Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Army to dedicate 2011 to its disabled personnel

The army will dedicate the year 2011 for its personnel disabled while serving the nation and a number of programmes will be launched for their welfare, Army Chief General V K Singh said in New Delhi today. "We are working out programmes under which we will give attention to all our disabled. It is not that we don't do it now, but for one year we want to concentrate only on this particular aspect," Singh told reporters on the sidelines of a function to honour war widows and disabled personnel.

Asked about complaints from veterans that they have been forgotten by the nation, Singh said the army has been working towards addressing the issue by updating the database of ex-servicemen at their regimental centres."Our endeavour is to prepare such a system that we can access the database of all the centres and after that see the shortcomings. And then send our personnel to these people and enquire about their problems and try to provide solutions for them," he added.

The army chief and his wife Bharati Singh today handed over scooters to the disabled soldiers and provided monetary help to the war widows

(source:national portal)

Friday, December 24, 2010


1. Eligibility.

a) All Commissioned / Honorary Commissioned Officers (serving / retired).

b) Widows of Service Officers.

c) Equivalent status of Civilian Officers / Officers of CSD. However, they will have to pay sales tax / Value Added Tax as applicable in the respective State.

d) All GREF Officers (serving / retired).

e) All SSC and EC Officers who have put in five years of reckonable service before release.

f) One of the parents i-e. either the father or the mother of unmarried deceased officers.

g) Either of the officers child, if both the parents have died and the child is drawing pension from Defence Estimates.

2. Other conditions:

a) Applicant must not have purchased a four wheeler (Car) within the last two years on the day of submission of the application. In addition, the applicant will have to give an undertaking that he/she will not sell the vehicle within next two years.

b) As per finance bill of 1998-99, quoting of PAN/GIR No is mandatory at the time of purchase of Car.

c) Application form for all entitled officers is at Appendix ‘A’


1. Eligibility:

All Personnel Below Officer rank (serving & retired), of the three services having minimum of 15 years colour service and having been released honorably are entitled to purchase a four wheeler upto 1300cc capacity.

2. Procedure and Conditions:

a) JCOs/equivalent can purchase the second car after five years of the initial purchase and all other entitled soldiers/Sailors/Airmen after seven years. Sale of car is not allowed before completion of two years from the date of purchase.

b) Serving and retired PBOR will apply on the prescribed forms as enclosed at Appendices B & C respectively.

c) The following documents shall be submitted alongwith the application:

I) Serving PBOR:-

i) A certified copy of Driving licence issued by the civil authorities.

ii) A certificate from PBOR countersigned by the CO/OC troops that the individual has not purchased a car in the last five / seven years, as applicable, and that he will not sell the car before two years and that he is liable to pay the entire excise/sales tax concession in case of any violation.

iii) A certified copy of the pay book wherein the entry with regard to purchase of car by the PBOR is made.

iv) Following Certificate from the Commanding Officer / OC Troops that financial position of the applicant allows him to purchase a car:-


Certified that No. __________________ Rank _________ Name is eligible to purchase a car and that his financial position allows him to purchase a car.

Commanding Officer/OC Troops

II) Retired PBOR: The retired PBOR shall submit an affidavit of Rs. 5/- on Non Judicial Stamp Paper covering the following:-

i) I have not purchased a car in the last 5/7 years as applicable.

ii) I shall not sell the car for the next two years.

iii) I understand that any Violation of the above will make me liable to pay back the entire excise / sales tax concessions to the Govt.

iv) The vehicle is for my personal use.

v) The vehicle purchased from the CSD will be registered on self name.

d) Entry with regards to purchase of car by retd PBOR will be made on the original PPO at the depot.

e) Misuse:

In case an individual is found to have violated any of the above conditions, that is, purchase of second car before five/seven years (as applicable) or sale of car before two years from the date of purchase, he will be liable to pay the full excise duty/sales tax as applicable.

f) Action by the CSD: At the CSD Depot level the following action will be taken on receipt of application from the PBOR:-

a) Verify the correctness of the details furnished by the PBOR.

b) Cross check from CSD HO whether the PBOR has already purchased a car from any other CSD depot.

c) Share the data with regard to purchase of car by PBOR with other depots.

d) The PBOR will be allowed to purchase the car only after receipt of confirmation from CSD HO.

g) In case of retired PBOR following additional action shall be taken:-

i) Ensure that affidavit as above has been obtained.

ii) Ensure entry of purchase of car with date is made on the original PPO.

C) CANCELLATION OF APPLICATION- In the event of Officer / PBOR intending to withdraw his application due to any reason, the officer shall have to forfeit the incidental charges of Rs.500/- and balance amount will be refunded.


a) For readily available vehicles :- Customer selects the vehicle with dealer. He/she submits indent form (duly completed in all respects) at the depot. He/she also deposits full amount of cost of vehicle with CSD depot. Depot in turn places Local Supply order on dealer and customer gets the delivery of vehicle.

b) For vehicles with waiting period of delivery

i) Depot will inform the customer of applicable selling price & CSD handling charges on the vehicle to be purchased by customer.

ii) Customer will deposit only 0.5% as CSD handling charges in the first instance.

iii) Depot will issue provisional booking order to concerned Dealer.

iv) Booking amount (as decided by firm and applicable for civil customers also) will be paid directly by the customer to the dealer concerned.

v) On intimation of availability of the vehicle, the customer will deposit full amount (excluding 0.5% CSD handing charges already paid) with the Depot and the Depot will place LS Order on the dealer concerned.

vi) The customer will take delivery and obtain refund of booking amount and applicable interest (as conveyed by the firm) from the dealer.


1. Eligibility:

a) All ranks (serving / retired) qualifying under entitled categories.

b) Widows of service personnel (including remarried) qualifying under entitled categories.

c) Eldest child of the deceased service personnel, if he is not survived by his wife, provided the under mentioned conditions are fulfilled:

i) If a son, he should be between 18 to 25 years of age and should not be in service or commercially employed.

ii) If a daughter, she should be unmarried.

2. Other Condition: Entitled category of personnel should not have drawn/brought any of above items from the CSD within the last two years. Entitled purchaser shall have to give an undertaking that he / she shall not sell the vehicles for two years from the date of purchase.


1. Eligibility: All Ranks (Serving / retired) of Armed Forces.

2. Other Condition: Entitled category of personnel should not have drawn/brought any make of same AFD (CAT-I) items from the CSD within the last two years. Entitled purchaser shall have to give an undertaking that he / she shall not sell the item for two years from the date of purchase.


a) Entitled customers will fill the application form and submit the same to the CSD Area Depot of their choice alongwith a Bank Draft for the value of the item. Form for purchasing AFD-I items (except cars) is at Appendix ‘D’ for serving personnel and at Appendix ‘E’ for retired personnel.

b) Customers are required to deposit Demand Draft / Bankers Cheque drawn on Nationalized Bank / Scheduled bank or UTI, HDFC, ICICI, IDBI banks only. For all other State & Central Co-operative and other Private Banks, the release order will be given only after the draft / bankers cheque amount is actually credited in CSD Public Fund Account (Main). The Demand Draft / bankers cheque should be drawn in favour of “CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT PUBLIC FUND ACCOUNT (MAIN)” payable at the location of Area Depot. Cheques will not be accepted.

c) The application form must be countersigned by the Commanding Officer of the unit/Formation. In case of retired officers, the application must have the countersignature of Stn HQs/DDZSB. They should also produce original PPO for verification.

d) Customer should select four wheeler/car/two wheeler available with authorized dealer and obtain Engine No./ Chasis No. & other details and submit the same alongwith application form. For other AFD-I items, customers should preferably confirm availability of item with the dealer.

e) Purchase of AFD-I items is subject to compliance of procedural requirements laid down by Central / State Govts. and payment of taxes (as applicable).


Where the bonafide customer is unable to collect in person due to valid reasons proper authority letter with the signature of the nominee duly attested by the bonafide customer and countersigned by the Unit Commander in case of Serving personnel and Station HQ/Secretary, Zila Sainik Board/Deputy Director, Zila Sainik Board in case of retired Service personnel can be accepted for effecting delivery at the discretion of the Depot. All the necessary documents in respect of the bonafide customer required to be perused at the Depot will be brought by the authorised representative to book the AFD item. The delivery of an item will be given to the same person only, who signs at the Depot and in whose favour the authority for collection has been given by the Depot. No authorization in favour of any dealer or his employee will be accepted by the depots.


AFD-I items including cars can be purchased from any CSD Depot of choice of CSD customer subject to following preconditions:-

a) These items will be allowed to be purchased on smart cards since AFD limit (excluding car) is catered for in the smart card.

b) The purchase will be through valid forms processed through the CSD.

c) The form duly countersigned by the CO/OC of the unit will be verified by the CSD Manager concerned with an undertaking (on the form itself) that the individual is making a valid purchase as per authorization.

d) For all other entitled category of pers, the form will be verified by the CSD Manager/station HQ or local authority involved with canteen management.

J) PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON DELAYED DELIVERY:-No interest will be paid by the Department for late delivery of AFD-I items including vehicles. Customers are requested to ascertain the delivery position from the concerned dealer(s) and the concerned Depot(s) before booking of AFD-I items. Prices prevailing on date of delivery will be applicable.

K) APPLICATION FORMS :- Application Forms are enclosed as under:

1. Application Form for Cars (for Officers) : Appendix ‘A’

2. Application Form for Cars by PBOR (Serving): Appendix ‘B’

3.  Application Form for Cars by PBOR (Retired) :Appendix ‘C’

4. Application Form for AFD-I items (except Cars) by Serving Personnel :Appendix ‘D’

5. Application Form for AFD-I items (except Cars) by Retired Personnel: Appendix ‘E’


Thursday, December 23, 2010


Indian Ex-Services League (IESL) today served an ultimatum to the Centre that ex-servicemen in lakhs will gherao Parliament if their demand for 'One Rank One Pension' was not accepted by February 18 next year. Interacting with mediapersons here, Bhag Singh, president of the IESLs Punjab and Chandigarh chapter, said the IESL had achieved partial success of 'One Rank One Pension' whereas 30 to 40 per cent cases were yet to be settled.

He said the league had interacted with the Defence Minister, Minister of State for Defence besides the President during 2009 but to no avail. On October 21, the Minister of State for Defence attended a conference organised by the league where he again interacted separately with the league members. He said 'One Rank One Pension' nod had already been given by the Prime Minister during his speech from the historical Red Fort on August 15 this year.

Col Singh alleged that the government was still playing the game of hide and seek with the serving and retired army persons. He said the country was surviving at the cost of Armed Forces both during war and peace. He asked when the government had given 'One Rank One Pension' to IAS and other cadres then why the armed forces were denied the facility.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Akashdeep: An IAF – IGNOU Program to Enable One Lakh Airmen Achieve Graduate Status in Service

Addressing professional certification needs of higher learning of its personnel below officers rank including recognition of ‘in service’ training, Indian Air Force (IAF) today, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), launching ‘Akashdeep’– a project registering existing airmen training institutes as Community Colleges enabling all serving airmen to obtain a Bachelor’s degree within 8-13 years of their service.

The MoU allowing conferring of educational certifications to airmen and NCs (E) (Non Combatants) (Enrolled) within the parameters laid down by IGNOU for Community Colleges was signed by Air Officer-In-charge Personnel, Air Marshal KJ Mathews on behalf of IAF and by IGNOU Vice Chancellor, Prof. V.N. Rajasekharan Pillai in the presence of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, senior IAF, IGNOU Officials and the MoU beneficiaries – IAF Airmen and NCs (E).

Under the arrangements, the two modules of the Joint Basic Phase Training (JBDT) will enable airmen to earn credit points that would be transferred to IGNOU for completing their Certificates, Diplomas and Associate Degrees in Arts, Science, Commerce, Business Administration, Hotel Management, Hospitality services, Medical services, Para Medical Sciences, Office Management, Automobile Trade performing skill, Music, Instrument Music. Subsequent to this, an airman can enroll for a one-year distance learning programme with IGNOU leading to award of Bachelor’s Degree.

For the non-combatants, the basic trade training imparted at IAF Training Institutes will make them eligible for award of Certificates in their respective trade by IGNOU. The launch of the project will immediately benefit nearly one lakh IAF personnel who will, on completion of the syllabus receive a Degree from the National University that has the potential to transform their post-retirement life besides helping them prepare for competitive jobs.

Presently, the entry level qualification requirements for airmen in IAF is 10+2 in Group-X and Y trades (Technical and non-technical trades), and Class-X for Group-Z trade (Musicians). For NCs (E), the minimum educational qualification requirement is also Class-X. However, individuals who did not complete 10+2 examination prior to joining the IAF can undergo a bridge programme of one semester before qualifying for registration to the Associate Degree.

Better qualified human resources will help IAF in gainful utilization of its resources. The programme, while validating IAF training curriculum is also one among the several welfare measures for its personnel. Project Akashdeep also signifies IAF’s association with sky and its quest for knowledge.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Gallantry award given to deserters - Survivor Of INS Khukri Seeks Correction In Naval History On Role Of INS Kirpan In 71 Indo-Pak War

Chandigarh: Did the crew of INS Kirpan,the Indian Navy frigate which was honoured with gallantry award for its role in 1971 Indo-Pak war,actually deserve the honour or did it play an ignominious role by deserting fellow sailors who were drowning in INS Khukri  Nearly 40 years after the sinking of INS Khukri,this is the question being raised by one of the survivors of the illfated frigate of Indian Navy.

A retired sailor,Chanchal Singh Gill,who served in the Indian Navy for 14 years,has moved the Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) seeking correction of Naval history related to the INS Khukri. A comprehensive time bound inquiry by a commission,withdrawal of gallantry awards from those who allegedly showed cowardice,including officers and Commanding Officer of INS Kirpan,and fixing responsibility for the Indian Navys greatest cover up after the greatest tragedy,besides their court martial,has also been sought.

The main allegations of 58-year old Gill who was on duty as artificer apprentice on the fateful night of December 9,1971 when the Pakistani submarine PNS Hangor hit the INS Khukri is that the record prepared by the Historical Cell of Directorate of Naval Operations,at Naval Headquarters,New Delhi,pertaining to INS Khukri is far away from the truth. While pointing out glaring errors in the records,which came to his notice in February 2004,that Khukri sank just by one torpedo hit whereas INS Kirpan manoeuvered to deflect torpedo attacks,Gill claims that actually three torpedoes had hit Khukri and instead of joining action to counter the attack,INS Kirpan fled away.

After reading the official account,Gill immediately sent letters to parliamentary standing committee on defence seeking correction of the records but has not heard from them till now. Along with his petition, which would now come up for hearing before AFT on December 24,Gill has also annexed the report of Commander B Bhushan who had submitted a report in January,1972 on Khukris sinking.Commander Bhushans report,which was declassified in 2005,if gone through carefully,highlights an amazing cover up (on INS Kirpans role) by the naval authorities,Gill claimed.

Gill said he was one of the few survivors who were thrown out at the time of first blast but survived as he could take hold of a life raft and operated it in the darkness of night besides rescuing six more survivors from freezing waters. INS Kirpan,which was in the vicinity,did not respond to distress signals,instead,speeded away from the spot,abandoning the drowning crew of Khukri,he alleged.He also claimed that not all of the survivors were questioned about how the tragedy had happened and no independent inquiry was instituted.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010



(source-IESM Website)

Monday, December 13, 2010


The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 15.11.2010 has directed the Central Government to set up a Commission, named the Armed Forces Grievances Redressed Commission to address the grievances of both serving and retired armed forces personnel. The matter is presently under examination.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri SS Ramasubba and Shri Asaduddin Owaisi in Lok Sabha today.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Armed Forces Tribunal toothless, says its chief-Writes to government demanding amendments to the Act

Terming the Armed Forces Tribunal as virtually toothless in the absence of provisions for execution of its orders, its Chairperson Justice A.K. Mathur today said that he has written to the Centre recommending amendments in the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Speaking at a seminar on “Military Justice System and Armed Forces Tribunal”, organised to mark the first anniversary of the AFT’s Chandigarh bench, Justice Mathur said that the AFT should have powers to issue contempt to ensure compliance of orders, which is found wanting by the implementing agencies.

He was also highly critical of the military judicial system, pointing out that judicial review of court martial trials revealed severe shortcomings in the military process and gross violations of the established procedures and methodology of investigations and conduct of criminal trial.

Justice Mathur said that matters concerning summary court martial and postings should also be shifted from the ambit of the High Court to the AFT to end dual jurisdiction. Justice Mathur also squarely blamed the military for the troubles that veterans are facing on grant and fixation of pension, especially disability pension. Pointing towards the non-cooperative attitude of the services towards administrative issues, he said that some senior commanders viewed the Tribunal as an institution created to usurp their authority and powers.

Head of the AFT’s Chandigarh Bench, Justice Ghanshyam Prashad said that in courts martial, officers given the task of judges have no formal legal training and therefore, there was a greater risk of miscarriage of justice. He added that there should be a separate cadre of officers with a legal background to hold court martial proceedings. He added that despite some shortcomings, the Tribunal is a boon to service personnel as it checked oppressive steps.

Former Vice-Chief of the Army Staff, Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi pointed out that the system of military justice was a time-tested process with in-built checks and balances to ensure transparency, fairness and unwarranted command influence.

The Centre’s counsel, Captain Sandeep Bansal said that discipline is the bedrock of the armed forces and the courts should ensure that in the process of delivering justice, discipline is not compromised. He also said that matters concerning the Army’s group insurance should be brought under the AFT’s ambit.

