06 Mar 2012
Dear Veterans
1. Someone is mischievously spreading rumors by sending old news cutting. OROP has not yet been sanctioned by the Govt. We are waiting for the govt’s approval to the Koshiyari Rajya Sabha Petition Committee’s is recommendation on OROP. My reply of this mail is enclosed,
2. Please make all ESM aware of the same specially in villages.
With Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-4110570
Email: satbirsm@yahoo.com
.....................
06 Mar 2012
Dear Mohinder Padda
This is an old news regarding enhancement of pensions of JCOs and Jawan which the Govt had approved but not sanctioned. We had got the issue raised in Parliament on 03 Mar 2010 and consequently the Govt sanctioned the already withheld approval to enhance pensions of JCOs and Jawans to correct old anomaly amounting to Rs 2200 croes on 08 Mar 2010. Hear again, the Govt did not enhance the pension of widows, the most needy segment of defence pensioners. This was not OROP. We have been relentlessly working hard to ask the Govt to grant OROP. We will succeed. Request to all Defence Personnel and their family members is to Unite and collectively intensify the Movement to get Justice to the Defence Veterans.
With Regards,
Yours Sincerely
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-4110570
Email: satbirsm@yahoo.com
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
ESM sitrep 27 Feb evening
Dear Colleagues,
As part of IESM ongoing efforts to seek justice for the veterans’ community, I met the Defence Minister today (Feb 27). Gist of discussion ensues.
OROP
I made the following points:
· 1. OROP has been repeatedly recommended by Parliamentary Committees. These committees comprise elected members from different political parties. However, while rejecting these recommendations, the govt continues to stand by the report of the Cabinet Secretary’s Committee that had summarily rejected OROP without assigning any convincing reason. It leads to the unfortunate inference that the govt is being run not by the elected representatives but by the bureaucracy.
· 2 The ESM as a community are apolitical and would prefer to remain so. However, with the continual rejection of OROP in the last three years, there is a strong chance that the ESM would be alienated from the Congress, more so since the main opposition party has openly declared that they would grant OROP if elected to power.
· 3. Repeated rejection of this long pending demand might turn the disappointment of ESM into their frustration. It would be highly inadvisable to have a large section of society, who are trained in use of fire arms and explosives, frustrated. The govt should remain sensitive to this aspect.
The Hon’ble Minister assured me that he is fully sympathetic to the demand of OROP but there are various factors that are coming in the way in granting it in one go and that the govt is moving towards this goal in stages. On being specifically asked whether they are working towards giving another enhancement, he answered in the affirmative.
Widows’ Pension Enhancement
He himself stated that he was fully convinced that the demand was genuine and therefore had already got it cleared by the Defence Ministry. He told me that just prior to our meeting, he had called the Secretary ESW and had directed him to follow it up with other Ministries at the earliest. I asserted that I would check the progress in a fortnight’s time and if required meet him again; he was ok with it.
Miscellaneous
· On my raising the point that the govt continues to pursue legal cases till the last mile even though these have been rejected by the lower courts, the Minister stated that he has issued instructions to examine each case objectively. He further disclosed that he himself had directed against appealing in the pre-1973 Disabled Service Element case. I thanked him for it.
· I stressed there are cases that have been decided by the apex court and the government is still not implementing those judgments. I cited concrete examples. He noted the point but there was no discussion on it.
Concluding Remarks
In normal conversation, the Minister made very laudatory remarks about the defence forces in general. He was particularly appreciative of the fact that Services were a large family and even after retirement veterans remained attached to this family. He displayed genuineness in his appreciation and did not seem to be making these comments just for the sake of form.
Other IESM News
There continues a regular inflow of ESM telephone calls from across the country where they repose faith and confidence in the genuineness of IESM efforts. Enthusiasm is clearly discernible. Tomorrow (Feb 28), I am to participate in the programme of an education institute in Dundlot near Juhunjhunu in Rajasthan. It is not an ESM function. However, there have been a number of calls from that region in the last two days with ESM saying that they have read of it in the newspapers and they would want to participate. One cannot help feeling overwhelmed but also conscious of the heavy responsibility such trust brings on our shoulders.
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
262, Sector - 17A
Gurgaon - 122 001
As part of IESM ongoing efforts to seek justice for the veterans’ community, I met the Defence Minister today (Feb 27). Gist of discussion ensues.
