008 and has resulted because of deletion of certain words in para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 or 03.10.2008. This aspect is beautifully demonstrated by the Tribunal in its Full Bench judgement in the following manner with which we are entirely agree: "25. In order to decide the matter in controversy, at this stage, it will be useful to extract the relevant portions of para 5.1.47 of the VI CPC recommendation, as accepted by the Resolution dated 29.08.2008, para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 and subsequent changes made in the garb of clarification dated 3.10.2008, which thus read: Resolution NO.38/37/8- P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 - Para 5.1.47 (page 154-155) Para 4.2 of OM DOP&PW OM No.38/37/8- P&PW (A) dated 1.09.2008 (page 38 of OA) OM DOP & PW OM No.38/37/8- P&PW (A) dated 3.10.2008 The fixation as per above will be subject to the provision 'that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale form which the pensioner had retired. The fixation as per above will be subject to the provision 'that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the(sum of the) minimum of the pay in the pay band plus (and) the grade pay (thereon) corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The Pension Calculated at 50% of the [sum of the] minimum of the pay in the pay band [and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale] plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus) the grade pay corresponding to the prerevised pay scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs.37400- 67000 and the corresponding grade pay being Rs.10000 p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs.37400+Rs.10000 (i.e. Rs.23700) Strike out are deletions and bold letter addition Strike out are deletions and bold letters addition. 26. As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. However, as per the OM dated 3.10.2008 revised pension at 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the words 'sum of the' 'and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale' and adding 'irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus' implying that the revised pension is to be fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay, which has substantially changed the modified parity/formula adopted by the Central Government pursuant to the recommendations made by the VI CPC and has thus caused great prejudice to the applicants. According to us, such a course was not available to the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification thereby altering the recommendations given by the VI CPC, as accepted by the Central Government. According to us, deletion of the words 'sum of the' 'and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised scale' 'and addition of the words 'irrespective of the prerevised scale of pay plus', as introduced by the respondents in the garb of clarification vide OM dated 3.10.2008 amounts to carrying out amendment to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 based upon para 4.1.47 of the recommendations of the VI CPC as also the OM dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Central Government pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, which has been accepted by the Cabinet. Thus, such a course was not permissible for the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification, that too, at their own level without referring the matter to the Cabinet." 26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that "the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired", this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost."

8. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and adopt the same and do not burden ourselves any further. We conclude by noting that as regards the substance of the view taken by the Tribunal, even the Central Government accepts its correctness, but insists to make the same applicable prospectively.

9. The writ petitions are dismissed. The decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is upheld but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)

JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO)

JUDGE

APRIL 29, 2013

Source: Delhi High Court

Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): Features, State-wise locations & juristiction

The Government has established the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to deal with complaints of the defence personnel and provide a forum for appeal.  To provide adjudication of disputes / complaints with respect to conditions of service in respect of the persons covered under the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950 and also to provide for appeals arising out of orders of court martial. Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) functions under the AFT Act, 2007

NO. 4480 FOR ANSWER ON 22.4.2013

Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and its Territorial Jurisdiction:

 

Sl. No.	Location of Regional Bench	Date of operationalisation	Territorial Jurisdiction
1.	Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench	10.8.2009	New Delhi.
2.	Lucknow	09.11.2009	States of Uttar Pradesh,Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
3.	Chandigarh	16.11.2009	States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and UT of Chandigarh.
4.	Chennai	26.10.2009	States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Union Territory of Puducherry.
5.	Jaipur	03.11.2009	State of Rajasthan.
6.	Kolkata	23.11.2009	States of West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand,Odisha and Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
7.	Kochi	07.12.2009	States of Kerala, Karnataka and Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
8.	Guwahati	31.07.2010	States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura & Sikkim.
9.	Mumbai	09.06.2011	States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Goa and the Union Territories of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

Orders of AFT are complied with by the Government except in the cases wherein appeal is contemplated as per the provisions of the AFT Act, 2007.

The Government proposes to extend powers of civil contempt to the AFT.  The AFT (Amendment) Bill, 2012 has been introduced in the Parliament which inter-alia includes the provision for grant of powers of civil contempt to the AFT.

The above information was submitted by MoD in reply of undermentioned Lok Sabha Questions:-

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 4480

ANSWERED ON   22.04.2013

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL

4480 . Shri MUNDE GOPINATHRAO PANDURANG, C. SIVASAMI
Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to state:-

(a) whether the Government has established the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to deal with complaints of the defence personnel and provide a forum for appeal; 

(b) if so, the main features thereof, and the manner in which the said tribunal will function; 

(c) the State-wise locations where the said tribunal has started functioning; 

(d) whether the orders of AFT are not being implemented despite its having the status of a High Court; 

(e) if so, the reasons therefor; 

(f) whether the Government proposes to extend powers of civil contempt to the AFT; and 

(g) if so, the details thereof?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI A.K. ANTONY)

(a) Yes, Madam.
(b) To provide adjudication of disputes / complaints with respect to conditions of service in respect of the persons covered under the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950 and also to provide for appeals arising out of orders of court martial. Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) functions under the AFT Act, 2007.
(c) As per Annexure.