Stating that appeals and revisions against the High Court and the AFT orders were being filed by the government in contravention of the National Litigation Policy, Major Navdeep Singh said that there were several issues that should not have reached the litigation stage as these could have easily been sorted out by the Defence Ministry and the pension authorities.
(source-The Tribune)

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

అంది వచ్చిన మంచి అవకాశం -సద్వినియోగం చేసుకోండి. భారత సైన్యంలో - మంచి గౌరవప్రదమైన ఉద్యోగంలో చేరేందుకు గర్వంగా, నిశ్చింతగా నిర్ణయం తీసుకోండి.

 01 నుండి  06  డిసెంబరు 2010 వరకు తెలంగాణా అభ్యర్థులకోసం ఆర్మీలో పలు ట్రేడ్స్/పోస్టుల ఎంపిక RECRUITMENT ర్యాలీ జరుగనుంది. 

 స్థలం - అంబేద్కర్ స్టేడియం
(తిరుమలగిరి) సికింద్రాబాద్.

 17  నుంచి  23 లోపు వయస్సు ఉండి,  162CM ఎత్తు కలిగి, 
మంచి దేహ ధారుడ్యం ఉన్న అభ్యర్థులు అర్హులు.

ఆసక్తి గల  అభ్యర్థులు సంబంధిత ధ్రువ పత్రాలు (SSC
NATIVITY CERTIFICATE), పాస్ పోర్ట్  సైజు
ఫొటోలతో, పై  అడ్రస్ కి  నేరుగా హాజరు కావాలి.

(మన వెనుకబడిన ప్రాంత యువకులు   ఎక్కువ సంఖ్యలో ఆర్మీలో చేరాలనే ఉద్దేశ్యంతో ......)

Monday, November 22, 2010

Age-Limit for Senior Citizens Facilities

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 defines ‘Senior Citizen’ as a person who has attained the age of 60 years or above. The Act provides for claim for maintenance allowance; geriatric and health care; shelter and protection of life and property.

The Act comes into force upon notification by individual State Governments. 22 States and all Union Territories have notified the Act so far. The Act is not applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The remaining 5 States have already been requested to notify the Act.

This information was given by Shri. D. Napoleon, the Minister of State for Social Justice & Empowerment, in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today.


A K Mathur CHANDIGARH: The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) is a toothless body. And none other than head of its principal bench, Justice (retd) AK Mathur, says it. Justice Mathur, who was in Chandigarh on Saturday on the occasion of completion of one year of the Chandigarh bench of AFT, said that they are striving for execution of orders passed by them against army authorities after deciding the petitions of aggrieved defence personnel.

He also informed that in last one year the tribunal has decided around 4000 cases of the armed forced personnel and orders in 90 per cent of these cases were against the authorities, but they, specially army, is not bothering to comply with the tribunal's orders.

The revelation of the head of country's highest military tribunal are startling in view of the recent orders of the Supreme court for constituting Forces Grievances Redressal Commission with powers 'recommendatory in nature'. The revelations of Justice Mathur put a question mark over the fate of the upcoming commission.

While delivering lecture on the occasion, Justice Mathur stated that he had written to the Union government for empowering the tribunal with execution powers and to hear summary court martial proceedings so that the real purpose of constituting AFT can be served. He said, "we want powers to make pressure on the authorities to redress the grievances of the soldiers and to remove the arbitrariness in the authority's decisions".

Justice Mathur also informed that despite tribunal orders widows are struggling to get family pension, but the army brass is biggest hindrance in granting execution powers for the AFT. "Attitude of the army has to change, as the 'generals' should understand that tomorrow they may have to knock the AFT door for their grievances," Mathur added.

Justice Mathur also recounted various instances where he had to face difficulties to get a portion of building from the defence authorities for setting up of the regional benches of the tribunal.

(1) Agreeved (Bangalore) :- Why the facts of the case were not taken up with the COAS, CAS and CNS, with copies to all concerned. Their replies received should gave been posted. Better luck next time. Wg. Cdr ( Retd ) V P Sachar 22 Nov 10.

(2) Adil (Delhi) :- India is in a mess. The bureaucracy has buggered everything, and controls everything. We need to urgently flush the IAS/IPS/IRS/IDAS/etc etc down the toilet before they utterly ruin this nation. Really, they are nothing more than the STEAL frame of the nation!

(3) Singhal (Ghaziabad):- Why will the generals be comfortable with AFT ? The Generals think that they are feudal lords and they have god given mandate to do whatever with their fiefs and serfs. That apart, it will be worthwhile to collect data showing how many verdicts of AFT went against actions of uniformed officers and how many against actions/ decisions of civilian officers e.g. CDA or MOD. Only that will tell us the extent of the problem.


The Parliamentary Standing committee on Defence has urged the government to reconsider the demand of "One Rank One Pension" for the ex-servicemen.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence (15th LOK SABHA) on 1st and 7th Reports reiterated that the Government should consider the issue of 'One Rank One Pension' afresh. Since the issue of One Rank One Pension was not accepted in the past and more recently the Cabinet Secretary's Committee set up to consider it also did not recommend the same, it has not been found feasible to accept the demand of One Rank One Pension.

In the case of Original Application No. 15 and 45/2010 the AFT, Chandigarh had passed the order dated 3.3.2010 with directions to the respondents to take final decision in the matter. The said order was examined and speaking orders explaining the position were issued on 10.07.2010 to the petitioners.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Shri MM Pallam Raju in a written reply to Shri Vilas Muttemwar and others in Lok Sabha today.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010



New Delhi: The hedging by the Centre to its suggestions to address grievances of armed forces personnel,both serving and retired,to curb indiscipline and show of anger by them,made the SC on Monday order the setting up of an Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission within two months.

A Bench said the commission,headed by a retired Supreme Court judge,will look into any grievance by serving and former members of the Army,Navy and Air Force or their widows or family members and make suitable recommendations expeditiously to the central government.The order came in a petition filed by one Pushpa Vanti,widow of an Army major who fought three wars in 1948,1962 and 1965 and was decorated with 14 medals.What anguished the Bench was that she was getting a pension of Rs 80 per month.

Writ Petition(Civil)) No. 291 of 2010

Pushpa Vanti .. Petitioner -versus- Union of India & others .. Respondents


1. In this case we had issued notice to the respondents on 17.9.2010 but no counter affidavit has been filed.

2. The petitioner before us in the present case is a widow Pushpa Vanti, whose husband was an army major who had fought in three wars (in 1948, 1962 and 1965) and was decorated with fourteen medals. However, the petitioner is getting only Rs.80/- per month as pension, in these days when a kilogram of arhar dal costs that amount. She has prayed for fixation of her correct pension and arrears.

3. The Indian armed forces are bravely defending the borders of the country, often standing on guard at a height of 20,000 feet and in minus 30oC temperature, day and night so that the people of India can live, work and sleep in peace.

4. However, there is widespread discontent among the serving and former members of the armed forces (by which we mean the Army, Navy and Air Force) and their widows and family members regarding their service conditions e.g. pay scales, allowances, anomalies regarding pensions, inadequate pension (particularly to those disabled while in service), widows benefits, promotion matters (including promotion
policy and process) etc.. They have a feeling that the bureaucrats do not care for them and do not properly address their grievances. As a result, thousands of ex-armed forces personnel have returned their medals, and some have even burnt their artificial limbs.

5. These grievances include the grievances relating to pay, allowances, one rank one pension, other pension matters, suitable benefits to be granted to war veterans, war widows, promotion matters, rehabilitation of soldiers who are discharged at a young age, etc.

6. In a recent panel discussion `We The People' on NDTV channel some of these grievances were high lighted.

7. Our courts of law are flooded with cases relating to members, both serving and retired, of the armed forces e.g. cases relating to pension, promotion, etc and the obvious reason is that the armed forces personnel have a feeling that their grievances are not being properly addressed.

8. The great Prime Minister of Magadha, Chanakya, told Emperor Chandragupta Maurya :

"Pataliputra rests each night in peaceful comfort, O King, secure in the belief that the distant borders of Magadha are inviolate and the interiors are safe and secure, thanks only to the Mauryan Army standing vigil with naked swords and eyes peeled for action, day and night, in weather fair and foul, all eight praharas (i.e. round the clock), quite unmindful of personal discomfort and hardship, all through the year, year after year. To this man, O Rajadhiraja, you owe a debt: please, therefore, see to it, suo motu, that the soldier continuou-sly gets his dues in every form and respect, be they his needs or his wants, for he is not likely to ask for them himself. The day the soldier has to demand his dues will be a sad day for Magadha; for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be king!"

9. Today our ex-soldiers have not only been demanding but are agitating to get their legitimate dues. They were compelled to resort to public protests and even return their War- medals and burn their artificial limbs, as was done by Capt. C.S. Sidhu whose right arm was amputated while serving at the front but was getting a pittance as pension (see judgment of this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. C.S. Sidhu in Civil Appeal No.4474 of 2005 dated 31st March, 2010). This, in our opinion, is not good for the nation. The armed forces personnel should have a feeling that their grievances are heard by an independent body. Even if some of their demands are not accepted, they will have a feeling that they were given a proper hearing.