OROP
I made the following points:
· 1. OROP has been repeatedly recommended by Parliamentary Committees. These committees comprise elected members from different political parties. However, while rejecting these recommendations, the govt continues to stand by the report of the Cabinet Secretary’s Committee that had summarily rejected OROP without assigning any convincing reason. It leads to the unfortunate inference that the govt is being run not by the elected representatives but by the bureaucracy.
· 2 The ESM as a community are apolitical and would prefer to remain so. However, with the continual rejection of OROP in the last three years, there is a strong chance that the ESM would be alienated from the Congress, more so since the main opposition party has openly declared that they would grant OROP if elected to power.
· 3. Repeated rejection of this long pending demand might turn the disappointment of ESM into their frustration. It would be highly inadvisable to have a large section of society, who are trained in use of fire arms and explosives, frustrated. The govt should remain sensitive to this aspect.
The Hon’ble Minister assured me that he is fully sympathetic to the demand of OROP but there are various factors that are coming in the way in granting it in one go and that the govt is moving towards this goal in stages. On being specifically asked whether they are working towards giving another enhancement, he answered in the affirmative.
Widows’ Pension Enhancement
He himself stated that he was fully convinced that the demand was genuine and therefore had already got it cleared by the Defence Ministry. He told me that just prior to our meeting, he had called the Secretary ESW and had directed him to follow it up with other Ministries at the earliest. I asserted that I would check the progress in a fortnight’s time and if required meet him again; he was ok with it.
Miscellaneous
· On my raising the point that the govt continues to pursue legal cases till the last mile even though these have been rejected by the lower courts, the Minister stated that he has issued instructions to examine each case objectively. He further disclosed that he himself had directed against appealing in the pre-1973 Disabled Service Element case. I thanked him for it.
· I stressed there are cases that have been decided by the apex court and the government is still not implementing those judgments. I cited concrete examples. He noted the point but there was no discussion on it.
Concluding Remarks
In normal conversation, the Minister made very laudatory remarks about the defence forces in general. He was particularly appreciative of the fact that Services were a large family and even after retirement veterans remained attached to this family. He displayed genuineness in his appreciation and did not seem to be making these comments just for the sake of form.
Other IESM News
There continues a regular inflow of ESM telephone calls from across the country where they repose faith and confidence in the genuineness of IESM efforts. Enthusiasm is clearly discernible. Tomorrow (Feb 28), I am to participate in the programme of an education institute in Dundlot near Juhunjhunu in Rajasthan. It is not an ESM function. However, there have been a number of calls from that region in the last two days with ESM saying that they have read of it in the newspapers and they would want to participate. One cannot help feeling overwhelmed but also conscious of the heavy responsibility such trust brings on our shoulders.
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
262, Sector - 17A
Gurgaon - 122 001
Monday, February 13, 2012
ESM sitrep 12 February evening
Dear Colleagues,
An ESM rally was held at village Majra, District Jhajjar (Haryana) on 11 Feb 2012, attended by Kameshwar Pandey and self. Approximately 300 ESM including a good number of families had gathered. An update on various issues of concern was given and all present appreciated the efforts made by the IESM in seeking justice for the ESM community. There were some points on ECHS, Canteen as well as pension that will be pursued.
26 new members joined the IESM during the rally.
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
262, Sector - 17A
Gurgaon - 122 001
An ESM rally was held at village Majra, District Jhajjar (Haryana) on 11 Feb 2012, attended by Kameshwar Pandey and self. Approximately 300 ESM including a good number of families had gathered. An update on various issues of concern was given and all present appreciated the efforts made by the IESM in seeking justice for the ESM community. There were some points on ECHS, Canteen as well as pension that will be pursued.
26 new members joined the IESM during the rally.
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
262, Sector - 17A
Gurgaon - 122 001
The Army in Cross-hair by Raj Kadyan
An article sent to some papers on 8 Feb 2012 is reproduced below. It appeared in a Hindi daily 'hari Bhoomi' Feb 10.
The Army in Cross-hair
Last week there was an unfortunate news item. The CBI has filed a charge against a former Vice Chief of Army Staff for an alleged land scam in his earlier tenure in Pune, involving a loss of Rs 46 Crore to the State. This made sensational prime time in almost all the TV channels in the country. Next day the newspapers front-paged the news. It also elicited the inevitable ‘even the Army?’ jibe from the intelligentsia.
