(Source-saakshi)

(Source-andhrajyothi)

(Source-anddhrajyothi)

(Source-andhrajyothi)

THE ART OF POLLINATION

CLICK HERE AND WATCH   The Wonderful Art of Pollination


(Source- Vasundharara) 

7TH CPC - TERMS OF REFERENCE - LATEST POSITION

Dear Comrades,

VII-CPC – Terms of reference-

               The members of the National Secretariat of the Confederation available at New Delhi met on 23^rd Oct. 2013 and again on 24^th October, 2013 to discuss and formulate our views on the 7^th CPC terms of Reference.  On the basis of the discussions, we prepared a draft terms of reference and submitted it for consideration of the Staff Side.  The important points we placed in our draft for the consideration of the staff side were:-

 

(a)    The Commission to examine the present structure of pay and allowances and suggest changes.

(b)    To give effect to its recommendations from 1.1.2011 i.e. wage revision must be after       every five years.

(c)    D.A (50%) to be merged with pay with effect from 1.1.2011.

(d)    To determine Interim relief taking into account the erosion in the value of wages over the years,

(e)    To include GDS within the ambit of the 7^th Central Pay Commission.

(f)     To revise the retirement benefits and accord pension maintaining parity in quantum in respect of past, present and future pensioners.

(g)    To extend the statutory defined benefit pension to those who have entered service after 1.1.2004.

(h)    To settle the anomalies raised in various fora of JCM on a priority basis and within a specified time frame.

(i)      To provide cashless/hazzle free Medicare to employees and pensioners.

The Government of India had convened a meeting of the Staff side representatives on 24.10.2013 to discuss the terms of reference.  The meeting took place at 3.00PM on 24^th under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Personnel.  Besides the points mentioned above, the staff raised many other matters connected with the setting up of the CPC. viz. the inclusion of labour Representative as a Member of the Commission; the anomalous  situation brought about by the Grade pay based MACP Scheme; the requirement of a mechanism to settle the 6^th CPC related anomalies;  the need to allow the proposals of Cadre Review to be examined by the Government independently without referring it to CPC;  to have members in the Commission who have gained  expertise to impart to the Commission the nuances and functional requirements of various Departments;  to relook at the new Pay Structure brought in by the 6^th CPC in the light of the experience between 2008 to 2013 etc.  In conclusion the staff side requested the Government to provide it with a draft terms of reference taking into account the views placed by them.  It was also proposed by the Staff Side that on exchange of the draft terms of reference prepared by the Staff Side and the Official Side, a meeting with the Secretary, Personnel and Secretary, Expenditure could be arranged to iron out the differences, if any.

 

The Staff Side met again on 25^th at its office and deliberated upon various views presented by different organisations and finalised the draft terms of reference. We shall publish the said draft terms of reference as and when the same is submitted to the Government.

 

It is obvious that despite the unanimous position taken by all the organisations, the Government may not necessarily agree with many of the basic issues, viz. Date of effect, merger of  DA, Interim Relief, Coverage of GDS etc.  We appeal to our affiliates/ State COCs to continue the campaign amongst the employees to generate necessary sanctions.

 

With greetings,

 

Yours fraternally,

(M.Krishnan)

                                                                                         Secretary General.
(Source- Confed of Employees site)

An Open Letter to Elected Representatives & Political Party Leaders

Lt Gen SC Sardeshpande's Open Letter

        A very mature approach by an Infantry  General who has been a very reputed figure for his down to earth  approach, honesty & integrity without resorting to any of the 'cosmetic' methods to succeed. This is what we require rather than an approach of 'self pity' & mudslinging which is going amongst some veterans. 

 

        Placed in-line below is an open letter written by Lt Gen SC Sardeshpande,UYSM, AVSM, VSM addressed to elected representatives and leaders of political parties regarding the dangerous and messy state of affairs relating to the defence of the Nation.

 

         The Lt Gen requests that this letter may be freely forwarded amongst the Veterans community, and also forwarded to the target audience who may be on your mailing list.

 

An Open Letter to Elected Representatives & Political Party Leaders

 

In my personal capacity, I am inviting the awkward distinction of adverting to you regarding the recent defence scams, deficiencies, neglect, delays, procedural tardiness and the like, which are disturbingly dangerous for the defence of the country.

