FUNCTIONAL UPGRADATION OF SPARSH FOR EFFICIENCY

TRI SERVICES EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION NT CER TSEWA (Registration No. 495/2015) 

Ref No.TSEWA/SPARSH-01/2022                             20th May 2022 

Hon'ble Sri Narendra Modi Ji                                                       Prime Minister Govt of India                                                                South Block, Raisina Hill                                                                  New Delhi - 110 011                            

Hon'ble Sri Rajnath Singh Ji                                                      Raksha Mantri Govt of India                                                                104, South Block, Raisina Hill                                                              New Delhi - 110 011 

Smt Nirmala Sitharaman Ji                                                                  Finance Minister Govt of India                                                        134, North Block, Raisina Hill                                                          New Delhi - 110 011 

FUNCTIONAL UPGRADATION OF SPARSH FOR EFFICIENCY

Introduction 1. 

Tri Services Ex- Servicemen Welfare Association (TSEWA) is a Regd welfare organisation with its Headquarters at Secunderabad as per the details given above in the letter head. The organisation is an Apex National Welfare Organisation for ExServicemen and War Widows with more than 16,000 ex-servicemen as Members from all the States in India. TSEWA believes in "True Sewa" to the Ex-Servicemen especially JCO/OR and their equivalents in the Navy and the Air Force. TSEWA is self-funded by its Members through voluntary contributions and the Executive Committee Members travel the length and breadth of the country to interact with the Ex-Servicemen, Single Ladies and Veer Naris and help them in resolving their problems and rehabilitate them. More details can be obtained from our website www.tsewa.org. 

2. A large number of letters have been written by veterans and Veteran Welfare Associations to various authorities expressing their concerns and anguish on SPARSH without analyses of the Issues that may be hindering the smooth implementation of SPARSH. Hence this letter may kindly not be treated as yet another letter of complaints. Similarly, a large number of letters were written directly and through the Service HQs Flat No.101, H.No. 1-1-78/5, Edifice Pride, Valluvar Nagar, Ammuguda, Behind CDM, Sec'bad - 500 094 Mobile: 09494037781, E-mail triservices.hyd@gmail.com, Website : www.tsewa.org by various veteran organisations expressing their reservations on SPARSH at the initial stage of development of the System which do not appear to have been given any thought by the CGDA. TSEWA has carried out in-depth analyses of possible flaws in the system and is submitting comprehensive recommendations through this letter to overcome the present impasse and resistance from Veterans on the proposed road to Digital India as per the vision of the Hon'ble PM of India. Since TSEWA is not involved in Software Development Life Cycle, certain presumptions are made in this letter based on the user interaction with the Veterans. 

Background 

3. The pensions of approximately 33 Lakh Defence and Civilian Pensioners of MOD are hitherto disbursed mainly through the 28 Public Sector and Four Pvt Sector Banks with their vast network of CPPCs and Branches in the remotest part of the country. The pensioners could interact with the PDA Banks and redress their grievances through the Banks. In spite of initial hiccups, the banks have understood the Rank structure of the pensioners and have been able to implement various Circulars issued by PCDA to correctly disburse the pensions on-time, every time. The Banks have spent a fortune on development of suitable software to handle various issues pertaining to interpretation and implementation of orders issued by PCDAs. It is purported that there is an annual outgo of Rs.180 crores to the Banks towards the handling charges of pension disbursement to the Defence Veterans. The Banks have also extended special services by way converting the pension accounts to DSP status with attendant benefits 

4. Min of Def (ESW) on the advise of CGDA approved central pension disbursal defence pensioners including defence civilians by creating Central Pension Disbursing Authority (CPDA). PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj (herein after referred to as PCDA (P)) is designated as CPDA. This new system of Central Disbursal of Pernsion is known as System for Administration of RAKSHAK (SPARSH). CGDA has already incurred expenditure of 7 160 crores out of estimated requirement of funds of 260 crores. 

5. As per the Press Information Bureau release of Min of Def dated 04 May 2022, 4.47 lakh defence pensioners post 2016 retirees have been migrated to SPARSH till 31 Mar 2022 out of 33 lakhs defence pensioners including defence civilian pensioners and in due course, the balance pensioners who retired pre-2016 will also be migrated on to SPARSH.

Present Serious Flaw with SPARSH 

6. Out of the 4.47 lakh Defence Pensioners migrated to SPARSH, about 58275 defence pensioners did not receive their pension of Apr 2022 though they submitted Annual Life Certificate to their banks in Nov 2021 and received pension from Dec 2021 to Mar 2022. The post-mortem revealed that the SPARSH System has not recognised the Life Certificate submitted to the Banks and required pensioners to re-submit the Life Certificate after Log-in formalities are completed. There was inadequate training and understanding of the process of Registration especially by many non-computer savvy pensioners and they have been put to tremendous hardships due to stoppage of Pensions which is the sole source of income for survival of many pensioners. 