The very next day, there were two more similar events that were reported. An IAS Additional Secretary in Bengal had been held for graft allegedly committed during his earlier stint with a PSU. The estimated loss to the exchequer was reported at Rs 125 Crore. Also, a retired Director General of Police in Bihar had his house confiscated because of alleged financial irregularities committed by him during his heyday as head of the police force. However, neither of these two news items found space in the visual media. Even in newspapers these attracted a brief mention on the inside pages. And not a whimper from any other commentator.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the above three alleged offenders were real brothers. Would the response of the media and the public have been any different? The answer is an obvious no. The Army is expected to follow and display the highest standards of probity; impeccable in every respect. The institution of the Army enjoys wide respect from the common Indian, even verging on reverence. This of course is how it should be. The Army is our last bastion of hope in times of national trouble and we cannot visualize, leave alone accept it failing or faltering. But that is also taking rather a linear view of the reality.
The strength of a building is judged by the quality of steel, cement and bricks used; the raw material. This is equally true of human institutions. The Army draws its ‘raw material’ from the same source as other institutions in the country. By the time an individual starts wearing the military uniform, his mindset is already conditioned by the environment, by what he has observed and experienced in the society. And seeing the prevailing trends of widespread erosion of values this is largely negative. The Army of course moulds the intake through its traditions and ethos as well as through its strict adherence to high standards of training and discipline. However, while it is possible to mould an individual’s behavior, it is extremely difficult to mould inherent traits of character of an adult. The Army is part of society and has to mirror the prevailing societal trends. Many of us, with our mental calendars locked in a time warp, tend to compare Army of today with the Army that existed 40 or 50 years ago and end up disheartened. That comparison is both unrealistic and unfair. If comparisons have to be resorted to, one should realistically draw parallels between Army and other contemporary institutions. In this sense Army still stays way ahead in relative terms.
There is also a palpable mismatch between our expectations from the Army and our treatment of it. While our expectations are still extraordinary, in many ways we treat them like anyone else, or worse. Take their status for example. They have been constantly brought down. After the latest pay commission, a Lt General is placed below the Director General of Police in a State. A Sepoy is equated with an unskilled labourer. Take also the case of ‘one rank one pension’ (OROP), which is the most visible demand of the day that affects not only the two million veterans but also every serving soldier as he too is a future pensioner. The response of the highest in the land is that if OROP is given to the defence forces, this would have to be given to other employees as well, which then is cited as a reason for denying it to the former. In other words in our treatment we equate the Army with everyone else but in our expectations they become unique, our never-fail asset.
The saving grace about the Army is its sturdy internal structure, which continues to remain its inherent strength. Despite all the scams that have surfaced of late and various other controversies, its performance at the cutting edge continues to remain unaffected. Its image may have taken a beating, its effectiveness remains free of any adverse effect. But let us not make them run on the ‘reserve’ for too long. We need to remember that it is ‘our’ Army and we need it to keep us safe and secure. Let us nurture it and look after its genuine needs and demands on priority. Even the seemingly vast oceans have a finite depth.
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan (Retd)
Former Deputy Chief of Army Staff
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
262, Sector - 17A
Gurgaon - 122 001
The Army in Cross-hair
Last week there was an unfortunate news item. The CBI has filed a charge against a former Vice Chief of Army Staff for an alleged land scam in his earlier tenure in Pune, involving a loss of Rs 46 Crore to the State. This made sensational prime time in almost all the TV channels in the country. Next day the newspapers front-paged the news. It also elicited the inevitable ‘even the Army?’ jibe from the intelligentsia.
The very next day, there were two more similar events that were reported. An IAS Additional Secretary in Bengal had been held for graft allegedly committed during his earlier stint with a PSU. The estimated loss to the exchequer was reported at Rs 125 Crore. Also, a retired Director General of Police in Bihar had his house confiscated because of alleged financial irregularities committed by him during his heyday as head of the police force. However, neither of these two news items found space in the visual media. Even in newspapers these attracted a brief mention on the inside pages. And not a whimper from any other commentator.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the above three alleged offenders were real brothers. Would the response of the media and the public have been any different? The answer is an obvious no. The Army is expected to follow and display the highest standards of probity; impeccable in every respect. The institution of the Army enjoys wide respect from the common Indian, even verging on reverence. This of course is how it should be. The Army is our last bastion of hope in times of national trouble and we cannot visualize, leave alone accept it failing or faltering. But that is also taking rather a linear view of the reality.