 

The Air Force strength sanctioned for 42 squadrons has come down to 32, and, at this rate of obsolescence and ageing, will dwindle further to 29 as appears in the media. The MiG 21s have started failing and killing pilots. The Air Force and Naval aviation basic trainer HPT 32 have all been grounded; the next in line, Kiran trainers have dwindled to a handful; the next MiG 21s are already too old. 

 

The Naval pilots are being sent to USA for their basic flying training (TNIE of 8 May 2012), and the Air Force may have to send theirs perhaps to Sweden! Navy’s Sea Harrier aircraft strength too has come down to a handful. Our Submarine fleet is not up to challenging the Chinese counterpart’s entry into the Indian Ocean, which is the maritime area so vital to our trade, economy and security.

 

The Army Chief has brought out a list of obsolete, ageing and deficient items in the Army’s vital weaponry, ammunition and equipment. What the Army Chief said early this year about the Army, the Air Force and Naval Chiefs had said about their Services two years ago, as reported in the press. Despite the deteriorating and unsatisfactory state of our Armed Forces as reflected by all the Chiefs, every one of them has said that they “will fight with whatever they have”. Which, when translated into reality on the battle ground, will mean only one thing: that the soldier (includes naval person and airman) will sacrifice himself and be converted into a martyr by the government, by the political parties and by the people themselves. Does this require any bright brain or complex logic to conclude?

 

I am making bold to ask you elected representatives, party leaders, government officials and intellectual fraternity a few questions in this regard as a common citizen, as an educated and responsible person and as an old soldier of 35 years service in the defence of our country:

 

       Why have all of you, each one of you, permitted this downslide?

 

       Why have you not raised these issues in the parliament and other relevant fora, or with the elected representatives/ party leaders?

 

       What has been your contribution to arrest this downslide?

 

       Why are you trying to glorify the soldier and his martyrdom more than ensuring healthy, well equipped, well armed, well oiled and well provided defence forces and defence preparedness?

 

      Why is it difficult for you to understand that the cliché of the man behind the gun be

i

ng more important than the gun has its limits, beyond which that man behind becomes dead and useless?

      Why do you act so negligently as to treat the soldier as gun fodder, to be raised to glorified martyrdom deserving tears and garlands?

      What efforts have you made, or are making, to become aware of defence and military preparedness issues to ensure the country’s and its people’s security, both external and internal, even as our history shows repeatedly that we received frequent beatings precisely because we neglected these very issues?

        I know you will find these questions hard to answer. You may even vent your displeasure over my temerity to confront you on the issues. I am posing them as a common citizen, affected citizen, in our so-called democracy. Yet, I do very sincerely and seriously request you to consider the issues and attend to cleansing the muck we have created.

 

 Dharwad                                               -/signed (SC Sardeshpande)

Military personnel & 7th CPC - Separate Independent Pay Commission Vs Common Pay Commission?

1.      Govt announces formation of 7^th CPC. Services HQ instead of a separate and independent pay commission demand nomination of military member in same common pay commission?.

 

2.      Why this scaling down of demand by services HQ? Are their decision influenced? It is the question of 25 Lakhs military veterans, their families, war widows and orphaned children who have no voice. Most of soldiers are jobless at young age and paid 2-3 times less from even a Govt peon?

Is patriotism and commitment to national service their offence while Netas loots this country?

 

3.     We have had very bad experiences of common CPC earlier? Can this time with military member a common pay commission give justice to military soldiers and veterans? Certainly NO.

 

4.     Why a separate and independent pay commission for military soldiers and veterans?

 

--   Military services are distinct services treated so under article 309-313 of the constitution. No govt can violet constitutional provisions

 

--   Supreme commander of defence forces is President of India and it works on the principle of command.

 

--   Military officers including JCOs are commissioned officers whereas civil officers are merely gazetted officers. Commissioned officers exercise executive, judicial, magistrate, operational and administrative powers all in one which is not so in case of any other govt services. Executive powers are exercised by the sovereign state. Commissioned officers exercise some of these sovereign powers like forming of govt in occupied territories, confirmation and execution of death sentences under Special/General Court Martials in case of war and also certain indirect and hidden provisions of military powers under article 34 of the constitution).