10. We, therefore, direct the Central Government to set up within two months from today a Commission which shall be called the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission.

11. This Commission will look into any grievances (sent to them in writing or by e-mail) by serving or former members of the armed forces(i.e. Army, Navy and Air Force) or their widows or family members and make suitable recommendations expeditiously to the Central Government in this connection.

12. The Commission will also frame and recommend to the Central Government a scheme for proper rehabilitation of discharged soldiers. At present the position is that a soldier is ordinarily recruited at the age of about 18 years, and if he does not rise above the rank of Jawan he is discharged after 15 years of service. If he is promoted, his tenure is extended on each promotion. Thus, if he reaches the rank of Havildar but no further he will retire after 22 years of service, i.e. at the age of 40. Thus a soldier is retired when he is in the prime of life. During his service he spends only about 2 months per year with his family. There is no doubt a Resettlement Directorate in the Army Headquarters, but we are informed that it is not a very effective body. If a soldier is discharged between the age of 35-45 how will he support his family ? At that age he is likely to have a wife and children. Hence he should be given alternative employment so that he can support his family. The Commission will go into this matter also in detail and suggest appropriate schemes for rehabilitation of ex-armed forces personnel who are retired at a relatively young age.

13. The aforesaid Commission shall consist of the following members :

1. A retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Chairman of the Commission. The first Chairman shall be Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, former Judge, Supreme Court.

2. A former Chief Justice of the High Court as the Vice Chairman of the Commission. The Vice Chairman will officiate as the Chairman in absence of the Chairman. The first Vice Chairman shall be Hon'ble Mr.
Justice S.S. Sodhi, retired Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.

3. A retired Chief of Army staff as a Member of the Commission. We appoint General V.P. Malik, retired Chief of Army staff, to be a Member of the Commission.

4. Any retired Chief or Vice Chief or Deputy Chief of the Army, Navy or Air Force as a Member of the Commission. In the first Commission we appoint Lt. General Vijay Oberoi, retired Vice Chief of Army Staff, to be a Member of the Commission(General Oberoi is the Douglas Bader of the Indian Armed Forces, his one foot having been shot and later amputated due to a burst of machine gun fire in the 1965 Indo-Pak war, when he was a young Captain. Despite this he rose to become a Lt. Gen. and Vice Chief of the Army).

5. A civil servant, whether serving or retired, as a Member of the Commission, to be appointed by the Central Government, at its discretion.

14. The term of the first Commission will be for two years from the date of its constitution but it will be renewable at the option of the Central Government. The subsequent Commission members (after the two year term of the first Commission has expired) shall be appointed by the Central Government.

15. Since most of the aforesaid members in the first Commission are based in Chandigarh hence we direct that the headquarters of the Commission shall be at Chandigarh. For this purpose a suitable building will be allotted at the earliest at Chandigarh by the Union Territory of Chandigarh in consultation with the Central Government which will be used as the office-cum-secretariat of the Commission. This building must have sufficient rooms to provide an office for each member of the Commission. The Central Government will allot adequate secretarial and other staff and infrastructure and equipment (including computers, telephones etc.) for the office and members of the Commission as desired by the Chairman.

16. In addition to the headquarters of the Commission at Chandigarh there will also be set-up offices of the Commission at Delhi and such other places as the Chairman of the Commission may direct. The Central
Government and concerned State Governments/Union Territories will provide the necessary staff and infrastructure as the Chairman may direct for this purpose.

17. All the members of the Commission shall sit together whenever issues of general importance are to be considered. However, in any matter relating to individuals or a few persons only the Chairman can appoint a smaller Committee consisting of one or more members as he decides.

18. The first four members of the Commission will be given the same salaries, benefits and allowances which they were getting on the last day when they were in service. They will also be given traveling and
such other allowances as the Chairman decides if they have to travel to other places away from Chandigarh. The fifth member, if a retired person, will also get the same.

19. We make it clear that this Commission is different from the Armed Forces Tribunal in the following ways :

1. The Commission is only a recommendatory body and not an adjudicatory body. Hence it is open to the Central Government to accept or not to accept its recommendations, though of course since such recommendations will be coming from a high powered body the Central Government must give due weight to the same.

2. Whereas the Armed Forces Tribunal can only decide cases in accordance with the rules, the Commission can recommend even change of the rules where it feels that the same are defective or inadequate. In other words, the Commission is not confined to following relevant rules relating to service conditions, pension, etc. but it can recommend change of the same where it feels that the same are defective or inadequate.

20. We further direct all authorities in India, Civil or Military (including the Secretary, Defence, Union of India, and the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Staffs) to extend all cooperation to the Commission to enable it to discharge its functions effectively.

21. The notification constituting the Commission as provided above will be issued by the Central government forthwith.

22. The claim of the petitioner in this case shall stand referred to the Commission. The Registry of this Court shall send copies of the papers of this case forthwith to the members of the Commission nominated by us, and the petitioner's claim shall be considered expeditiously. Claims of other armed forces personnel (serving or retired) should also be considered expeditiously.

23. List this case again on 7.2.2011.

...................................J. (Markandey Katju)

..................................J. (Gyan Sudha Misra)
New Delhi; 15 Nov, 2010
(SOURCE - Indian Military service Benefits blog)

Thursday, November 11, 2010


Tuesday, November 9, 2010


New Delhi-The Govt is in the process of setting up a commission for the speedy redressal of the grievances of armed forces personnel, the Centre informed the Supreme Court today. “We are setting out the proposed terms of reference” of the commission, Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium told a Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.

The SG, however, indicated that the commission would not cover personnel in all areas of the armed forces. “It may not be necessary for some areas as the government has taken positive decisions in these areas,” he said without giving details. The SG sought a week’s time for providing details of the proposed commission. The move could not be finalised before today’s hearing due to the intervening Divali holidays, he said. Allowing his plea, the Bench posted the next hearing for November 15.

On September 8 this year, the Bench had passed an order asking the government to consider setting up an independent commission headed by a retired SC Judge “for looking into all the grievances of the serving and former members of the armed forces. We feel this is necessary as the armed forces personnel have many grievances which they feel are not being properly addressed by the Union Government.” Pointing out that the widow of a war veteran had approached the SC questioning logic of paying her a meagre pension of Rs 70 against her claim of Rs 27,000, the Bench said this was the treatment meted out to highly decorated officers. “It is shameful” that the government had allowed such cases to come to the Supreme Court. “Does it require a case? What are you people up to? It is very demoralising for the armed forces,” the Bench told the SG.

The SG assured the Bench that such grievances would also be addressed by the proposed commission. The court was hearing a petition filed by some serving and retired army officers, challenging the government’s refusal to accord them enhanced rank pay as recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission.
(By R Sedhuraman-Legal Correspondent)

(source- Aggi jottings)

Monday, November 8, 2010




Tele: 26113163/Fax: 26880943     Dte of ESM Affairs (Intgtd HQrs)
 (E-mail: desa@vsnl.com)              MoD(Navy), 6th Flr, Chanakya Puri,
                                                        New Delhi – 110011

DX/900/AGM-2007                       10 Mar 08


1. The 16th Annual General Body Meeting of Navy Foundation was held at Naval Officers Mess, Chennai,  at 1130 hrs on 21 Jan 08 under the Chairmanship of Admiral Sureesh Mehta, PVSM, AVSM, ADC, the Chief of Naval Staff and President Navy Foundation.
39. Item IV(d). Understand from Air Force Organisation that the name of ESM has been changed to Armed Forces Veterans and therefore appropriate change in name may be effected to the directorate dealing with veterans.

40. The Secretary intimated that, as per the GOI ruling, ex- servicemen are to be called Armed Forces Veterans. However, it is applicable to personnel only and offices/ departments are still referred to as ex-servicemen departments and thus even in MOD, veterans sections are retained as ex-servicemen departments.

41. Decision. The President stated that we will continue calling ex-servicemen as veterans, as it is accepted terminology used by the Ministry of Defence to address the ESMs.

                                                                           (K Surjit Singh)
                                                                           Navy Foundation

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Miffed SC to defence secretary: How about spending 10 days in high-altitude Army posts

New Delhi: A little over a month ago, the Supreme Court had suggested to the Centre to keep its Armed Forces Personnel happy by providing them with an independent pay tribunal where they could ventilate their grievances instead of returning their medals and burning artificial limbs. But finding the response lukewarm, a Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur expressed unhappiness in no uncertain terms and termed the bureaucracy in the ministry of defence insensitively effective. Sitting somewhere in a plush office in Delhi and finding fault in each proposal is easy.The defence secretary must be sent for 10 days to the high-altitude posts.He will at least see first hand the conditions in which these people serve the country, the Bench said.