7. The CGDA/PCDA as is their work culture, were totally unresponsive to the serious problem and insisted on fresh submission of Life Certificate through SPARSH Medium for renewal of pensions of the affected pensioners in a typical Bureaucratic way. It is only after the media raised a stink on the issue, MOD reacted to the situation and gave a one-time waiver of the need for fresh re-submission of the Life Certificates which gave the much needed relief when the pensions were restored. The 58,275 affected personnel included Army Cdrs to Sepoys who retired post 2016 and who were migrated to SPARSH. The stoppage of pensions resulted in pensioners defaulting in repayment of term-loans, non-payment of rentals and expenses connected with day-to-day living.

Poor Methodology of Implementation

8. It is amply clear that CGDA/ PCDA (P) have not given adequate thought to the plan of implementation of SPARSH. It is a saving grace that only 58,275 out of 4.47 lakh post 2016 pensioners who were migrated to SPARSH were affected. It would have been catastrophic if all the 33 lakh pensioners have been migrated to SPARSH. Some of the issues visibly not understood by CGDA/ PCDA are given below: 

(a) The premise that all pensioners especially older generation of Veteran JCO/ORs/ Veernaris will be computer savwy or have smart phones to handle SPARSH is the biggest folly 

(b) There is no Pilot study carried out with a limited number of pensioners to understand the difficulties before migration of Pensioners. 

(c) No cognizance of the present disbursement system of Pay & Allowances to the Serving Defence Personnel is taken whilst defining user requirements of the Defence Pensioners especially of older generations. 

(d) No training of pensioners is carried out to make them understand the system requirements. Presumption that issue of a simple circular explaining SPARSH System is adequate to disseminate the contents to the pensioners in the remotest places, is another big mistake. 

(e) Redressal grievance system is totally inadequate and limited telephone helplines are totally unresponsive. 

(f) The work culture of employees of PCDA (P) needs much to be desired. The measurable output of the employees is not even 4 hours in a day as established by many ESM Welfare association representatives who visit Prayagraj. 

(g) CGDA/PCDA (P) have no idea how to deal with illiterate pensioners /Family pensioners speaking only local languages who call up to redress their grievances. (Presuming that they get through the help lines which are never accessible). 

(h) There are innumerable problems with the issue of e-PPOs. It is a nightmare for pensioners to get a Corrigendum PPO issued or get the DOB and other particulars corrected though, the entire correct data is held with the PCDA (P). 

(j) TCS has built a huge fort with no doors to let the elephant in. Obviously the SDLC steps of Planning, Defining, Designing, Building, Testing and Deployment were not followed both by CGDA and TCS before implementation of SPARSH which is supposed to be the panacea for all the present problems faced by the Veteran Community. 

(k) Defining the user requirements is left to some auditors who looked at it from the audit point of view and not user point of view. 

(1) The Geeks sitting in TCS developed the software based on such ill-defined "User Requirement Manual" who presume that all target users are IT Savvy. 

(m) Professional advice of Defence Institutions like MCTE hasn't been taken to vet the User Requirement Manual before handing over to TCS. Hence this is a typical case of GIGO. 

Serious Present Issues 

9. The above are some of the valid presumptions made by TSEWA to further analyse the ground realities and recommend the way out, for smooth implementation of SPARSH. The present software developed by TCS may not stand the test of user friendliness in the absence of adherence to the SDLC Methodology. This will result in DAD reacting to a situation without root cause analyses. It is already proposed to have a cell of DAD people at various levels for Grievances Redressal which will result only in Empire Building by CGDA the cost of which will surpass multiple times of the present expenditure in the Legacy System of Banks disbursing the pensions. Some of the major issues faced by the Veterans and Veernaris are analysed below to arrive at the recommended solutions. These are mentioned without any explanatory notes for the sake of brevity: 

(a) Correct e-PPOs are essential elements for the success of SPARSH. Any data correction and issue of Corr. PPO or le-PPO at present takes 6-12 months at PCDAs without any accountability. 

(b) The so called Toll Free numbers at PCDAs are never accessible by the Veterans nor any solutions given even if accessed. 

(c)The Data Correction and validity is now palmed off to the Record Offices by PCDAs though the correct Data is already held by them thus including one more misery hurdle to be crossed by the veterans. 

(d) The Veterans are made to run from pillar to post to get the innumerable mistakes made/missing data in the PPOs. The problem is accentuated especially in case of old age, iliterate/ semi-literate JCO/OR Veernaris and invalid veterans who are forced to travel long distances to reach ZsWO offices or write to Record Offices. 