 

--  Certain fundamental rights and freedom of defence personals have been curtailed which is not so in case of civilian govt employees.

 

--   Military personals work under very strict military laws.

 

--   Due to nature of job they commit their life to nation.

 

--   They can be ordered to serve anywhere in the world and even space.

 

--   Job profile of military and civil staff is so distinct.

 

5.    A common CPC will always work on the principle of bringing parity and balance in compensa-tion among all govt services of the union. Technically it cannot treat defence services distinctly as they deserve. This principle has been quoted as main reason (whenever it is convenient to Govt and Bureaucrats) while denying entitled rights like One Rank One Pension, compensation for retiring early, tax free military pay as given in US and many more other entitlements. Military member with no powers under Govt of India Business Rules will be a non-contributory or advisory member. Will be totally ineffective.

 

6.     Separate and independent pay commission is the constitutional right of the soldiers and govt is doing no favour. By not giving it in fact the constitutional rights of the soldiers are been denied.

 

7.     Do you have a common pay commission for judges or MPs why as their nature of job is different? Then why for defence forces which work under supreme command of president?

 

8.     All these years govt was promising a separate and independent pay commission? Why this U turn by Services HQ? Is the decision influenced? If they cannot look after resettlement and welfare of military veterans than what right do they have to give a recommendationwithout consulting them? It is question of rights of 25 lakhs military veterans, war widows and their families.

 

9.     Under laws related to constitution of commission, GOI can always form such statutory body under a retired judge with members from all three services including three retired veterans. They can also form an advisory body to give representation to retired Jawans, JCOsand war widows from all three services with just one IAS officer as Secretary (for Govt liaison and Secy works). Laws permit that and Govt can do it.

 

10.    We are demanding justice no favours. Give our constitutional right. Govt cannot deny it.

 

 REJECT COMMON PAY COMMISSION OR A MILITARY MEMBER. DEMAND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF HAVING A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT PAY COMMISSION

 

 We have served democratic India with our blood, now we will live for democracy

Veterans have a political stake in the democracy and will exert and exercise it

 

veteransfordemocracy@gmail.com or http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/groups/veteransfordemocracy/

 

 

(Source-Indian Military Veterans for Democracy) - (A Political Front of Retired Military Soldiers)

 

 

Suggestions for terms of reference of 7th CPC with respect to Pensioners

 

1. To examine with a view to having a proper pension structure including provisional pension for pensioners and family pensioners both past and future so that all pensioners irrespective of pre retirement status get equal percentage rise in pension upholding the principle of parity in pension between past and future pensioners as recommended by V CPC and to recommended appropriate revised pension structure.

2. To examine the existing pension structure including death-cum-retirement, gratuity commutation of pension and other terminal or recurring benefits, upholding the principle of Parity in Pension between past and future pensioners as recommended by V CPC and make recommendations there to be effective from 01.01.2011.

3. To consider the merger of Dearness Relief wef 1.7.2013 and grant of suitable Interim Relief with immediate effect.

4. To consider the unimplemented recommendation of 5th & 6th CPC

5. To consider enhancement of % of pension & family pension

6. To examine various health schemes in the light of apex court judgments on the subject & suggest improvements so that all pensioners including those of all India services like IAS, irrespective of pre retirement status get hassle free medical facilities at par

7. To examine FMA with reference to prevailing market conditions & to suggest enhancement w/o any distance restriction.

8. To examine the scheme of Exgratia payment to SRPF and CPF retirees and to consider enhancement in it to the level of minimum

9. These recommendations will apply to all Central Government Pensioners, Ex.Servicemen, Pensioners of those PSUs like Prashar Bharti, BSNL, MTNL, FCI constituted by absorbing the respective Departmental Employees.

sd/-
(S.C.Maheshwari)
Chairman
BCPC

sd/-
(S.K.Vyas)
Secretary General
BCPC

Source: Bharat Pensioner Samaj

(Source-saakshi)

Army Rank Pay case : Implementation locked in tussle, contempt petition filed in SC -Hearing on 28th October 2013

The mis-governance of the Ministry of Defence and trust deficit between its uniformed and civilian arms couldn't have been more embarrassing. In implementing the Supreme Court's year old order on giving veterans and war widows their due, the MoD has now tied itself up in knots. The complexity it has created in implementing the same has impacted the MoD to the effect that it seems to have itself lost track, resulting into delay for all those veterans who have been awaiting this implementation for over a decade now.