To minimise further flow of anguished remarks, Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, who appeared for the Centre, sought time to respond to the proposal but not before clarifying that  Govt was getting objections to the proposal for setting up a panel to look into pay-related and pension-related grievances of Armed Forces Personnel. The Bench reluctantly gave a final opportunity to Subramaniam to come back with a proper response from the Govt to the suggestion of setting up an independent pay tribunal but also reminded him that on the last two occasions, the government had done nothing better than seeking further time.

"Your bureaucrats are not bothered. People in the Army are returning medals in thousands and some have even burnt their artificial limbs in protest.They get a feeling now that these bureaucrats do not hear them.If you have a commission,at least some steam (anger among the armed forces personnel) will be let out, the Bench reasoned. Subramaniam said,I see value in what the court has suggested,but this involves more than one ministry.Even the recurring liability would be high.

The Bench posted the matter to November 8 asking the Centre to respond specifically to the suggestion, setting out the areas and parameters it was willing to consider.The apex court on September 8 had suggested setting up an independent pay tribunal chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge that would be a recommen-datory body.

Saturday, October 16, 2010


New Delhi, Oct 15 (IANS) Defence Minister A.K. Antony Friday announced a cash bonanza of Rs.12 lakh for each of the gold medal winning armed forces sportspersons, Rs.7 lakh for those who won silver and Rs.5 lakh to the bronze medal winners at the just concluded 19th Commonwealth Games.  The armed forces sportspersons have won 25 medals, 10 gold, seven silver and eight bronze, out of India's total tally of 101.

There were 50 sportspersons drawn from the three services who competed in 10 Games events. Antony commended the contribution of the armed forces in making the Commonwealth Games a success. Besides participating in the competitions, the services were involved in the day-to-day management of the Queen's baton relay during its over 100-day journey across the country. Armed forces bands participated in the opening and closing ceremonies, and flag hoisting during the medal presentations.

Indian Army engineers also built in record time a footbridge near the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium after an under-construction footbridge near the main venue of the Oct 3-14 sporting event collapsed barely days ahead of the sporting gala.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Govt to address pension issues of armed forces personnel

With a large number of officers and jawans approaching the A F Tribunal with pension-related grievances and complaints, Govt today said it was working towards improving the situation. Def.Min. AK Antony said in comparison with the civil pension structure, defence pension was "very complex" and a large number of complaints and grievances were there. "There are so many instances of personnel-below officer ranks and very senior officers approaching the Armed Forces Tribunal against these grievances... this is not a happy situation," the minister said while addressing the foundation day celebrations of the department of defence accounts.

The defence minister said there was a need to further improve the situation and government was working towards it. "In last few years, the DAD has improved the system drastically and there are lesser number of complaints now but there is a scope of further improvement. A large no.of ex-servicemen are approaching the Tribunal but this doesn't mean the things are bad," he added.

Earlier in the day, Antony launched three DAD websites named Project Suvigya, Project Aashraya and Project Sankalan. The websites have been created by the department for helping defence pensioners to know about their pensions and addressing their grievances related to it.

Under the Project Suvigya, pensioners would be able to know about their pension entitlements online and with project Aashraya, it would be possible for a pensioner to log into his pension account from anywhere in the world, DAD officials said here.

Project Sankalan would facilitate dissemination of various orders, instructions and manuals electronically and would also help in reducing paper consumption in the department, they added.

(Source : Pay Commission/DNA News /PTI)

More logic, less rhetoric to strike a better deal - Maj Navdeep Singh

Is atta-dal cheaper for a pensioner who retired in, say 1995, than an employee retiring today? Absolutely not. Then why should an old retiree be paid much less pension than an equally placed person retiring today in the same rank and with the same length of service? Legalese apart, this is the question that stares the present system in its face. But then, the logic is equally applicable not only to defence pensioners but to all pensioners irrespective of the service they retired from. And this is where I differ from some veteran organisations, which time and again bring in the talk of honour, valour and sacrifice of defence personnel while trivialising the roles of other occupations.

One rank—one pension (OROP), or more precisely “Equal pension for the same grade with same length of service”, is definitely an equitable and ideal concept and should be granted, but it should be extended in time to all pensioners irrespective of the service from which they retired. If the defence services deserve it earlier or in a different format than others, it is not because their contribution is more hallowed than civilian employees but because they retire younger, at times 25 years before their civilian counterparts, are at call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and definitely lead a tougher regimented life. Every service or occupation, however, has a role to perform in sustaining this nation and the thin line between pride and superiority should not be crossed.

The outrage and retort of some members during a recent popular TV talk show, when a professor of economics suggested that there were other professionals too such as firemen who faced occupational risks, again reflected a kind of hollow supremacy which we are unknowingly instilling within the military society and that is taking us further away from the real world. Perhaps, the example of a fireman was not apt, but there are others such as personnel of the Central Police Organisations who face similar risks and probably lead an even tougher life. The only intelligible differentia that can be logically put forth is that defence personnel retire earlier.

Of course, also fallacious was the argument of the professor that defence personnel should be granted higher pay but not greater pension because the nation cannot afford it. Perhaps the professor did not know that pension, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is a “deferred wage” and a higher wage therefore has to rationally translate into higher pension. This fight should be won not by comparisons or running down others but by articulating a logical stance that is not easy to defy.

The idea should be to convince the government, the public and the nation as to why pensioners in general and defence pensioners in particular deserve a better deal. Though I do not agree with the oft-repeated conspiracy theory of the bureaucracy being always opposed to what defence personnel deserve, I can say it with conviction that mischievous elements at not-so-high-levels definitely have the ability to deceive the upper echelons of governance with misleading file notings on which there is no proper application of mind at the top but only affixing of initials as a mere formality. Or else nobody on earth could justify what has been labelled as “modified parity” or “rationalisation of pension structure”.

The difference of Rs 1,400 between the pension of a Captain and a Major as on December 31, 2005 has gone down to Rs 250 on January 1, 2006 after the Sixth Pay Commission, rather than increasing with the enhancement of scales, while the difference of Rs 950 between the pension of a Major and a time-scale Lieutenant Colonel has gone up to Rs 11,600.

As on date, the disability element of pension of a 100 per cent disabled officer holding the rank of a full General who retired on December 31, 2005 after 40 years of service is Rs 5,880 while the disability element of an officer of the same rank retiring a day later is Rs 27,000. In fact, a Lieutenant, the lowest commissioned rank, with one day of service released on January 1, 2006 gets a disability element of Rs 8,100 which is much more than that of a 100 per cent disabled General, the highest commissioned rank, who retired a day earlier. Probably it has been somehow established on file that an injury sustained in January 2006 is more agonising than the one sustained a day before!

The government may call it anything — modified parity or rationalisation, officialdom may put across a labyrinth of rulings and decisions to defend itself, but the net result is that the differentia between pre and post 2006 retirees is something that shakes the conscience. But how do we counter it — by rhetoric and presenting ourselves as “holier than thou” or by sound and logical reasoning?

The writer practises in the Punjab & Haryana High Court
(source- The Tribune)

Different pension for same service is patently unjust- Ex-servicemen have been campaigning for implementation of One Rank--One Pension for years, with some even returning their medals in protest. Equal pension for the same length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement, is the core of their move to get a better deal - Lt Gen Raj Kadyan (Retd)

One rank — one pension (OROP) has been the demand behind which Ex-servicemen (ESM) have been rallying ever since the Sixth Pay Commission was made public in March 2008. It needs to be restated that OROP is a demand for equity and justice and not for money per se. The concept is based on demanding equal pension for equal work, independent of the date of one’s retirement. This is not the case at present and older pensioners are getting lower pension than their younger counterparts of the same rank and for equal length of service. Prima facie, this is unjust.

The Congress spokesperson understandably eulogized UPA 1 and UPA 2 for what they have done for the ESM since 2004, but made some statements that do not fit facts. His assertion that all personnel other than officers have been granted OROP was incorrect. When cornered, he corrected his version to say that the difference between pre and post January 2006 pensioners is only one to eight percent. This is again blatantly wrong as the difference is more than 50 percent for jawans. He also claimed that all personnel other than officers were very happy with what they have got. If this were so, they would not have been protesting and depositing their medals still. Thirdly, he attempted to create an impression that jawans are happy and the problem exists only in officers’ pension. One wonders whether this statement and not-so-subtle attempt to create a divide was his personal opinion or whether he was towing the official line.

In either case, it was unfortunate and unbecoming and needs to be clarified. When he announced that the government has agreed to constitute a separate Pay Commission for the defence forces from the Seventh Pay Commission, he was rightly booed. Going by precedent, the Seventh Pay Commission report might come out around 2018. There is no denying that the government announcement is merely to shelve the problem and not solve it.