The strength of a building is judged by the quality of steel, cement and bricks used; the raw material. This is equally true of human institutions. The Army draws its ‘raw material’ from the same source as other institutions in the country. By the time an individual starts wearing the military uniform, his mindset is already conditioned by the environment, by what he has observed and experienced in the society. And seeing the prevailing trends of widespread erosion of values this is largely negative. The Army of course moulds the intake through its traditions and ethos as well as through its strict adherence to high standards of training and discipline. However, while it is possible to mould an individual’s behavior, it is extremely difficult to mould inherent traits of character of an adult. The Army is part of society and has to mirror the prevailing societal trends. Many of us, with our mental calendars locked in a time warp, tend to compare Army of today with the Army that existed 40 or 50 years ago and end up disheartened. That comparison is both unrealistic and unfair. If comparisons have to be resorted to, one should realistically draw parallels between Army and other contemporary institutions. In this sense Army still stays way ahead in relative terms.
There is also a palpable mismatch between our expectations from the Army and our treatment of it. While our expectations are still extraordinary, in many ways we treat them like anyone else, or worse. Take their status for example. They have been constantly brought down. After the latest pay commission, a Lt General is placed below the Director General of Police in a State. A Sepoy is equated with an unskilled labourer. Take also the case of ‘one rank one pension’ (OROP), which is the most visible demand of the day that affects not only the two million veterans but also every serving soldier as he too is a future pensioner. The response of the highest in the land is that if OROP is given to the defence forces, this would have to be given to other employees as well, which then is cited as a reason for denying it to the former. In other words in our treatment we equate the Army with everyone else but in our expectations they become unique, our never-fail asset.
The saving grace about the Army is its sturdy internal structure, which continues to remain its inherent strength. Despite all the scams that have surfaced of late and various other controversies, its performance at the cutting edge continues to remain unaffected. Its image may have taken a beating, its effectiveness remains free of any adverse effect. But let us not make them run on the ‘reserve’ for too long. We need to remember that it is ‘our’ Army and we need it to keep us safe and secure. Let us nurture it and look after its genuine needs and demands on priority. Even the seemingly vast oceans have a finite depth.
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan (Retd)
Former Deputy Chief of Army Staff
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
262, Sector - 17A
Gurgaon - 122 001
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Gratitude
Dear Mrs Pratibha Kulkarni,
On behalf of the IESM, I express my deep gratitude to you for your generous donation to the cause of the veterans' welfare. You have been kind in doing it regularly. We highly appreciate your exemplary gesture and will ensure that your contribution is used for the intended purpose.
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
On behalf of the IESM, I express my deep gratitude to you for your generous donation to the cause of the veterans' welfare. You have been kind in doing it regularly. We highly appreciate your exemplary gesture and will ensure that your contribution is used for the intended purpose.
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
Thursday, January 26, 2012
ESM sitrep 26 Jan evening
Dear Colleagues,
Kameshwar Pandey and self participated in an ESM rally in Pilani, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) today. There was a gathering of some 300 ESM and widows who had assembled despite cold and foggy weather. Jhunjhunu district, known to have the highest density of Defence personnel in the country, is fast realizing the importance of joining the IESM efforts in seeking justice. They are well on their way to evolve an ESM organization down to every village. 37 new members joined IESM today; 75 had joined during the 16 December 2011 rally. Membership forms have been taken away to enrol more.
The disability pension is exempt from income tax. A copy of an old government letter of July 2002 (received from Lt Gen Satish Talwar) is attached for information.
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
Kameshwar Pandey and self participated in an ESM rally in Pilani, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) today. There was a gathering of some 300 ESM and widows who had assembled despite cold and foggy weather. Jhunjhunu district, known to have the highest density of Defence personnel in the country, is fast realizing the importance of joining the IESM efforts in seeking justice. They are well on their way to evolve an ESM organization down to every village. 37 new members joined IESM today; 75 had joined during the 16 December 2011 rally. Membership forms have been taken away to enrol more.
The disability pension is exempt from income tax. A copy of an old government letter of July 2002 (received from Lt Gen Satish Talwar) is attached for information.