(d) & (e): Orders of AFT are complied with by the Government except in the cases wherein appeal is contemplated as per the provisions of the AFT Act, 2007. 

(f) Yes, Madam. 

(g) The AFT (Amendment) Bill, 2012 has been introduced in the Parliament which inter-alia includes the provision for grant of powers of civil contempt to the AFT. 

Source: Lok Sabha Q&A qref=139115

Annexure Link: http://164.100.47.132/Annexture/lsq15/13/au4480.htm

(Source-Central Govt Employees news)

Why India needs to pay its soldiers better

As China continues to make incursions across the LAC, India needs to face reality – we are surrounded by hostile neighbours, of whom at least one is frighteningly aggressive.

 

While there are territorial disputes with most of our neighbours – enclaves with Bangladesh, Katchatheevu island with Sri Lanka, Kalapani with Nepal, and of course, parts of Kashmir with Pakistan – our main concessions have been to China. The country continues to illegally occupy Aksai Chin, and Indians are required to obtain passes to travel to Arunachal Pradesh.
 

For decades, we have been speaking about how we are not militarily equipped to take China on, but as that country gets increasingly belligerent and increasingly manipulative, it seems inevitable that we must be prepared to take it on someday. The incursions along the LAC are regular occurrences, and do eventually get sorted out, though not always to India’s satisfaction. But one of the most worrying aspects of our country’s defence is the constant shortage of officers and soldiers. Among those who do join the Army, more lose their lives to the cruel weather, in regions such as the Siachen, than lose their lives in border skirmishes. 

 

Our Army men are paid poorly, not only compared to those working in the private sector, but also those in other departments of government service. Worse, their families have to put up a struggle to get such basic relief as disability insurance and compensation in case of death.

The argument put forward to persuade young men to join the Army is that it’s not about the money, but about the prestige; that’s it’s about one’s sense of pride in protecting one’s nation. However, patriotism is a hard sentiment to shore up in the disillusionment surrounding the idea of nation – after all, ‘nation’ has come to be associated with governments, rather than territories.

 

Since independence, our central government has always been high-handed with its decisions, pushing through agreements and Acts in the social, economic, as well as political sphere. But the UPA-II government has been particularly so. On August 27, 2010, our MPS unanimously gave themselves an overnight salary hike of 200 percent. Essentially, this means their basic went up from Rs 16,000 to Rs 50,000; their constituency and office expense allowances were doubled to Rs 40,000 each, along with other perks such as lower interest rates on vehicle loans. 

 

With the pension for former MPs going up from Rs 8,000 to Rs 20,000, this would cost the exchequer close to Rs 150 crore a year. All this on top of a tax-free, all-expenses paid life, and Rs 1000 as incentive to attend Parliament – as if this were an additional duty.

In contrast, it was only after the Sixth Pay Commission that the salaries of Army men were hiked, and by a much smaller percentage than the bonanza that the MPs chose to give themselves.

 

In such a scenario, one wonders how many people would encourage their sons to join the Army, even at the level of officers. A 25-year-old working in an MNC could easily make more money than some of the highest-ranking officers in the Army.

 

More importantly, our government’s inability to sort out its border disputes puts thousands of jawans in danger every day, either from our many enemies’ knives and bullets, or from the vagaries of the weather. 

 

Perhaps the time has come for us to focus on fortifying our defence establishments, and increasing the budgets allocated to the Armed Forces. This naturally means increasing salaries and benefits, and regulating postings in such a manner that no one is exposed to extreme climate for too long.

While the Indian government has been pleading for restraint on the issue of incursions, for fear of damaging diplomatic ties, China appears to have no such concerns. If the past is anything to go by, they won’t be daunted by this either. Our eastern neighbour was able to overcome a PR disaster ahead of the Beijing Olympics, putting down Tibetan protests ruthlessly.

In this context, we need to put forward a more aggressive stance, before we lose any more territory to China. But we can’t afford to take that stance without being adequately prepared in terms of military might. A start to that would be to increase the benefits given to the Army, especially the soldiers who patrol our borders. What price would we place on our sovereignty?

 

 Read more from this author: 

Rahul Pandita, Basharat Peer and Kashmir's contradictory stories

Why aren't children safe anymore

In defence of the 'sexists'
When did we lose our right to protest?

How pragmatic is a student protest?

Sri Lanka issue is about human rights, not Tamil sentiment

Acid attacks in India: Is there a solution?

Is India getting a good deal with Cameron?
By Nandini Krishnan


The author is a writer based in Chennai.

She blogs at http://disbursedmeditations.blogspot.com and tweets at  @k_nandini

 

 

 

 

 (Source- Sify)