Some have suggested a compensation package instead of higher pension, but In this they overlooked the fact that OROP is all about justice and not about money. While accepting the hazards of military life, an economist recently equated a soldier to a fireman who might get killed while entering a building that is on fire. Apart from the fact that the fireman has a choice whether or not to enter a burning building where a soldier does not, it is also relevant to remember that there is a fundamental difference between dying and getting killed. In the former, that the soldier faces, there is a readiness, even a willingness, to sacrifice one’s life for the nation. Getting killed on the other hand is a passive action and more accidental than voluntary. While one has all the respect for the firemen, it is difficult not to point out that while soldiers die in almost every operation, firemen do not die in every building that goes aflame.

Another misconception that needs correcting is about the injustice. A father and son, both having served in the same regiment, retiring in the same rank and after equal number of years, and staying under the same roof get a different pension to the disadvantage of the father. This is patently unjust. The economist propounded a theory that a son earning more than the father is a law of nature, but it overlooks two ground realities. First, one is not talking of earning; the son might have earned relatively more while in uniform. The subject instead is remuneration for the work already done in the past. If that work was equal both in quality (rank) and quantity (length of service), then remuneration must also be equal. Secondly, if the laws of nature were to be applied to soldiering, then the economist needs to ponder how natural it is for a soldier to be ordered to advance in the face of bullets and die an unnatural death?

The suggestion that OROP is not legally tenable is equally out of sync. If the past and present presidents, vice presidents, judges, legislators and host of others can have same pension for old and new pensioners, then why cannot the soldiers get it? Any government that hides behind the law to deny its soldiers their dues is only touting an excuse, not a reason.

Unfortunately, the bureaucracy is playing the villain, as brought out by Commodore Uday Bhaskar. When late PM Indira Gandhi gave a decision to sanction OROP and Uday, as the secretary, was required to prepare minutes, the senior bureaucrats told him to omit this point as they would take it up separately. And there is a more recent example. When enhancements in pension were announced on March 8, 2010, the service widows were left out. Aghast, I wrote to the Secretary, Ex-servicemen Welfare Department, but received no reply. I next wrote to the Defence Minister and again, no reply. Then I sent a letter to the Prime Minister. The reply that came through Army Headquarters bore a PMO file number. It said that the widows were not covered because the Committee of Secretaries (headed by the Cabinet Secretary) had not recommended it. The reply leaves no doubt about who in the government calls the shots. It is also an admittance of the harsh reality of the tail wagging the tiger. Leaving the widows out of the ambit of the enhancements has been a very insensitive action by the government and has caused widespread resentment among the veterans.

Successive Parliamentary Committees have been recommending OROP. Besides, seeing the support of the public, of the courts as evidenced by their recent pronouncements, and of the Members of Parliament, so ably shown the lead by Rajiv Chandrasekhar who has renounced the increase in his MP salary till OROP is sanctioned, the writing is clearly on the wall. Isolated, the government can only delay grant of OROP but cannot deny it. Though none of us would like that to happen, it cannot be said that a serving soldier, seeing the plight of his father or uncle whose profession he had followed, will remain unaffected. The unhappy prospect can be grave.

The writer is former Deputy Chief of the Army Staff
(source-The Tribune)

Punjab Vidhan Sabha passes OROP resolution on 30 Sep 10

The Punjab Vidhan Sabha today unanimously passed a resolution supporting one rank, one pension for ex-servicemen. In another resolution that was passed today, ... edited ...


-- चंडीगढ़ . पूर्व सैनिकों को वन रैंक, वन पेंशन का प्रस्ताव वीरवार को पंजाब विधानसभा में सर्वसम्मति से पारित हुआ। विधायक बलबीर सिंह बाठ ने प्रस्ताव पेश करते हुए कहा कि पंजाब में पूर्व सैनिकों की स्थिति काफी खराब है।खरड़ के विधायक बलबीर सिंह सिद्धू, जालंधर कैंट के विधायक जगबीर सिंह बराड़, अजायब सिंह भट्टी और विपक्ष की नेता राजिंदर कौर भट्ठल ने उनका पूरा समर्थन करते हुए कहा कि सरकार इस प्रस्ताव को पारित कर केंद्र सरकार को भेजे। बाद में स्पीकर ने सर्वसम्मति से इस प्रस्ताव को पारित किया। इन्होंने भी उठाए मुद्दे शून्यकाल के दौरान ही कांग्रेस विधायक मक्खन ¨सह ने मालवा में कैंसर के प्रकोप का मुद्दा उठाया। उन्होंने कहा, फरीदकोट इलाके के पानी में यूरेनियम की मात्रा काफी अधिक है। भाभा अटोमिक रिसर्च सेंटर की रिपोर्ट में इसकी पुष्टि हुई है। संगरूर के विधायक सुरिंदर पाल सिंह सिबिया ने डेलीवेज पर काम कर रहे कर्मचारियों का मामला सदन में रखा धूरी से विधायक इकबाल सिंह झूंदा ने चौकीदारों का मामला उठाया। अजीत सिंह मोफर ने ट्रैफिक नियमों को सख्त करने की मांग की।



Dear All,

A Great Day for `Sanjha Morcha`. Multi-pronged `attacks` by senior veterans have carried the day for us for now. Tally Ho to the Parliament Session with all `guns blazing`.

Expose the `unscrupulous netas & babus` of the MOD. The spectators galleries must be filled with war veterans/disabledsoldiers/widows when the OROP issue is raised in Parliament. We have been taken for a ride for too long - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!

Why is the IESL silent ? They promised to give feedback of their meetings with COAS etc

ref Col Bhag Singh`s pts in meeting held in office of RSB, Chandigarh which I also attended

& specifically asked him to give feedback on IESL`s efforts on OROP/other issues.


Brig SS Jaswal, Veteran Madras Sapper,
IESM, Panchkula.


Dear All.

We must all congratulate General Vijay Oberoi,Brig Harwant Singh and Brig Ghuman .

Last evening Gen Oberoi sent a brief to CM Punjab,Brig Harwant sent brief to Finance Minister Punjab and Brig Ghuman and self briefed MLA Sidhu who in turn briefed Capt Amarinder.

The same has resulted in Punjab Assembly passing resolution for grant of OROP unanimously.

We will request other states to follow suit.

We have also prepared a brief for MP,s which will be given to Punjab MP,s and and with the request that other states MP,s must also be contacted by Veterans so that they are sensitised before winter session startting on 7 Nov.



Wednesday, September 29, 2010




(source-Report my signal, )

Tuesday, September 28, 2010


The Dearness Relief payable to  Central Government pensioners enhanced from the existing rate of 35% to 45% w.e.f. July, 2010.  Orders issued.


(source- CG Employees news)

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

(source- Aggi's jottings)

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Release of additional instalment of dearness allowance to Central Government employees and dearness relief to Pensioners due from 1.7.2010 to compensate for price rise

The Union Cabinet today decided to release an additional instalment of Dearness Allowance (DA) to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief (DR) to pensioners w.e.f. 1.7.2010 representing an increase of 10% over the existing rate of 35% 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 6th Central Pay Commission.

The combined impact on the exchequer on account of both Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief will be of the order of Rs. 9303.2 crore per annum and Rs. 6202.1 crore in the financial year 2010-2011 (for a period of 8 months from July,2010 to February, 2011).

Govt revises Union War Book to meet current situation

The government has quietly gone in for a major revision of the Union War Book,a classified voluminous document which lays down the exact role each government ministry,department and wing will play in times of war,to better reflect the current security scenario and ground situation. The revision in the Union War Book even came up for mention during the annual combined commanders conference,attended by PM Manmohan Singh and other senior ministers,which ended here on Tuesday. The entire Govt machinery, from the armed forces to the railways,civil aviation,shipping,surface transport,health and the like,has to be mobilised in the event of a war, said a top official.

Times,tactics and doctrines have changed since the Union War Book,which has been in existence since the days of the British Raj,was last revised years ago.Primarily carried out by the defence and home ministries as well as the Cabinet Secretariat,the update caters for all this, he added. The new Union War Book,which is with the Cabinet Committee of Security (CCS) for the final nod,lays down action plans in minute details to meet any contingency during war.

It spells out,for instance,how air,train and other services will be commandeered in times of national emergency.It also provides the basis for forward deployment of military assets like the movement of a Mirage-2000 fighter squadron from Gwalior to say Ambala or Leh. Its the Bible for us.All commanding officers get extracts,marked secret/topsecret,which flow from the Union War Book about where his unit will be stationed and what role it will play during war, said an Army officer.

The Union War Book was last taken up for implementation during Operation Parakram,the 10-monthlong forward troop mobilisation launched in the aftermath of the Dec.2001 terrorist attack on Parliament,when India almost went to war with Pakistan.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010




"One Rank-One Pension" - first priority for Shiromani Akali Dal

“To fight for One Rank-One Pension and get it implemented from Central Government will be my first priority”, this was stated here from Shiromani Akali Dal Party Head Office in Sector 28, Chandigarh while addressing the Ist meeting of State Office Bearers and District Presidents by State President Ex-Servicemen Wing Shiromani Akali Dal Er. Gurjinder Singh Sidhu after assuming the office on Ist September, 2010.