(e) The Zilla Sainik Welfare Offices and Record Offices are ill equipped/manned to efficiently handle the Grievances of the Veterans. The ZSWO offices merely act as post ofices and there is no accountability.

(f) The next door Banks which are PDAs have no power to help redressal and merely refer the issues to CPPCs who in-turn seek help from unresponsive PCDAs. 

(g) The Record Offices depute serving personnel at regular intervals to PCDAs to expedite Grievance Redressal without any visible results due to poor work Culture at PCDAs especially at Prayagraj which is the nerve centre. 

(h) The civilian personnel at PCDAs generally do not understand the structure of Defence Services and trained service personnel who retire young are not given lateral absorption into PCDAs which would have brought-in the desired efficiency 

(j) The Navy Pension Office which is doing a great job, is an unsanctioned establishment and has to depend on temporary deputation of serving personnel who are pulled out at the cost of efficiency of the ships and establishments. 

Recommendations for Improvement 

10. With a view to ensure smooth transition from the present Legacy System to the Digital System envisaged by the Hon'ble Prime Minister, TSEWA recommends the following 

(a) A fresh de-novo look at the software developed by TCS be done strictly adhering to the principles of SDLC Method. 

(b) The user requirements may be arrived at and vetting be done by Service establishments like MCTE and not left to CGDA/ TCS alone. 

(c) The Banks which are DPDAs and other DPDOs be made as the prime/ abinitio organisations to log-in all grievances by the affected Veterans. These are the nearest entities serving the veterans and veernaris without hassles of language or long travel. They should be given a module which will interface with SPARSH. Adequate training of Banking staff in use of the module be ensured and earmark dedicated bank staff for the purpose depending upon the number of veterans being serviced by that DPDA. 

(d) Computer savvy veterans may continue to log into SPASH and should be in a position lodge their Grievances sitting at home and using their own laptops/ Smart Phones. 

(e) Annual Life Certificates be done using facial recognition methods interfaced with Aadhar which should be made accessible at DPDAs level or by individuals sitting at home using appropriate software. The procedure to be followed by some veterans who are permanently living abroad for submission of ALC should also be considered. 

(f) All grievances lodged by the veterans/veernaris through the DPDAs be ab initio made accessible by the respective Record Offices with a similar module of SPARSH. 

(g) The Record Offices, Navy Pension Office and IAF Accounts Offices servicing the Veteran issues should be adequately manned to address all Grievances by direct interaction with the affected Veterans / Veernaris on telephone, Mobiles etc. till satisfactory closure of the Grievance. 

(h) The above service Organisations should have an appropriate module in SPARSH to escalate all issues to the respective PCDAs for resolution of the Grievances pertaining to their responsibility / authority. The onus for satisfactory closure of Grievances should be shifted to the Record Offices IPCDAs once a Veteran has logged-in the Grievance either through DPDAs or individually, instead of the Veterans being made to run from pillar to post for redressal of the Grievance now. 

(j)No requests for additional manpower by CGDA be entertained for implementation of SPARSH. Any sanction of additional Manpower at CGDAs/PCDAs will defeat the entire purpose of migration from the existing Legacy System to SPARSH as a cost saving measure. Adequate training of the existing Civilian Personnel in PCDAs, accountability and motivation aspects be instituted. Lateral induction of trained ESM be considered to PCDAs/ DPDAs. 

(k) Auto Generation of Reports of all pending Grievances at various levels right up to the Defence Minister be incorporated in SPARSH software for monitoring and institution of corrective measures. 

(1) ZSWOs should be removed from the loop of Pension Grievances redressal and their role be limited to State issues. 

(m) SPARSH activities be suspended immediately pending a re-look at the software developed by TCS and necessary improvements may be done in line with the recommendations at para 10 above. 

(n) A pilot project be done for implementation of SPARSH on a target group of veterans in the remotest areas of the country and not limited to urban computer savvy veterans of the present generation. 

(o) All Log-ins/ Registration by Veterans/Veernaris into SPARSH be made only through Bank DPDAs / other DPDOs using a freshly developed suitable module thus eliminating the need for pensioners to be computer savvy or possess costly smart phones for Registration into SPARSH. 

(p)Migration of the Veterans /Veernaris be done only on successful completion of pilot project and all major/minor glitches in the software are removed and the system fully stabilised. 

(q)In the worst case scenario, if SPARSH cannot meet the requirements, option be given to the individuals to continue under the Legacy System. 