--
Best regards,
Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
Friday, January 13, 2012
PENSION REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH THE STAKE HOLDERS
To Date: 13 Jan 2012
Shri A.K. Antony
Defence Minister
104, South Block
13, Parliament House,
New Delhi – 110001
DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE UNILATERALLY ISSUES A FRESH VERSION OF PENSION REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH THE STAKE HOLDERS
Dear Sh. A.K. Antony,
1. With concern, we wish to bring to your notice that the department of Ex servicemen Welfare (DSEW) has unilaterally issued fresh version of Pension Regulations for the Army in utter disregard to the laid down procedure for the same and without consulting the stakeholders. The Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW), on 06 Jan 2012, has issued Pension Regulations for the Army (2008), purportedly approved by the ‘Raksha Mantri’. These Regulations supposedly supersede the Pension Regulations of 1961. Though the Regulations have been issued on 06 Jan 2012 and only apply to those who were released after 2008, these have not incorporated the drastic pensionary changes made by the 6th CPC which according to the DESW would be included in the form of ‘insertions’ to be decided by the office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). These Regulations of 2008 have been jointly drafted by the office of the CGDA and PCDA(P). It seems illogical that these Regulations of ‘2008’ have been issued in 2012 and that too without incorporating changes introduced by the 6th CPC w.e.f 01-01-2006. What was the tearing hurry? Preliminarily speaking, even otherwise, rather than entrusting such an important policy-work to policy makers and experts at the govt level, the DESW has gone by the drafting submitted by defence accountants. But strictly speaking, are these Regulations even valid or legal? We would say, No
2. The following comments are made :-
(a) The mandate for dealing with general pensionary guidelines of civil, defence
and railway pensioners is of the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW) under the Constitutional Allocation of Business Rules of the Govt of India, and not of the DESW. In fact, the DESW does not even have staff which can understand the fine modalities of pension issues. Hence to issue such ‘Regulations’ without the sanction of DoPPW prima-facie appears to be without authority. It also seems that even the Department of Expenditure (DoE) has not been consulted.
(b) Many provisions which have been quashed, read-down, struck-down or
differently interpreted by Courts and Tribunals, including the Supreme Court, find place in these Regulations of 2008. Not only unlawful, but such an action could be downright contemptuous, and the fact that the Raksha Mantri has been made to ‘approve’ such a document speaks volumes of the extent of application of mind prevalent at the DESW. Many provisions are also in direct contravention of general DoPPW policies and clarifications.
(c) Many of the provisions mentioned in the ‘new’ Regulations have been totally
done away with or abrogated by the 5th and 6th CPCs. Some of the newly cast Regulations actually take away certain benefits which were available to defence pensioners till date. Through innocuous re-casting of some Regulations, certain very pertinent benefits have in fact been abolished.
(d) As explained above, pensionary provisions of general nature have always
been a subject matter of the DoPPW and have earlier been issued after acceptance of Pay Commission recommendations by the Cabinet through Presidential sanctions. It seems strange that the DESW has chosen to circumvent established precedents and has gone about modifying provisions approved by the Cabinet and notified through Presidential orders through these locally issued ‘Regulations’.
(e) According to DoPPW guidelines, constitutionally empowered to promulgate
pensionary policies of pensioners including defence pensioners, pensionary rules can only be changed through a democratic consultative process which also involves other stake-holders including recognised pension associations. Has the same been done in this case? The answer is in the negative. Was even the Army HQ consulted on this?
(f) How could such an important task be entrusted to CGDA or PCDA(P). These
agencies are neither policy makers nor authorities competent to alter existing pensionary matters and are only accounting instrumentalities. How could ‘teams’ of such agencies be detailed to draft Pension Regulations.
(g) The orders are meant only for Army and since they are regulations they can be
changed as and when required as per the laid down procedure. However the Navy Pension regulations are an Act of Parliament and they cannot be changed without proper procedure after being duly approved by parliament. Since Army is the largest service such regulations passed for them are generally applied across the board to all services. So if these regulations do not comply with any portion of the Navy Pension regulations the same would be null and void. Therefore the Army regulations need to be in line with the Navy Pension Act.