He said that the New General Body and District Presidents will be appointed with the approval of S. Sukhbir Singh Badal President, Shiromani Akali Dal. He further said that the membership of the wing will be raised to one lac and identity cards will be issued to all the members in the first phase. He said that planned strategies will be chalked out to accelerate their struggle for One Rank-One Pension. He appealed to all his ex-servicemen brothers to get united under the flag of Ex-Servicemen Wing of Shiromani Akali Dal so that this can give effective fight against Centre Government to achieve their One Rank-One Pension. He thanked all the Ex-Servicemen who had participated at Jantar Mantar New Delhi Rally on 22 Aug 2010.

He also thanked S. Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa Member Parliament and Mrs. Harsimrat Kaur Badal Member Parliament for raising this issue in the Parliament through Mr. Arun Jaitley M.P. He requested all Ex-Servicemen to take part in political activities of the State and Country. Er. Sidhu especially thanked Parkash Singh Badal Chief Minister Punjab, Sukhbir Singh Badal Deputy Chief Minister, Punjab and Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa MP for assigning him the responsibilities as State President of the Ex-Servicemen Wing. He assured that he will come up to expectation of his party leaders.

He also thanked Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema Advisor to Chief Minister Punjab, Parminder Singh Dhindsa PWD B&R Minister and Paramjit Singh Sidhwan Political Secretary to Deputy Chief Minister for supporting him in leading the Ex-Servicemen Wing of the party.
(source- pay commission news)

Monday, September 13, 2010


Saturday, September 11, 2010

Befitting reply by Lt Col Inderjit Singh on OROP Struggle


"Dear Mr Sehrawat and all the Veteran Friends

I am distressed to go through this misleading mail worked out to defame the Most patriotic community of the nation. A community that is ever ready to Sacrifice every thing including their lives for the unity integrity and Independence of the motherland. How sad. Coming from people who have done nothing but plundered the nation makes it disgusting.

I must tell you that i am the author of this concept of orop. I was the first Man to take it up with indiraji on 22 feb 1982. After that pursued it all the time and am still at it. We were instrumental for every step taken by successive Govts. If i said that the history of my association is the history of the welfare Measures by the govts i would not be exaggerating. You should therefore grant Me that i should know more about this matter than you who has sent this pack Of lies and half truths in the shape of misleading presentation for us to swallow. From the tenor and tone of the mail it seems that mr sehrawat you proabely are a member of the elitist group of the natons services, if not then perhaps, their proxy for sending this rubbish. What can we expect from you but this absolute distortion of facts. When your colleagues can go to the Sacred house of parliament and speak lies and get away. How does it matter if you spoke few lies here and there and distort the facts in this mail.

If you want to see the lies spoken by your colleagues, we can have a separate meeting For that, for one can not cover those in any mail what ever one likes to do. Now your basic lies that you have tried to impress us with. What I state is not heresay or things picked up from here and there. It is personal knowledge acquired by 30 years of dedicated work for this cause and After having forced government to appoint these committees, been member of every committee appointed by the government except the inter ministerial ones you mentioned for obvious reasons.

A) it is right that the estimates committee had considered this on their own in 1982. They however did not reject it, on the contrary they desired that it be Considered favorably. This kind of recommendaton lands the matter in the lap Of your colleagues. Once it comes there you play merry hell into it as they did with this report.

B) this issue was raised by us first time on 22 feb 1982 when I landed with 5000 Veterans at the pm's residence and presented the first ever memorandum which had five points, OROP being the top one. Indiraji was busy that day, so Rajivji accepted the memorandum on her behalf and promised to see that it was accepted.

We held another rally in honour of respected Indiraji on 25 june 1983, she promised to do it in one go if the monsoon that year was normal and in phases if necessary. Soon after we announced 10,000.00 war medals return to the President of India and our C in C on 15 Aug 83. I was invited by Mr Venkataraman the RM on 10 August 1983 where I suggested that a committee or a commission be appointed to go into the entire gamut of our problems and solve these. The RM took it to Indiraji and informed me that our suggestion had been accepted by her for appointment of a high level Committee. On this we dropped the idea of medals return.

This committee was headed by the RRM Mr KP Singhdeo. I was a special invitee for this committee. It made far reaching 68 recommendations covering all aspects. OROP was strongly recommended by them for consideration of the Govt and not as you have suggested its reference to the fourth CPC. This report was presented to the prime minister two days before her assassination. To our great misfortune she was snatched away by destiny. Otherwise we would have got it in 1984. She was one leader who could put your colleagues where they belonged and fulfilled her promise given on 25 June 1983 to us.

This report then landed in the hands of your colleagues. Do you know what they did. They accepted 52 recommendations like we should maintain discipline in Society, and rejeected 16 of these which gave us any tangible benefits,OROP being the first one. To give you an idea about how low you can go I narrate. One recommendation said orop should be accepted. Then the next one was that after this was accepted all special facilities given to ex servicemen should be withdrawn. They accepted the second one without accepting the OROP. Ha ha ha. Isnt that amusing ?

C) I must educate you before proceeding further about a High Level Empowered Committee (HLEC). This is not a recommendatory committee, it is an empowered Committee whose recommendations are final for implementation. The fact that you are bigger than them is a different matter.

The biggest lie you have spoken is that hgh level empowered committee Rejected orop and gave one time increase (OTI), First let me put you wise about how this committee came about. In 1991 Congress govt was heading a minority government. The opposition was motivated by some politically motivated and misguided elements to move a resolution in parliament that if the govt did not immediately accept to implement vp singh govts ad hoc increase formula they will pull down the govt. This formula I had termed as betrayal of trust by Sh VP Singh previous PM. Its implementation would have been disastrous for us. I moved swiftly to stop it. Walked into Mr Pawars office and demanded OROP instead. After heated exchanges he accepted my request for reconsideration. After another meeting and discussion he went to the parliament and announced the HLEC to improve the pensions.

I was made a member of this HLEC. This committee was very inclined to give OROP but the economic conditions in which we sent our gold to UK to run the country prevented that. What was given brought us almost there. The bureaucrats wanted a clause to reject the OROP but I strongly opposed it. This was as a result not commented upon so that it did not close the door for its consideration and grant in future.

Despite the total opposition from the bureaucrats, the award of this Committee was very good. This award had to be converted into notification for implementation by the bureaucrats. You know what they did. The notification did not even give 1/3 of what was given by the HELC . What they could not achieve during the proceedings of the committee they tried to achieve it through the notification.

I took up the matter with the rm mr sharad pawar. He immediately appointed an anomalies removal committee again of bureaucrats. You know what they did. They created even more complicated anomalies that I could only have removed through the Fifth CPC. After their experiences in the high level empowered committee where we did not let the bureaucrats get away with their lies they probably vowed never to have such a committee in which we are represented. So far they have succeeded in this matter. They started new system of having inter ministerial committees or group of ministers (GOM). Of these committees they never told us their composition or their charter. Nor did they tell us when they were meeting.

D) Your all information is wrong and inadequuate. The decision of Govt on Fifth CPC report came on 18 Jul 97. It gave modified parity to all govt servants including Armed forces. We started an agitaional program at the red fort on 22 Aug97 that lasted for 107 days. We were seeking full parity which in other words meant OROP. On the second day PM Mr Gujral called for a meeting with me where I explained to him the entire problem. He promised to examine the matter and come back.

During this period we had three major rallies, besides indefinite fasts, medal returns and relay fasts. Ultimately a meeting with the Defence Secretary was fixed for 03 nov 1997. The secretary had been empowered by the PM to accept our three to four major demands for implementation after approval of the cabinet and rest could follow in normal routine. OROP and removal of 33 years conditionality were the ones accepted besides two more for implementation. The defence secretary reqested me to give him a paper on these four accepted demands which he could put up straight to the cabinet. I gave him the paper the next day. The bureaucrats did not put these up quickly enough. Then to our misfortune the govt fell and the matter went into tizzy again.

The next govt took over. I gave seven demands to the next PM Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee. My meeting was fixed with him on 26 july 2001. In that meeting he accepted 3demands and for remaining 4 he appointed a committee headed by the RM, which was to give its report in three months. This committee never met for over six months and after that the RM wrote to me rejecting all the demands. We then called a rally at the Ram Lila Ground on feb 23 2003. On this rally we invited the chairman of defence committee Mr Madan Lal Khurana. He promised to invite me to Parliament and after understanding the matter do every thing possible to help us.Presentation they made a very strong report to Govt demanding that OROP be granted.

The bureaucrats formed an inter ministerial committee to find ways and means to reject the defense committee report. In their action taken report (ATR) they spoke blatant lies to reject the report.In the meantime Govt changed. The new chairman of the defense committee called me to understand the mess created by this report. It was disgusting to see the level your clan had stooped to somehow reject our demands so strongly recommended by the committee. I picked up eleven major lies out of the report and submitted the paper to the chairman. On this he made another strong recommendation for its grant rejecting the ATR and as submitted by me asked for a high level empowered committee in which we were represented to resolve the issue.