Conclusion 

11. A lot of effort has gone in making SPARSH as on date. If the above mentioned suggestions of TSEWA to improve SPARSH are considered, there will be all round satisfaction and smooth transition from Legacy System to the new Digital SPARSH After all, a pensioner needs his monthly pension on time and every time and his grievances should be resolved in a time bound manner at all levels with proper monitoring mechanism at various levels. The aptness of the quote from Chanakya which says "The Day the Soldier has to demand his dues will be sad day for Magadha for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be the King" should be borne in mind always by all the authorities at all levels. The SPARSH software should not be CGDA Centric but made inclusive of Record Offices and DPDAs who are the prime interfaces between PCDAs and the Veteran Pensioners. This alone will eliminate the harassment faced by Old/Infirm Veterans/ Veernaris especially JCOIOR ranks who are made to run from pillar to post at present to redress their Grievances. 

12. We humbly request the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Raksha Mantri and the Finance Minister to immediately issue suitable orders to the all concerned. Alternatively, option may be given to the Defence Pensioners to either continue to use the legacy system of pension disbursal by banks or to migrate to SPARSH. 

Signed....                                                                                                (Sudheer Parakala)                                                            Commodore, IN (Retd)                                                           President Tri Services Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association        Mob: 9849057767                                                                               e-Mail triservices.hyd@gmail.com                                              URL: www.tsewa.org 

Copy to:  

The Chief of the Army Staff                                                                  Integrated Hq of MOD (Army) South Block,                                 C/O DHQ Post Office New Delhi - 110 011 

The Chief of Naval Staff                                                                      Integrated HQs of MOD (Navy) South Block,                                C/O DHQ Post Office New Delhi - 110 011  

The Chief of Air Staff                                                            Integrated HOs of MOD (IAF) South Block,                                        C/O DHQ Post Office New Delhi - 110 011. 

(Source : Via E-mail)

23.02.2022 : Hon'ble Supreme Court to continue hearing plea filed by Indian Ex Servicemen Movement seeking implementation of the OROP in the Defense Forces

DYC J: Mr Balaji, Ld ASG has filed an affidavit. Would you like to submit it? 

Counsel: We've filed it yesterday only.

ASG Venkataraman: Please see my affidavit my lords.

ASG: Questions posed by this court have been answered. Ive been taking 10 minutes in addressing their affidavit too.

Bench: Mr Balaji, how long will Mr Ahmadi take?

Counsel: 20 t0 30 minutes.

ASG: Please refer to page 2 of the affidavit. May I read that?

ASG further points out to the first answer wrt to Finance Minister’s speech dated February 17, 2014 wherein the Koshiyari Committee's recommendation was endorsed. ASG furhter reads- It was not based on any decision or recommendation by the then Union Cabinet.

ASG further reads the Approval Sought in the Union's affidavit.

DYC J: So past cases of PMR would have the benefit of #OROP?

ASG: Modification b/w 7 to 9 is only beneovelence.

Now come to "same rank same length of service V. MACP"

ASG further reads the contents of the affidavit filed by Centre in OROP. Contents of the affidavit can be read here:

OROP : Centre Files Affidavit In Supreme Court; Says Both 'Same Rank' & 'Same Length Of Service'...

In the affidavit, Centre has responded to the queries raised by the Court.

 ASG: A sepoy who does not complete the required length of service of 8 years & one who complete it, cannot be benchmarked together under any circumstance.

DYC J: A person who retires after 2006, he cannot acc to you who did not get it because he didn't put in 8 years. What about those who retired prior to 2006? They would not be applicable for MACP because that applies on pre 2006 retirees.

ASG: MACP & Non MACP there are 3 eras:

1. Post 2006 & thereon is MACP 8, 16 & 24

2. We introduced in 2003, ACP with 10, 20 & 30 as the yardstick.

3. Era, prior to 1973- they will neither be in ACP nor MACP.

ASG: When we took it as 2013- we have benchmarked. Everyone uniformity have been formulated.

ASG: Any assumption of disparity b/w ACP & MACP era, non ACP & MACP era, doesn't exist for “The percentage of retirees getting MACP benefits as indicated in the charts should not result in drawing any adverse inference that the rest have not secured MACP and therefore a consequential distinction or discrimination,” ASG further reads.

ASG now reads the policy document of November 7, 2015 which conveys the 5 aspects based on which #OROP is to be paid.

 “In any view since this Hon’ble Court has sought for a financial data of outflow that is likely to be incurred by the Union should non MACP be grouped with MACP personnel for payment of OROP, total financial outlay from 2014 would be range of INR Rs 42,776.38 crores,” ASG reads.