3. In short, these Regulations are a piece of work by defence accountants forcibly thrust upon millions of retired defence personnel, who, it seems do not have any say in matters which affect their future and also the future of their families. There has been no spade work by the authorities actually competent to modify or rationalise existing provisions and the issue has been dealt with hurriedly, without application of mind, and in fact without authority.
According to the DoPPW, the list of stake-holders involved for modification or inception of pensionary policies is as follows:-
“User GOI Ministries / Departments including CGA, CPAO & CGDA, Pensioners/Family Pensioners, Pensioners’ Associations, Banks/Treasuries/Post offices, Serving employees”
4. Let the DESW clarify if any of the above were consulted before unilaterally imposing these new Pension Regulations on defence pensioners and family pensioners? In fact, these are not 'Regulations' but the imposition of the will of a couple of accountants whose limited understanding, drafting and thought-process has been thrust upon pensioners forcibly. We have repeatedly been requesting to the Govt for the past four years to DESW should be manned by serving and retired defence personnel.
5. May we request you for the following :-
(a) Please cancel the promulgation of freshly issued Pension Regulations Army 2008 and order review of the Pension Regulation 1961 per the laid down procedure incorporating all latest required changes in consultation with the stakeholders.
(b) DESW may please be headed by a serving defence officer and manned by both serving and retired (reemployed) officers and staff. We have been requesting the Govt for this for the past four years.
(c) One of our major demand of establishment of Ex Servicemen Commission consisting of only Ex Servicemen may please be accepted at the earliest please.
6. An immediate action to avoid confusion and hardships to the Defence Pensioners is requested please.
With Kind Regards, Yours Sincerely,
Jai Hind
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-4110570
Email : satbirsm@yahoo.com
Copy to :-
Gen Vijay Kumar Singh, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC - With request to :-
Chief of the Army Staff (a) Kindly take up the matter with the
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Army) Govt to cancel the above Regulations
South Block, New Delhi-110011 and follow the laid down procedure for
their revisions.
(b) DESW be manned by Serving and
Ex Servicemen (reemployed )
(c) Ex Servicemen Commission consisting
of only ESM may please be established.
Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma, PVSM, AVSM, ADC - do-
Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee and
Chief of the Naval Staff
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Navy)
South Block, New Delhi-110011
Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne, PVSM, AVSM, VM - do-
Chief of the Air Staff
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Air Force)
Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
Shri A.K. Antony
Defence Minister
104, South Block
13, Parliament House,
New Delhi – 110001
DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE UNILATERALLY ISSUES A FRESH VERSION OF PENSION REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH THE STAKE HOLDERS
Dear Sh. A.K. Antony,
1. With concern, we wish to bring to your notice that the department of Ex servicemen Welfare (DSEW) has unilaterally issued fresh version of Pension Regulations for the Army in utter disregard to the laid down procedure for the same and without consulting the stakeholders. The Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW), on 06 Jan 2012, has issued Pension Regulations for the Army (2008), purportedly approved by the ‘Raksha Mantri’. These Regulations supposedly supersede the Pension Regulations of 1961. Though the Regulations have been issued on 06 Jan 2012 and only apply to those who were released after 2008, these have not incorporated the drastic pensionary changes made by the 6th CPC which according to the DESW would be included in the form of ‘insertions’ to be decided by the office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). These Regulations of 2008 have been jointly drafted by the office of the CGDA and PCDA(P). It seems illogical that these Regulations of ‘2008’ have been issued in 2012 and that too without incorporating changes introduced by the 6th CPC w.e.f 01-01-2006. What was the tearing hurry? Preliminarily speaking, even otherwise, rather than entrusting such an important policy-work to policy makers and experts at the govt level, the DESW has gone by the drafting submitted by defence accountants. But strictly speaking, are these Regulations even valid or legal? We would say, No
2. The following comments are made :-
(a) The mandate for dealing with general pensionary guidelines of civil, defence
and railway pensioners is of the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW) under the Constitutional Allocation of Business Rules of the Govt of India, and not of the DESW. In fact, the DESW does not even have staff which can understand the fine modalities of pension issues. Hence to issue such ‘Regulations’ without the sanction of DoPPW prima-facie appears to be without authority. It also seems that even the Department of Expenditure (DoE) has not been consulted.