I hope you now understand when this committee was formed and what they did.

E) After the second report of the defense committee the govt appointed a group of ministers (GOM), headed by Mr Pranab Mukherji the RM, to re examine the matter in may 2005 and not in jan 2005 as you have mentioned. This was not acceptable to me so I went to see the RM and told him so. He asked why I did not accept it.

I asked him in turn what was he going to base his recommendations on. Obviously what the bureaucrats put up to him. I gave him the paper on what lies hey spoke in the parliament and pointed out that if they could speak such lies in the parliament they were not going to say anything different to him. The result of such an exercise is a foregone conclusion. You would reject these submissions of ours. He was kind to tell me that the reference for this committee had come from PM’s office, he therefore could not change the format, but promised to invite me for presentation before he made his report. I then accepted to go along. When the bureaucrats learnt about it they went into action to scuttle my presentation. When i realized this I went and met the RM and requested him to stop the mischief of the bureaucrats, hold the meeting for my presentation and then give his award as the entire country's ex servicemen were waiting for the award.

I got the greatest shock of my life when he told me that he could not invite me. The bigger shock was to find such a senior minister like Mr Pranab Mukherji not being able to flfill his simple promise to hear me. I wondered what could be the helplessness of the other ministers in front of these true masters of the nation . Shocked and astonished i worked up my way to Soniaji with the help of my benevolent friend Mr KP Singhdeo and sought her intervention to save the day for us. Her kind intervention resulted in the Govt announcing Parity with the fifth cpc rates on 25 Jan 2006. In other words orop with fifth cpc rates. This means that the GOM did not reject the OROP, they put the entire processes right by giving parity with the Fifth cpc rates and set a precedence for all future pay commissions to give armed forces parity with Their rates, in other words OROP. I hope you now understand this matter better. In case you dont i can personally come and further clarify your doubts so that you do not make such sweeping statements in future.

F) The sixth pay commission stated what suited them to deny us the rightful dues. When i went to make my presentation they were working on the same assumption quietly supressing the fact of parity with fifth cpc rates given to the armed forces by this GOM. I clarified this to them and demanded that they have to maintain this precedence by giving us parity now with sixth cpc rates. When the report came i was shocked to see that they have continued with their canard of 5th CPC and ignored the GOM award.

I called them and was told that they have consciously taken the decision not to give parity with sixth cpc rates. Obviously they had to do that to justify their mischief.

G) Well if the govt improved the pensions in the budget what is so great about it. They have done it for you as well. On the contrary the govt had failed to give the armed forces their rightful dues by not giving OROP. Not only that what the govt has given is totally demeaning because they have totally downgraded the status of the armed forces.


It seems that you believe in the adage that if you continue to speak the same lie, a stage will come when every body would start accepting it as truth. Let me educate you on this matter before i proceed. The nakra case was that the liberalized formula sanctioned by the government should be applied to all irrespective of date of retirement. The liberalized formula said that penson should be fifty percent of last pay drawn. The organization which filed this case, less said about them the better. They are actually the cause of our miserable plight. Some highly intelligent members of that organization, without applying their minds, filed the supreme court case saying that the govt had committed contempt of court by not granting us the orop on account of this ruling. The court then proceeded to examine if the orop came under the ambit of the rulng on liberalized formula.

A word about these two things. Liberalized formula meant giving fifty per cent of last pay drawn as pension. That means whatever salary one was getting at the time of retirement he gets fifty percent of that salary only. Since at different points of time men got different rates of salary so they could only get different rates of pension under the purview of this order. The orop means that same rank personnel got the same pension irrespective of date of retirement.

How could they then get same pension for same rank under this order.. The court very rightly concluded that orop does not fall under the ambit of nakra case. The govt have therefore not violated their order. It was therefore dismissed. The govt in actual practice had given more than the liberalized formula gave by bringing all the sepoys to rs 150.00 pm pension even to those who drew far too less a salary and were drawing rs 4 and later rs 17 as pensions. It was not orop that was rejected, in fact the contempt case was rejected. These gentlemen asked a wrong question from the court and got a wrong answer.

This case has not done any good for us, on the contrary this case has left a permanent handle in hands of your colleagues to flaunt to the unwary leadership and have this matter rejected every time it comes up.


The leadershp of the tiniest nation Singapore and the mightiest one USA , get on house tops and blair away that they would give the best tangible and non tangible benefits to that section of the society who do the most difficult job for the nation. Then they go onto elaborate that it is the armed forces which are doing the most difficult task for the nation and they would therefore get the best of tangble and non tangible benefits and then they give it with pride. What happens in our country. When the nation is confronted by a calamity natural or man made the armed forces are brought and squeezed to the hilt and after the job is done they are hanged on the nearest pole till they are dead.

IN A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE VOLUNTARY agencies (scova) in the ministry of pensions, I was asked as to what are our demands. I after narrating the above facts told them I seek attitudinal change of the bureaucracy from hanging the armed forces to the nearest pole to gving them the best, every thing will be covered. There was a total furore and protestations but no answer given. You want to know what means you employ to deny us our rightful dues ? I can tell you separately if you so desire.

For your benefit i wish to tell you that the usa gives OROP to the armed forces and not to the civilians. Further the armed forces pensions are fully paid by the govt. The armed forces are entitled to 50 % of their last pay drawn as pension after 20 years service. The civilians pensions on the other hand are contributory. They pay 7 % of their emoluments all their life to get 33% of their last pay drawn as pension that too after 30 years service. No wonder that they are the greatest power on earth today. Can you match that great power. I dont think so unless you change your attitude towards the armed forces and not advance the ridiculous argument of we knowing the terms and condition before joining to justify your hostile and petty conduct. I am glad i was able to have the civilians pensions converted to contributory scheme in 2001 while protecting those of the armed forces. I am however very vary of this trend continuing with the kind of games you can play.


You have given some figures on poverty and want responsible persons to be concerned about it. You obviously claim to be the most responsible citizen of the nation, what you do is a different matter. Why do you not forego your salaries my friend. What do you need your salaries for. Your all needs are taken care of by other means the moment you take charge of your first appointment. Let us see you being the first volunteer doing this being so concerned about the state of affairs in the country.

Please tell me are the armed forces the only people who should be squeezed to save the nation from economic disaster. I suppose you think so that is why thngs like fixing of disability pension for armed forces is worked out less than the civilians besides making the procedure for entitlement much more difficult than that of the civilians. If the savings are still not enough then you grant them from a much later date. There are hundreds of such examples.


Now the argument that the civilians will also demand orop and if not granted they would go to the court to claim it. This is the argument you advance finally to scuttle the efforts of the leadership. This is the bigget canard that i keep hearing. I have been interacting with major civilian unions. All of them have always been ready to support us for this cause and that too without demanding for themselves. For your information when in 1991 we were given OTI the civilians also demanded it but when told that this was for the armed forces only they as true patriots did not insist. Similar thing happened when in 2006 the govt granted parity with fifth cpc to us.

In case some people inspired by you people do go to the court for redressal they will certainly be welcome. The courts will also be ready to give them but then the courts will also tell them that the armed forces have been given these special privileges for their peculiar and difficult service conditions. They would then go on to tell them that they were willing to concede OROP to them if they were prepared to accept their service conditions also. Who among any of your colleagues are prepared to shed your position and accept these conditions. None. I am saying this because i have had an opportunity to settle this matter during the proceedings of the hlec in 1991.

There was an argument and the civilian big wigs wanted for themselves also what was being worked out for us. When nothng was resolving the issue i proposed that one chance each be given to the entire civil and armed forces personnel to change their service to the other if they so desired. Once that is given i said i bet my life that 100 % armed forces personnel would like to switch over and not one of the civilians would opt for the armed forces. There was a total furore but none to take up the challenge. They were not small fries, they were secretaries of all the ministries.

Finally since when have you started to know more about the feelings and pulse of the people more than the leadership. Every committee of the leadership have recommended strongly that orop be granted. The defense committee went to the extent of demanding that if there was no precedence then it should now be set to repay the deep debt of gratitude of the grateful nation to the armed forces for their sacrifices. Do you know this or not? Further do you know that almost 500 hon'ble members of parliament are committed through their party manifestos for giving the orop to the armed forces.

I suppose you dont care for these minions for you are not only bigger then them but also the nation. I hope after going through this mail you would think on this matter and bring about attitudinal change not only within you but also the entire bureaucracy. Sorry for taking too long in responding. It was too big an issue it had to take time even in the normal course. This mail was an attempt to demean us so it had to be given a special attention . Please therefore forgive me.

I have spent extra time so that i put down facts to enable our own veterans to know them and be able to give proper reply when required.

God bless you mr sehrawat and all my veterans.
(source-IESM website)