ASG further reads, "By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be read as same rank different length of service or same length of service different ranks. It precisely meets with the Constitutional test under Article 14 which is "unequals should not be treated equally" &..
... and "equals should not be treated to be unequally". Neither the Constitution nor the jurisprudence evolved by this Hon'ble Court over 70 years had mandated that everyone should be treated equally every

ASG now reads the contents of the affidavit with regards to ACP/MACP regime vis a vis

ASG: We have not discriminated any of the retirees in any form. Nath J: Things are much clearer now. ASG: We are grateful for this court for this guidance.

Kant J: When you say that at Time of OROP, what is the exact meaning of "financial implication"? Nath J: What is the direct impact of OROP? Kant J: If we presume that there is no OROP, what was the financial implication & when you introduced OROP, what was the implication?

ASG: For OROP we did 3/4 calculations. We took the max & the min & worked out an average. We originally thought that its in the range of some 5k crore but when we made it actually was 7123.38 crores. DYC J: Is 7123 is only on A/C of OROP? ASG: Yes only for #OROP.

ASG: Everything is added to OROP & that's why it slowly spirals. #OROP

ASG further reads: At the time of implementation of the OROP, the annual financial implication was in the order of INR 7123.38 Crores and the arrears which need to be computed for the period 01.07.2014 to 31.12.2015 was IN 10,392.35 CroresASG: Matching non MACP persons with MACP the figure would come to IN 9,411.71 Crores and the arrears for the period July 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015 would become IN 13,731.03 Crores

Kant J: Today also if widow is pensioners, is there any compulsion that if you decide to revise it then you firstly will have to pay.. DYC J: Where is the compulsion to pay arrears? Kant J: In both the tables, the highest value is of the arrears.

DYC J: In the age of social media every statement that is made by the bench says that it is view of the bench. We are discussing. Its only an effort to understand. Its just free flowing dialogue.

ASG: It is a policy choice. Underlying factor is, I had benefit of discussing it for 8 hours. We were 16 people consisting high officials. We had senior most members. Its very imp if the court seeks assistance. ASG: they said anything that you benchmark for the future... the effect. We have to draw a line somewhere. In policy its a choice.

DYC J: See there are various options. That it can be applied for gallantry award winners, widows. Now the next point is 5 years v. automatic.

ASG reads the contents of the affidavit on the aspect of 5 years v "automatic"

"Therefore, this out of context reference needs to be rejected. More importantly, the policy document states that OROP is to bridge the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners, which objective has been duly complied with," submits ASG.

Kant J: Mr ASG, one small table is missing here. You as policy maker said 5 years, that's fine. But normally whether its MACP, honorary pension or OROP- whenever you revise it you fix the base & then annually you start adding DR or DA.

ASG: We are connected by golden mean.

Kant J: In civilian side when we talk of after 10 years revision, pay structure also changes. The basic pay also changes. In case of annual revision of #OROP, there is no change of annual basic structure.

Kant J: Only DR component, that'll probably merge into it. Automatically or probably as we could understand. Will it cause any financial implications?

ASG: I'll have to take instructions. DYC J: Mr ASG, you please take 5 minutes. Go to your chamber if you want to, have a meeting with the officials. We're here only.

ASG: Please come to page 15 of my affidavit. To just give how OROP worked. That's very imp. we have taken....

ASG refers to the table which deals with the financial implication on considering ACP/MACP with the substantive rank on the basis of average pension of INR 9411.71 crores. As matter of fact, we'll have to give DR. But #OROP computation is something higher.

ASG: When we take after 5 years, we take the last drawn pay which will have all the factors. Its not only arithmetical calculation of DR. But we also consider all the cumulative factor.

ASG: It's not merely aggregation of 5 years of DR. We also have to see 5 years from now. Its a commitment.

Kant J: After 5 years, there is financial impact. What is the diff b/w if you revise yearly & after 5 years. What will be the effect?

Kant J: In case of retiree while in service there are so many allowances attached to post you occupy. After retirement there are certain allowance which disappear but DR or DA, that continues.

Kant J: Applying this principle & considering the fact that what we are talking of retiree annually whose other allowance are hardly visible, maybe that impact is hardly visible. ASG: If we do something, that'll be walking extra mile. Anything you create ie fundamental aspect.

ASG: Heart of policy maker is as wide as a citizen but when we work in table & ultimately arrive at a policy, concerns are always baring. This concern you do it as 1 year today, make it for this case but what would be its repercussions in other areas.

ASG: First deviation which we have done is convert 10 years as compared to civilian to 5 years in OROP.

DYC J: Now lets look at Mr Ahmadi's affidavit.

ASG now refers to the affidavit by Sr Counsel Ahmadi: Now my lords

ASG: Please not this. The diff is travelling throughout the affidavit. All his calculations are based on this but the threshold is that he has not qualified for MACP.

ASG: In my affidavit, para 14 page 10.

ASG: It's purely new engineering going on & on & on.