(b) Many provisions which have been quashed, read-down, struck-down or
differently interpreted by Courts and Tribunals, including the Supreme Court, find place in these Regulations of 2008. Not only unlawful, but such an action could be downright contemptuous, and the fact that the Raksha Mantri has been made to ‘approve’ such a document speaks volumes of the extent of application of mind prevalent at the DESW. Many provisions are also in direct contravention of general DoPPW policies and clarifications.
(c) Many of the provisions mentioned in the ‘new’ Regulations have been totally
done away with or abrogated by the 5th and 6th CPCs. Some of the newly cast Regulations actually take away certain benefits which were available to defence pensioners till date. Through innocuous re-casting of some Regulations, certain very pertinent benefits have in fact been abolished.
(d) As explained above, pensionary provisions of general nature have always
been a subject matter of the DoPPW and have earlier been issued after acceptance of Pay Commission recommendations by the Cabinet through Presidential sanctions. It seems strange that the DESW has chosen to circumvent established precedents and has gone about modifying provisions approved by the Cabinet and notified through Presidential orders through these locally issued ‘Regulations’.
(e) According to DoPPW guidelines, constitutionally empowered to promulgate
pensionary policies of pensioners including defence pensioners, pensionary rules can only be changed through a democratic consultative process which also involves other stake-holders including recognised pension associations. Has the same been done in this case? The answer is in the negative. Was even the Army HQ consulted on this?
(f) How could such an important task be entrusted to CGDA or PCDA(P). These
agencies are neither policy makers nor authorities competent to alter existing pensionary matters and are only accounting instrumentalities. How could ‘teams’ of such agencies be detailed to draft Pension Regulations.
(g) The orders are meant only for Army and since they are regulations they can be
changed as and when required as per the laid down procedure. However the Navy Pension regulations are an Act of Parliament and they cannot be changed without proper procedure after being duly approved by parliament. Since Army is the largest service such regulations passed for them are generally applied across the board to all services. So if these regulations do not comply with any portion of the Navy Pension regulations the same would be null and void. Therefore the Army regulations need to be in line with the Navy Pension Act.
3. In short, these Regulations are a piece of work by defence accountants forcibly thrust upon millions of retired defence personnel, who, it seems do not have any say in matters which affect their future and also the future of their families. There has been no spade work by the authorities actually competent to modify or rationalise existing provisions and the issue has been dealt with hurriedly, without application of mind, and in fact without authority.
According to the DoPPW, the list of stake-holders involved for modification or inception of pensionary policies is as follows:-
“User GOI Ministries / Departments including CGA, CPAO & CGDA, Pensioners/Family Pensioners, Pensioners’ Associations, Banks/Treasuries/Post offices, Serving employees”
4. Let the DESW clarify if any of the above were consulted before unilaterally imposing these new Pension Regulations on defence pensioners and family pensioners? In fact, these are not 'Regulations' but the imposition of the will of a couple of accountants whose limited understanding, drafting and thought-process has been thrust upon pensioners forcibly. We have repeatedly been requesting to the Govt for the past four years to DESW should be manned by serving and retired defence personnel.
5. May we request you for the following :-
(a) Please cancel the promulgation of freshly issued Pension Regulations Army 2008 and order review of the Pension Regulation 1961 per the laid down procedure incorporating all latest required changes in consultation with the stakeholders.
(b) DESW may please be headed by a serving defence officer and manned by both serving and retired (reemployed) officers and staff. We have been requesting the Govt for this for the past four years.
(c) One of our major demand of establishment of Ex Servicemen Commission consisting of only Ex Servicemen may please be accepted at the earliest please.
6. An immediate action to avoid confusion and hardships to the Defence Pensioners is requested please.
With Kind Regards, Yours Sincerely,
Jai Hind
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-4110570
Email : satbirsm@yahoo.com
Copy to :-
Gen Vijay Kumar Singh, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC - With request to :-
Chief of the Army Staff (a) Kindly take up the matter with the
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Army) Govt to cancel the above Regulations
South Block, New Delhi-110011 and follow the laid down procedure for
their revisions.
(b) DESW be manned by Serving and
Ex Servicemen (reemployed )
(c) Ex Servicemen Commission consisting
of only ESM may please be established.
Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma, PVSM, AVSM, ADC - do-
Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee and
Chief of the Naval Staff
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Navy)
South Block, New Delhi-110011
Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne, PVSM, AVSM, VM - do-
Chief of the Air Staff
Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Air Force)
Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)