Monday, October 17, 2016

Ajai Shukla: MoD's farewell to welfare - By Ajai Shukla

February 21, 2012
Instead of safeguarding the welfare of retired soldiers, ministry effectively holds off payment until an ex-serviceman claimant is either dead or broke
In the 1965 conflict with Pakistan, Vijay Oberoi, a young army captain from the Maratha Light Infantry, was shot through the thigh in a gunfight with Pakistani raiders in Kashmir. Bleeding profusely from a severed artery, Oberoi was brought to hospital; his life was saved but his leg amputated. In 2001, Lieutenant General retired as vice-chief of army staff, having soldiered on for 36 years with an artificial leg. He did not receive a paisa extra in ser vice, and the (MoD) challenged his disability pension in the Supreme Court last Friday.
When General Oberoi was released from service, a medical board categorised him as 70 per cent war-disabled, entitling him to a modest pension benefit. But when the enhanced this to 75 per cent, that is, an increase of five per cent, the MoD flatly refused to pay. The officer approached the (the AFT is the apex departmental court for military cases), which in 2010 directed the MoD to pay the enhanced rate. No way, muttered the MoD! Let’s drag on the case.
Ironically, this appeal was filed by the MoD’s Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (or DESW, headed by secretary, ESW). Far from safeguarding the welfare of retired soldiers, sailors and airmen, many of them disabled from battle injuries or the bleak conditions of service, the DESW views its mandate as stonewalling, effectively holding off payment until an ex-serviceman claimant is either dead or broke. Examination reveals the payment of lakhs of taxpayer rupees to pricey lawyers, including the solicitor general, to stonewall the payment of tiny sums to genuinely entitled ex-servicemen. This strategy often brings the DESW uncontested “victory”, since most retired veterans cannot afford the cost of litigation in the Supreme Court.
It has also brought the DESW the moniker of Department of Eternal StoneWalling.
It is not difficult to see why the Supreme Court has backed General Oberoi on the first hearing, rejecting the DESW’s plea for a stay. The Fifth Pay Commission, in order to curtail medical subjectivity in computing disability percentages and to simplify and rationalise disability pensions, introduced the concept of “broad-banding”. All soldiers with up to 50 per cent disability would be paid 50 per cent disability pension; those between 50 and 75 per cent would be paid 75 per cent; and soldiers with 76 per cent or more disability would be regarded as 100 per cent disabled. Instead of welcoming the simplified arrangement, the MoD perversely restricted “broad-banding” only to soldiers who were prematurely invalided out of service, while withholding benefits from those who completed their service. The AFT swiftly rejected this discrimination, as did the Supreme Court in two rulings last year: K J S Buttar versus Union Of India and Union of India versus Paramjit Singh. But the DESW chose to waste the Supreme Court’s time anyway.
With generals treated thus, there is far less welfare for lower ranks. Take the case of “havildars” (sergeants, or three-stripers, the backbone of the army) who are sometimes rewarded with the honorary rank of “naib subedar” on retirement. The ruled that honorary naib subedars should get the pension for that rank, rather than havildars’ pension, which was the earlier practice. The DESW, however, only implemented it for post-2006 retirees. The AFT, however, extended this benefit to pre-2006 honorary naib subedars, a judgment that the Supreme Court concurred with. Against army advice, the DESW appealed to the Supreme Court. Appearing in the case, the solicitor general, briefed by the DESW, told the court (and this was included in the judgment) that the benefit was only for havildars who obtained honorary rank prior to retirement. In fact, as the DESW knows well, honorary naib subedar rank is only awarded after retirement. The Army headquarter’s plea that this be rectified has been ignored. To this day, honorary naib subedars remain tricked out of their pension by the DESW. What has been achieved except a further erosion of the MoD’s relationship with the military?
Such skullduggery naturally generates litigation; and the DESW is overwhelmed by the work that it creates for itself. Ninety per cent of all court/tribunal judgments that require implementation (and that is only because the DESW has exhausted every conceivable legal recourse) remain pending until the aggrieved ex-serviceman files a contempt or execution petition. This adds to the already groaning table of litigation.
The military has tried fruitlessly to reduce litigation by simplifying policy and by avoiding automatic appeals against adverse judgments. But the DESW has hardly helped. Replies to Right to Information petitions highlight multiple issues that the DESW has not resolved even after the secretary, ESW, has approved the military’s recommendations. Rudderless and besieged, the department tells lies even to Parliament.
The DESW flatly lied to the Rajya Sabha’s Committee on Petitions last December (see its 142nd report) on the issue of enhanced pensions, falsely stating that it was difficult to process the case for One Rank, One Pension (OROP) since defence pensioners’ documents are destroyed after 25 years. This is untrue; para 595 of the Regulations for the Army mandates the destruction of records after 25 years for non-pensioners only. But no action has been taken against the DESW officer who is responsible for lying to a parliamentary committee.
The DESW also lied to the parliamentary standing committee of the 15th Lok Sabha, understating the number of court/tribunal judgments that had not been implemented. It put the figure at 303, blaming the military. In fact, more than 2,500 judgments await implementation.
With MoD-military relations bruised by the conflict over the army chief’s age, Defence Minister Antony would put some balm on the wounds by examining the workings of the DESW.