Ahmadi: Please give me chance to reply on my affidavit.

DYC J: Mr Ahmadi, please let him complete his submissions. we'll not form an opinion without hearing the other party.

DYC J: If you submit first, we'll have to give him time to submit again. ASG continues reading the content of the petitioner's affidavit. ASG: Please come to para 9 of petitioner's affidavit.

Nath J: This was also discussed last time also. Those who retired post 2006, 90% qualified- they got MACP. That's what you said.

Nath J: Now that was the question as to whether they would get the same pension or not. "their length of service may be same but they wouldn't have got MACP because of their character roles.

ASG: We have said "everybody" in my affidavit. This calculation is completely "figment of imagination" Nath J: Then why do you give in your affidavit that because of MACP this would be the difference.

ASG: There is no disparity in ACP & MACP regime.

ASG: Court wanted calculation & that's what we have brought. You may have MACP & Non MACP regime as far as employment is concerned. Court wanted the detail, can we bridge MACP & Non MACP?

Nath J: This is the impact for diff length of services. Why all these figures? Court never asked you to compare MACP & Non MACP for diff length of years.

Nath J: Your calculations are for those who have rendered lesser years of service. that cannot be the case. ASG: It has to be same rank & same length.

ASG: Our table calculation says that parity has been made b/w ACP & MACP. Everybody is one. This equalisation has happened.

ASG: All the 3 examples, the persons have retired in different regime. Now when there's next revision- average will come.

Ahmadi: Therefore where does the concept of uniform pension go? That is the elephant in the room. After period of 5 years, we will go back to 1.5 years even for the purpose of equalisation. Again you'll go back to period of 1.5 years. This diff will keep on escalating further.

Ahmadi: It escalates. If you are saying... Word automatic does not have to be read, you are ignoring the word "uniform". How are you saying that it's uniform pension then?

Ahmadi: Entire arguments for uniformity is red herring. they don't want to do it annually because they don't want to do it for 5 years. Elephant in the room is these gaps & the hiatus will result in only increasing the gaps.

Ahmadi: Every time there will be increments, that will not be passed on. Any policy decision that you take if you call it uniform then the same should not be such that the substratum gets washed away.

Ahmadi: Why is it that I had to file the affidavit in rejoinder. At page 9, the charts are enclosed that I had given.

Ahmadi: What they have done is that in the chart, now they say in the affidavit is that we have not included the MACP amount. There's no question of equalisation here.

Ahmadi: Today is he saying that its a mistake? What's the case. There is a complete dichotomy.

 

ASG: There is no dichotomy. We have not distinguished anybody. If you're going to compare, someone who retires post the scheme we could not have factored. Now he's completely projecting the future.

Ahmadi: Union has been shifting its stand right from the time when statement was made on the floor of the house. 1st statement was made by the Fin Min. Then in Budget Speech- its made after minister of PM & entire cabinet's approval.

Ahmadi: Mr Jaitley's speech categorically adopts the def of OROP. To say that I am shifting my stand is not correct.

Ahmadi: Please see 1st column of number of years of service. Someone with 15 years of service- sepoy will get 6665. When you compare it with sepoy who retires in 2014- he gets 7605. Now its this disparity which has been explained by saying that 6665 does not include MACP.

Ahmadi: Your lordship has read that part of comprehensive affidavit & now compare it with the affidavit that they have filed. Ahmadi: Its arbitrary not to factor in MACP for the simple reason that even going by 2015 decision, OROP component will eschew the MACP. The periodic thing is very important.

DYC J: Give me a minute, I'll have to add pages. This is manageable. In GST matter, it flung. Now with electronic format is lot easier. Ahmadi: Some judge said, you call these "convenience completion". He said that if you actually submit them they are more than size of ppr book 

Ahmadi refers to the CAG's document. Mr Ahmadi, we'll break here. At 2:00 PM only 15 minutes please. Bench to assemble at 2:00.

DYC J: Sorry Mr Ahmadi, I had some administrative work.

Sr Adv Ahmadi to continue with his rejoinder submissions. #OROP

Ahmadi: Just very briefly my rejoinder affidavit is like my brief note. Please come to page 1. #OROP

Kant J: The present shame, beneficiaries are senior or lower rank officers? Who are actual beneficiaries? Ahmadi: Actual rank would go to the lower rank officers. 95%. They are the ones who have actually taken the matter. Almost 95% will be "lower rank" officers.

Ahmadi: Lower rank personnel. Please go to page 1 of the affidavit which deals with MACP. Ive already dealt with this & there is no need to read that.

Sr Counsel now deals with what would be the sequitur if fig of Rs 6665 did not factor MACP. if this is accepted, then it would throw the concept of OROP to the winds as 2 persons with same rank and same length of service would be getting Diff pensions.