Following a series of reports on the differences between Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne and Defence Minister AK Antony emanating from improper implementation of Rank Pay case, Antony had convened a meeting in June this year. In this meeting it was decided that the MoD and service headquarters will present their case to the Attorney General for his final opinion on correct implementation of apex court's order. It has now been reliably learnt that this procedure has been scrapped by Antony. Additionally, he has ordered both sides to yet again send their representations to the AG, with a rider to send them together, not separately. As a matter of fact, the AG in his communication to the MoD, last month, had asked the ministry to implement apex court's orders while giving his interpretation of the finer details. Antony's move has negated all of the progress and things will have to started from the scratch.

Said a source aware of the developments, "After the June meeting, ACM Browne sent services' representation to AG, as was decided, on July 1 which was returned by AG on July 19 for routing it through law ministry." Meanwhile in August, two meetings were held where the services and concerned MoD departments were involved where it was decided to re-send the representation together. "However, the MoD, based on AG's opinion which came last month, as a reply to an old plea of April this year already sent it to Ministry of Finance for implementation which when the services learnt about it, went complaining to Antony. This was why he, once and for all, wants clarity to emerge and rest the matter," said a source. It was also learnt that the representation of the services is now with MoD's legal advisor from where alongwith that of the MoD, both will travel to AG's office through Law ministry.

A query was sent to MoD's Directorate of Public Relations concerning this issue but no clarification was ever received. Meanwhile this flip-flop came under sharp criticism by the veteran community. Said Lt. Col (retd) Satwant Singh of the Retired Defence Officers Association, "We see all this as the MoD's inability to implement the apex court's order for over a year now. This is yet another delay tactic. We are challenging them in the SC where a contempt petition has been filed and will come up for hearing on October 28."

What is the controversy surrounding the RANK PAY CASE about?

The Rank Pay case is also known as the Major Dhanapalan case. The Supreme Court, after a long legal battle had envisaged re-fixation of pay for all officers of the Army, Navy & Air Force who were eligible for Rank Pay with effect from 1.1.86, the date of implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission. However, the MoD implementation letter of December 2012 changed it to 'as on 1.1.86'. The SC order had also sought the re-designing of the minimum basic pay in the integrated pay scale of IV pay commission to avoid different basic pay to similarly placed officers. Also, the subsequent amendments in the pay and pension orders issued towards fifth and sixth pay commissions. 
Source  : India Today

(Source- IRTSA)

(Source-toi)

(Source-sanjha morcha)

Civil-military ties worsening - Rajat Pandit TNN

New Delhi: When Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne,the countrys seniormost military leader,recently wrote to defence minister A K Antony to demand full representation for the armed forces in the new central pay commission,it was couched in extremely polite language. But the underlying message was crystal clear : theforces do not have faith in the civilian dispensation largely the bureaucracy to fully grasp the unique challenges of military service. And, hence, address long-standing,concerns over their eroding status, parity and equivalence as compared to their civilian counterparts.

The letter was a small but significant pointer to the larger malaise of the mounting dysfunctional relationship between the civilian leadership and military. The ongoing internecine warfare between the government and former Army chief General V K Singh, with well-calculated and timed leaks, is just the ugliest manifestation of the plummeting equation. There seems to be little concern, on either side, for the institutions being wrecked in the process, says an insider.

The civil-military divide in the sprawling and monkey-infested corridors of South Block is nothing new. But it has got accentuated like never before in recent years. Civilian primacy over the military has, unfortunately, morphed into bureaucratic control ... the political leadership just twiddles its thumbs in masterly inaction. Ex-servicemen, for instance, have been returning hard-won medals for the last five years but to no avail, says a top general. Responds a senior bureaucrat, Demands of the armed forces, which live in their own fiefdoms, have become highly unrealistic. The government, for instance, has hiked ex-servicemen pensions at least three times since the 6th Pay Commission, including a Rs 2,300 crore  package last year.