(Source- Business Standard - ajaishukla.blogspot.com )

20 comments:

  1. Lt. Vijay Oberoi was not sent to home and he was kept in the service till his superannuation period.It means he has enjoyed all the service benefits and after retirement also Basic pension plus disability pension. If the same would have happen to men, will he be kept in service till superannuation? This question is for VCOAS retired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes all war cas are allowed to serve till superannuation unless they want to leave. Rules are same for every one rt from sep to gen. Hence it would be better to comment after due study and thought otherwise such comments create wrong impression. The blog admin must also be careful to publish divisive comments. Enough damage has been to the defence forces by such comments

      Delete
  2. Looking after the borders of the nation, we are the strongest but when it comes to our own welfare,we behave like impotent. Why can't we react? Just can't understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Highly disciplined,that is why.You know highly disciplined would never react.They are very much obedient too

      Delete
  3. With all my sympathies with the Officer Vijay Oberoi but i wish to point out that how Strangely 2 different parameters are applied to the Commissioned Officers & The other Ranks.An officer with amputated leg virtually disabled was not only retained but promoted upto the rank of Lt Gen while any soldier would be boarded out on medical grounds , will not get his next promotion till he was in service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hardev Ji You are wrong pl read the rules on the issue

      Delete
    2. So it is meaningless and no sense in blaming MOD , PCDA and the IAS.It is the defcence officers who are on helm of affairs.Enemy with in ouselves

      Delete
  4. How MOD behaves and stalls the welfare measures of veterans, which can be seen by looking at the OM dated 30/9/2016 para 4 and the same was cut paste by PCDA circular 568 para 2 which say"pension shall not be less than 50% of min pay in pay band and pay group including X group pay" it never say that pension will be minimum only or will not be more than that but MOD purposely did not specify about length of service or seniority in rank to be considered to creat confusion in minds of CCPC/ PDAs and delay payments by clearing their doubts; it seems PCDA also played in the hands of MOD,in regards to DL33 arrears for pre 2006 veterans as any one can say that pension shall be proportional to length of service or seniority whichever criteria is taken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right . Incidentlly all drafts of Gos concerning Pay and allces are made by the people from CGDA. Infact the CGDA is established to serve the defence forces but now they have become the masters rather tan servants. It is the folly of democracy and week selfish political leadership of India. A babu sitting at the govt office can play havoc with any one .

      Delete
    2. How many veterans were able to extract the true meaning of the MGP.People behaved foolish themselves and demanded in the court that wanted 50%MGP.For example ,when you beg for one rupee, then why smoebodywill donate two rupees to you..More often in this blog and in VOP , I mentioned this fact , but alas not a single veteran or bonafide service person seconded my saying.Funniest part of it the MOD as usual behaved irrational, irresponsible and mis interpreted that a lower datum mark or a bench mark PER SE is the pension for A to Z.Who is to be blamed?.ANDHERI NAGARI CHAUPAT Raja ------- the old adage is highly suitable for our crowd.Let GOD save them.

      Delete
    3. Dear Sir

      ANDHER NAGARI , CHOUPAT RAJA, JHUSHI ALLAHABAD MEN HAI. SANGAM KINARE(JHUSI MEN, GANGA KINAR)

      Delete
  5. We need to disband DESW IMMEDIATELY.Or esm may take arms in hand and may shoot them one by one

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. i am sure you meant Mr Parrikar and not St Antony.
    2. It is a shame that a department named and shamed as a "compulsive litigant" is yet to develop a sense of shame.
    3. Filing false affidavits is a punishable crime. Why havent the courts and litigants taken up this aspect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr.Iyer
      Do you know Who is St Antony? and Saint stands for?
      So don't compare, just maintain decorum; if you are a gentleman soldier.

      Delete
    2. Tuesday, 21 February 2012 MoD's farewell to welfare The defence ministry's Department of Ex-Servicemen's Welfare (DESW) has emerged as a major hurdle in taking care of the welfare of retired soldiers by Ajai Shukla Business Standard, 21st Feb 12.
      An old article reproduced and hence the old RM name ...
      http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/02/mods-farewell-to-welfare.html

      Delete
    3. It may be any one Antony or Parekaror you put Hanuman ji/Bhim of Mahabharat fame put as RRM you will find the babus will always rule the roost.

      Delete
    4. He simply states that Mr Parrikar is not a St. and surely he can not be taken for granted for what he says and has nil value for his promises as he is an outsider in cabinet committee for any decision controlled by PM,FM and HM.

      Delete
  7. Brigadier on wheelchair to be major general TNN Mar 20, 2010, 03.02 AM IST . Some people have perpetual argumentative habit and their inferiority complex coupled with inability to deal with service element while in service find them chanting anti service.
    They are not happy even in civil life or in corporate service and secretly appreciate the defence service discipline and fairness but go on rambling due to their unsatisfying ego. Read full article ..
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Brigadier-on-wheelchair-to-be-major-general/articleshow/5703111.cms
    "As per Army rules, any injury or disability suffered in war, counter-terrorism or any other operation, 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', that is, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  8. at present the pcda circular of 7 cpc is to be enquired where is it? why it is kept pending? is this delay happened due to lacking funds? it is quite wonder . orop instalment and 33 DL is not applicable for all esm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. There were a lot officers and PBOR who were amputed but discharged on medical grounds. But only Capt (then) Oberoi was retained. There must be some reason to that. It must be a unique case. A unique case cannot be generalised.

    ReplyDelete