Ahmadi: ASG's submission was that everything that happened prior to 7.11.2015 should be ignored- what it comes to is- the statement that was made & executive decision- all this is to be ignored. Taste of the pudding is ultimately in the eating. #OROP

(Source : LIVE LAW Twitter ac.)

Disability Benefits to Voluntary Retirees: Status on the recommendations of the Raksha Mantri Committee

DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE (DESW)

STATUS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OF RAKSHA MANTRl’s COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS CONCERNING DESW 

Sr. No.	Recommendation	Status
3.	2.2.3 DISABILITY BENEFITS TO VOLUNTARY RETIREES	Accepted,

Recommendation:

2.2.3 DISABILITY BENEFITS TO VOLUNTARY RETIREES : It is hence recommended that disability pension may not be denied to pre-2006 voluntary retirees with the following in the backdrop:

a) The denial itself was based on a false foundation of ‘double benefit’ as also incorrectly projected to the pay commission, but in reality there was no such availability of a ‘double benefit’ as explained above and hence the reason for such prohibition itself is invalid. A disability or a war injury does not cease on voluntary retirement and even otherwise the cut-off date now stands struck down and the striking down has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is even otherwise discriminatory The Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare has extended the benefit of Constant Attendance Allowance (CAA) to pre-2006 as well as post·2006 eligible civilian disabled retirees but with financial effect from 01-01·2006, hence it is not logical for the DESW to alone deny benefits based on such artificial cut off dates. The pain and agony caused by an injury prior to 2006 or after 2006 is the same.

(b) It is recommended that till the time the policy is comprehensively revised, all appeals filed in the Supreme Court on the said point by the MoD may be withdrawn, no fresh appeals be filed and pending litigation in various Tribunals be conceded on a case to case basis.

Status:  Accepted:

Policy has been revised and Government order for grant of Disability Element to Armed Forces Personnel who were retained in service despite disability attributable to or aggravated by Military Service and subsequently proceeded on premature/voluntary retirement prior to 1.1.2006, has been issued vide MoD letter No. 16(05)/2008/ D(Pen/ Pol) dated 19.5.2017. [Click to view]

(Source : Staff news blog.)

Amendment for reimbursement of medicines – Special Sanction till 30.04.2022: ECHS Order

 

Central Organisation ECHS
Adjutant General’s Branch
Integrated Headquarters
Ministry of Defence (Army)
Thimayya Marg, Near Gopinath
Circle, Delhi Cantt-110010

B/49761/AG/ECHS

14 Jan 2022

(All Regional Centres)

AMENDMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICINES : SPECIAL SANCTION IN VIEW OF COVID-19

1. Further to this HQ letter No B/49761/AG/ECHS dated 23 Mar 2020, even No dt 24 Apr 2020, 01 Jun 2020, 02 Jun 2020, 07 Aug 2020, 05 Oct 2020,01 Jan 2021, 16 Apr 2021 and 17 Aug 2021.

2. A onetime sanction for purchase of medicines and claim reimbursement was issued till 31 Oct 2021. In view of increasing cases of COVID-19 and restrictions on mov in containment zones, to promote social distancing and avoiding unnecessary exposure to ECHS beneficiaries as well as minimizing footfall at ECHS Polyclinics, the ECHS beneficiaries having life style/ chronic ailments/ diseases on long treatment may purchase medicines lasting till 30 Apr 2022 in one go or month wise based on the prescription held (prescribed by doctor of Polyclinic / Service hospital / Empanelled hospital / Sehat OPD) irrespective of NA or otherwise till 30 Apr 2022. It is also Clarified that the ECHS Polyclinics are functional and ECHS beneficiaries also have the option to collect medicines through ECHS Polyclinics as per normal practice, instead of purchasing from market.

3. One time sanction is hereby accorded to reimburse the above expenditure under individual reimbursement of medical claims. The reimbursement will be done as per guidelines issued by this HQ vide letter No B/49761/AG/ECHS/Medicine Policy dt 18 May 2020 and even No dt 21 Jul 2020.

4. These orders shall be valid from date of issue of this letter and will be valid up to 30 Apr 2022.

5. The date up to 30 Apr 2022 indicates that the beneficiary may purchase medicines under this provision on any day before or on 30 Apr 2022, as per the date of his a prescription. The medicines may be purchased as per prescription for a period of 30 days if purchased in the month of Apr 2022.