But pay and pensions is just one of the issues. The armed forces complain of being downgraded over the years, which extends to being kept at an arms length from policy formulation & decision-making. Experts say the huge politico-bureaucratic resistance to critical reforms in country's higher defence management suggested by the K Subramanyam-led Kargil Review Committee and the 2001 group of ministers report on reforming the national security system as well as the Naresh Chandra Taskforce last year is one of the main reasons for the failure to bridge the divide.

Just a few months ago, as was then reported by TOI, the defence ministry quietly rejected most of the key recommendations of the Naresh Chandra Taskforce. Pointing to lack of consensus in the armed forces as well as the need to consult political parties, it shot down the proposal to create the post of a permanent chairman of the chiefs of staff committee (CoSC ). This General No.1,a four star officer like the three Service chiefs with a fixed two year tenure, would have been the principal military advisor to the government and an invitee to the Cabinet Committee on Security. He would have also helped usher in some desperately-needed synergy among the Army, Navy and IAF in planning, procurement, operational and doctrinal issues.

Similarly,another key recommendation that was junked was cross-staffing Z posting of military officers to MoD.
            
(Source-toi)

Armed forces oppose government's separate pay commission - Jugal R Purohit

In a development which has left the government red-faced and tongue-tied, the announcement of the Seventh Central Pay Commission (CPC) has directly pitted the armed forces against the Prime Minister. On the day PM approved the formation of the 7th CPC, it was hit by a guided missile by the armed forces, represented by from none less than the Air Chief NAK Browne, the Chairman of the Chief of Staff Committee (COSC). This has left the Government red-faced and tongue-tied. It all began with a directive by the Prime Minister, issued on December 27, 2008 which stated that, "In future, pay revision of the armed forces should be de-linked from that of civilians and separate board or commission should be set up for pay revision of the armed forces. "Along with that, the PM had also announced the formation of a High Powered Committee to 'resolve issues relating to command and control functions/status of armed forces vis a vis paramilitary and civilians, something which still hasn't taken place, as per the letter. Standing up, in complete contradiction to that, on September 13, 2013, Air Chief NAK Browne, representing not just the air force but also the army and the navy, requested Defence Minister AK Antony's 'active support and consideration' to 'press for the justified demand of the services' and sought 'representation in pay commission'.

The three page letter, significantly titled, 'Common VII Central Pay Commission', revisited the past when the armed forces emoluments were revised not by a common pay commission but by departmental committees.  ACM Browne mentioned, "Analysis of the experience of departmental committees vis a vis central pay commissions indicates that a separate pay commission may not necessarily benefit the services as anomalies are invariably bound to arise in both cases." Air Chief went on to say that it was the non-resolution of anomalies or ex parte resolution of anomalies which was the cause for dissatisfaction, leading the government to infer that the armed forces should have a separate pay commission. In the fifth paragraph of his letter, the Air Chief admitted, "central pay commissions to a large extent have been judicious and fair in their dispensation towards armed forces".  How stung the government is can be gauged by the fact that prior to this revelation, within the MoD, the move of creating a separate military pay commission was being seen as a 'historic one' to rectify the problems flagged by the armed forces.

Speaking to this correspondent, a Ministry of Defence (MoD) official aware of the case said, "Armed forces were being ceremoniously duped and what the Air Chief has said makes sense so that his men get a better share of the pay commission pie."In fact, the current stand off is reminiscent of the face-off between the government and the armed forces during the Sixth CPC.

• Three services had already created special cells and trained their manpower to join the seventh CPC.

• Armed Forces conducted a study at the College of Defence Management (CDM), Securdarabad which involved the rank and file of the three services, to understand whether the armed forces wanted to be a part of the central pay commission or not. The response was overwhelmingly in favour of the former PM announced today that the 7th CPC will be effective from 1/1/16 and a two-year window has been given to formalize the recommendations of the same.

 The name of the chairperson and its terms of reference are yet to be finalised.

By the kind courtesy of: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/military-and-centre-face-off-over-seventh-central-pay-commission/1/311744.html

=========================================================================

Decision a big jolt to the Armed forces especially the ESMs/Veterans

Comments by Veteran Maj Gen (Retd) PK Renjen, AVSM

Friends,

Although it now appears that with the Chiefs opposed to a separate Military Pay Commission we are doomed to continue with the same discrimination, systemic down gradation, denial of perks - privileges granted to Gp A Services etc, I would like to put across some thoughts on why this decision by the Chiefs is not in our interest.

The PM's announcement in Dec 2008 came about in response to IESM's protests, specific demands for a separate Military Pay Commission (one of our four main demands) and meetings with the PM, RM and other politicians to put across our grievances and demands. By the Chiefs' current stance they have undone what little IESM had then achieved.

In case they had felt that a separate MPC was not desirable, they should have come out with their views immediately after the PM's announcement in the Parliament in Dec 2008. They should at least have discussed with IESM and other veteran Orgs to know their views and reasons for demanding a separate MPC before assuming that they were the best judges of what is good for the veterans. They did not bother to interact - whether due to work pressure, indifference or considering ESMs and their issues as avoidable nuisance, I dont know - but they went ahead to inform the PM of their decision. They forgot that while they are the masters of a million plus serving soldiers' welfare and destinies, they are also expected to look after the welfare of 2.5 million ESM and widows. Regrettably their actions till date, or those of their predecessors, as far as pay, pensions, terms of service and cadre management are concerned, have not inspired confidence at least in the ESM fraternity. Had they been more vigilant, more knowledgeable about such matters or prepared their staff to better understand the nuances of pay and status issues or more steadfast and persevering in their objections and demand for remedying the anomalies, the services would not have been suffering the humiliation and ignominy at the hands of the bureaucrats that it is suffering today. 

Let us accept that we as a force do not have the knowledge, understanding or even patience to understand complex issues, regulations and rules related to pay & pensions nor do we have the guile to counter the many tricks played by the bureaucrats against the Armed Forces. 

Our so called experts (with half baked knowledge) who might join the 7th CPC will be easily overwhelmed by precedents, rules and statistics bandied freely by the bureaucrats within the CPC. Even assuming the best case for us (fully prepared experts ready to stand up to the antics of bureaucrats), within the 7th CPC, we can at best hope for parity with the civs. If that is our goal then we should stop dreaming about restoration of our status, treatment as a distinctly different entity due to our unique and extremely difficult service conditions, adequate compensation for such hazardous conditions which not only adversely affect the soldier - health, life span, financial stability etc - but also very seriously undermine the growth of his children, development of familial bonds, conjugal happiness, marriage itself and multifarious other family issues. The adverse effects permeate through the family and for long. 

The Chiefs need to understand that parity with civs can never be adequate compensation for the soldiers' sacrifices. We are different and deserve to be treated differently and better than the bureaucrats. We have to get back our status and pay cum pension edge over the bureaucrats which we had always enjoyed before we were brought under system of CPCs that undid every advantage that we had traditionally enjoyed (3rd CPC in 1973 was the first for us). 

There are many options to overcome the fear and apprehension that by having a separate MPC we might not know what the civs are getting and could miss out on those benefits. But, more importantly the MPC would have examined our status de-novo and treated us as an entity distinct from the civs, deserving of special additional benefits. Even if we did not get everything that we should have in the first MPC, a start would have been made, some incremental benefits would be granted over and above the civs, discussions recorded for future improvements, desirable targets identified and recorded etc. Hopefully in the 2nd MPC we would achieve what we deserve and want.

By accepting to be a part of the 7th CPC the Chiefs have in effect agreed to their reduced status and privileges in perpetuity and are now only begging for parity. Then, what has all the hullaballoo about the status been till now - umpteen letters written by different Chiefs to the Govt, interviews, talks, articles in the media expressing anguish on the subject.

Chiefs need to remember that our ultimate aim has to be much improved (if not fully restored) status which is closer to the traditional. Status automatically brings with it pay, pension and perks.

 

Maj Gen (Retd) PK Renjen, AVSM      

MUST SEE THESE PHOTOS OF OUR/OTHER COINS

PLEASE  CLICK HERE  TO SEE THESE PHOTOS OF OUR/OTHER COINS

(SOURCE- BCV VASUNDHARA)

WHO RULES " PARLIAMENT OR BABU ?--THE DICTATORSHIP OF BUREAUCRACY " By BRIG V MAHALINGAM (RETD)

 

Indira Gandhi accepted in principle the grant of OROP to ex – servicemen in 1983 consequent to a presentation made on 22 Feb 1982 by Lt Col Inderjeet Singh of the Indian ex–services league. She appointed a high level committee headed by KP Singh Deo the then rajya raksha mantrito examine the issue to give it a final shape. The committee strongly recommended the grant of OROP. 
  