Sd/-
(Anupam N Adhaulia)
Col
Dir (Med)
for MD ECHS

(Source: ECHS PDF )

Nomination of Liaison Officer for implementation of orders of reservations relating to Ex-Servicemen in the posts and services of the Central Government: DoP&T OM

 

No. 36034/2/20 17-Estt.(Res.)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training

North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 31st December, 2021

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Nomination of Liaison Officer for implementation of orders of reservations relating to Ex-Servicemen in the posts and services of the Central Government -reg.

Ref: OM No.36035/8/92-Estt(SCT) dated 10.11.1994 as mentioned at Chapter 10 of Compendium of Instructions on Reservation for Ex­ servicemen (as available at dopt.gov.in> Notifications>OMs&Order>Estt(Reservation)>Ex-servicemen).

The undersigned is directed to say that instructions have been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, from time to time, with regard to nomination of Liaison Officers for different categories to ensure that the reservation policies of the Government of India are implemented in letter and spirit. The said instructions also specify the role, duties and responsibilities, etc., of the Liaison Officer.

2. After careful consideration of the matter and in consultation with major Ministries/Departments, it has now been decided that instructions regarding appointment of Liaison Officer, at least of the rank of Deputy Secretary, to look after the reservation matters relating to Ex-Servicemen be re-circulated. Accordingly, in each Ministry/Department/ Attached and Subordinate Office, the Deputy Secretary in charge of administration (or any other officer at least of the rank of Deputy Secretary) should be designated as a Liaison Officer in respect of matters relating to representation of Ex-servicemen either exclusively or in combination (the Officer already appointed as Liaison Officer for other categories, may be appointed as Liaison Officer for Ex-Servicemen also), depending upon the availability of Officer of the requisite rank. The particulars and contact details of liaison officer, so appointed, may be intimated to the Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare.

3. The details of roles and responsibilities of Liaison officer are enclosed in the Annexure.

4. All the Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are requested to bring the contents of this O.M. to the notice of all the appointing authorities and also attached and subordinate offices under their control.

5. This issues with the approval of Hon’ble MOS(PP).

6. Hindi version will follow.

(Debabrata Das)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

ANNEXURE

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LIAISON OFFICER:

1. The Liaison Officer is especially responsible for:
   1. Ensuring due compliance by the Ministry/Department and subordinate appointing authorities with the orders and instructions pertaining to the reservation of vacancies in favour of the ex-servicemen and other benefits admissible to them.
   2. Ensuring timely submission of ex-servicemen reports on appointment/representation by each appointing authority in the Ministry/ Department concerned and ensuring scrutiny and consolidation of the above reports in respect of all establishments and services in and under the control of the Ministry/Department and sending the consolidated reports in the prescribed proforma to the Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare;
   3. Acting as Liaison Officer between the Ministry/Department and the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare for supply of other information, answering questions and queries and clearing doubts in regard to matters covered by the reservation orders.
   4. Cases of negligence or lapse in the matter of following the reservation and other orders relating to Ex-servicemen coming to the light through the inspections carried out by the Liaison Officer or otherwise, should be reported/ submitted by him/her to the Secretary/Additional Secretary to the Government of India in the respective Ministry/ Department or to the Head of the Department in respect of offices under the Heads of Department, as the case may be. The concerned Secretary/Addition Secretary/Head of the Department shall pass necessary orders on such reports to ensure strict compliance of the reservation orders by the appointing authority concerned.
   5. In order to ensure due compliance of the reservation orders of the Government, the Liaison Officers may periodically visit/inspect the offices/organizations under them. They should ensure that reservation for Ex-servicemen has been implemented properly. Liaison Officers should carry out their duties in relation to reservation by calling for the records from them and by convening the meetings of the officer of such organizations who are responsible for ensuring reservation in organizations under their control.
   6. If Liaison Officers of Ministries/Departments notice that there are complaints against any officer of harassment or deliberately manipulating things to damage the interests of the ex­ servicemen, they should feel free to report such lapses to the Secretary/ Addl Secretary of the Ministry/Department concerned.
2. Each CPSE, Statutory and Semi Govt Body, Autonomous Body/ Institutions including Municipal Corporations,Co-op Institutions, Universities, Voluntary Agencies receiving grants-in-aid from the Govt connected with appointment of the Ex­ servicemen should appoint Liaison Officer in the same manner as is existing in the Ministries/Departments.
3. The appointment of Liaison Officer in the CPSEs, does not, however, dilute or alter or curtail the responsibilities of the Liaison Officer of the administrative Ministry/Department in regard to implementation of reservation policy in the CPSE.
4. Liaison Officers of the Ministries/Departments have special responsibility to monitor implementation of reservation in their attached and subordinate offices, Autonomous Bodies, CPSEs, etc., under . the administrative control of the concerned Ministry/ Department and voluntary agencies, which are getting substantial grants-in-aid from the Government of India.

(Source: DoP&T PDF )