The multi party Standing Committees on Defence (2003)(13TH Lok Sabha) consisting of 44 Members of the Parliament (MPs), chaired by Madhan Lal Khurana and the Standing Committee on Defence (2009-10) (15th Lok Sabha) consisting of 30 MPs chaired by Shri Satpal Maharaj in its seventh report on action taken by the government too recommended the grant of OROP.

Many state governments have also unanimously passed resolutions suppo-rting OROP for the veterans. Nothing happened to these  recommendations. In any other democratic country, recommendations of such a large No. of Parliamentarians would have been debated in Parliament and bureaucracy directed to work out implementation orders or proposal dropped. Obviously the Parliament is not in control. So you know who the rulers are. That much for the respect we as a country have for our Parliament and its members.
  

The Chandigarh bench of the AFT had also directed union govt to grant 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 had said, “It is quite clear that the State cannot lay down different criteria for grant of pension for same rank of officers and ORs 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 the Constitution that grants equal rights to all citizens. Did the government show any respect to the court? If not why have the courts and waste everybody’s time?
  

As expected, the recommendations of Parliamentary bodies and the judgment of the court did not move the Government. The bureaucracy instead let loose the committee route to stall and subsequently divert the issue. A committee of secretaries headed by the Cabinet Secretary was appointed consequent to the uproar on the 6^th Central Pay Commission Report, which precisely did that.

Having been slighted by bureaucracy, when apetition by K Sanjay Prabhu, countersigned by Rajeev Chandrasekhar, member parliament praying for grant of one rank one pension to armed forces personnel was received, as if the earlier recommendations of its members were not good enough, the Parliament decided to task the petitions committee of the Rajya Sabha to
study and make its recommendations once again. 
 

The multi party petitions committee of Rajya Sabha consisting of 10 MPs and chaired by Bhagat Singh Koshiyari in its well argued report submitted to the Parliament as late as December 2011 has strongly recommended that the government should implement OROP in the defence forces across the board at the earliest. One would have expected Parliament to debate issue and implement OROP but then that was not to be. Now one more committee of secretaries has been constituted to examine the issue.

The question is, why do we constitute committees after committees to examine the same issue? Is it not a way to frustrate those affected? Does it not eat away the valuable time of the bureaucrats? Does the govt not have faith in the ability of our Parliamentarians to examine an issue and make realistic and appropriate recommendations? Isn’t Parliament appropriate forum to discuss and decide on their recommendations? If we as a country do not have faith in the Parliament and its members, why stick around with parliamentary democracy?

In a democracy should the bureaucracy sit in judgment of the recommendations of Parliamentary Committees’ reports and court judgments? We in India and especially the media keep harping on the virtues of Indian democracy and the power of the voter. Where is the voter now? What power does he have? His representatives, the MPs now have to await orders from he babus. If they say no, then the reports and the court judgments are doomed. In our system, the voter vanishes the moment he casts his vote. That is the reality. This is democracy in India.

The defense minister goes to the Parliament and says that the government is working on a five year cooling off period for the defence services officers to prevent them taking up jobs with private sector on retirement. Sir, pray tell me what about the babus whoserve till sixty, shower favors on businessmen while on service and take up jobs with the very same businessmen the very next day after his retirement? They don't need a cooling off period? Or are they already chilled out? Where is the justification for retiring a defence services officer at a young age and ruling that he cannot take up a job till five years after hisretirement?What are their children and wives expected to do? Starve? Beg? Who is going to fund the education and marriage of their children? Is the defence ministerunaware of these simple realities of the lives of the defensc services personnel or is the babu different from the others requiring a separate rule?

 

Going by what is happening in the country;can someone tell me how can we say that the Indian democracy is a rule of the people, by the people and for the people?

 
It is, to my mind rule OF the BABUs, BY the Babus and FOR the Babus.











Does anyone think otherwise?  OR CALL   IT  THE DICTATORSHIP OF BUREAUCRACY

 

(Source-BCV)