Lord Curzon was astonished by a system in which proposals circulated
through the departments and returned to their starting point many months later,
garnished with an array of minutes from Secretaries and Under-Secretaries who
revelled in dialectics and had perfected the art of put-down.
‘The Ruling Caste’ by David Gilmour (page 214
--------
Please note:
- Flagging of enclosure and Dairy Numbers are shown in parenthesis as (Flag ‘A’)/ (Diary Number…..).
- Italics are used by this author to draw attention of readers to certain aspects and contradictions.
- Otherwise this is faithful re-production of reply to RTI application dated 21.1.2013 vide No. 35(1)/2013/D (Pay/Services) dated 11th March 2013 received on 19th March 2013 by ordinary parcel post.
- Figures provided by CGDA etc vide UO note and Annexures mentioned were posted on this blog earlier. Please co-relate and do not raise doubts/ ask questions.
- None of the Enclosures mentioned were provided. An appeal has been filed for being provided with the Enclosures as they have been paid for.
- Lines underlined are by the officials of MoD and not by this author.
- This is the final part of the notes on MoD File No. 34 (6)/2012 – D (Pay/Services)
-59-
Lt.
Col. Arun Kumar & some other Army officers filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.
268 of 2010 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking the benefit of the Hon’ble
Court order dated 8.3.2010 passed in the matter of Rank Pay. This order has
been appealed against by Government as per legal advice and this appeal (I.A.
No. 9/2010) has already been taken on board by the Hon’ble Court vide its order
dated 10.5.2010. The instant case (W.P No. 268/2010) was initially taken up on
25.08.2010 when the Hon’ble Court sought the assistance of Learned Attorney
General and Learned Solicitor General in the matter. On 8.9.2010 the Hon’ble
Court heard this petition and taking serious note of the overall situation
concerning Armed Forces personnel, the Hon’ble Court suggested that Government
may set up an independent commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to
look into all the grievances of the serving and retired members of the Armed
Forces. A copy of the Court order dated 8.9.2010 is available. The Law Officers
sought time for taking instructions from the Government in this matter. The
Hon’ble Court agreed and granted time up to 18.10.2010. Instant case i.e. W.P
(Civil) No. 268/2010 relates to Rank Pay but the instructions of the Court
cover all the grievances of Armed Forces. Broadly, the issues may ne
categorised as under.
Rank Pay – The matter that has been raised before the
Hon’ble Court does not actually relate to ’grant of Rank Pay to Armed Forces
officers.’ Rank pay as a separate element beside the pay in the integrated pay
scale (Rs 2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB-5100) was recommended by the IV Central Pay
Commission for Armed Forces officers in the ranks of Captain to Brigadier. This
recommendation was followed by certain illustrative examples in which the Rank
Pay was deducted from the revised emoluments and the pay was then fixed at the
stage next above the amount thus computed in the integrated scale of pay.
Revised pay having thus been fixed, Rank Pay appropriate to the rank of the
officers was to be granted separately. These recommendations were accepted by
the Government and going strictly with the decision of the Government pay
revision of the Armed Forces personnel was ordered accordingly. The Government
has acted strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the IV Central Pay
Commission which were duly accepted and no dilution whatsoever of the IV
Central Pay Commission recommendation has been made by the Government.
A
court case was initiated in 1996 contesting the methodology of fixation of pay
w.e.f. 1.1.1986, particularly the step of deduction of Rank Pay. The matter was
decided against the Govt. in the High Court of Kerala and also dismissed by the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Now, vide order dated 8.3.2010, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has agreed with the decision of the Kerala High Court and
imposed interest @ 6% p.a. to be paid on the arrears since 1.1.1986. The
Government has filed an I.A. No. 9.2010 in the Hon’ble Court seeking
modification/review/recall of the order dated 8.3.2010 which is sub-judice.
Pay and allowances – The VI Central Pay Commission submitted
its report to the Government in March 2008 recommending increased pay and
allowances. The Services represented to the Government seeking a common pay
scale to PBORs, re-fixing of Grade Pay, improvement in MSP, Assured Career
Progression (ACP) to PBORs and other matters related to pension, gratuity and
terms and conditions of service. The Government examined these matters and
improved upon the recommendations of the Pay Commission before accepting them.
The Government has continued to consider requests of the Services for further
improvements in the pay, allowances, and other service conditions. In order to
look into these issues, the Prime Minister appointed a Group of Ministers (GoM)
headed by Sh. Pranab Mukherjee, the then Minister of External Affairs to look
into these demands. On the basis of the report of the GoM (Encl 14/A) the
Government agreed to grant Pay Band 4 status to Lt. Col./equivalent officers
with a Grade Pay of Rs 8000/-. It was also decided that in future, pay revision
of armed forces should be de-linked from that of civilians and a separate Board
or Commission should be set up for pay revision of the Armed Forces.
Even
thereafter, the Government has granted HAG+ Scale (Rs. 75, 500-80, 000) to 1/3rd
of total strength of such officers, revised HAG Scale (Rs 67,000 – 79, 000) to
all Lt. Gens/equivalent officers and NC(E) allowance @ Rs 1000 p.m. to
Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of the Indian Air Force.
While
responding to a Parliament Question, Services have stated that the award of the
VI Central Pay Commission has been largely well received by all ranks (Encls
8/D, E, F). However, certain anomalies were also stated to have been raised.
These and some more demands of the Services are presently under active
consideration of the Government.
Any
grievances/anomalies can be addressed by taking up the issues with the
administrative Ministry/Ministry of Finance. Armed Forces Tribunals set up
exclusively to hear the grievances of service personnel also provides a forum
to sort out any grievance related to pay, allowances and pension matters.
One Rank, One Pay (Pension?)
– Out of the grievances pertaining to pension related issues, the most
important being One Rank, One Pension (OROP for short). Apart from recommending
liberalised pay scales, the VI Central Pay Commission made a big change in
recommending Military Service Pay for all Armed Forces personnel – officers as
well as PBORs. This has consequently resulted in increased pension and other retirement
benefits. Higher rates of for all retirees and family pensioners on attaining
the age of 80, 85, 90, 95 and 100 years have also immensely benefited the aged
pensioners. Ministry of Law, when consulted on the issue of OROP, relying on
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of D.S. Nakara [1983
(2) SCR[65], K.L. Rathi [SLJ 1997 (3)/2007], All India Ex-Service League [AIR
1991 SC 1182] and S.C. Dhingra [2008) 2 SCC 299] did not recommend the demand.
As the Armed Forces pensioners still continue to raise their demand for OROP
and some related issues, the Government set up a Committee under the
Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary to look into these matters. The Committee,
taking into consideration all the factors – financial, administrative and legal
– did not find it feasible to recommend OROP as such. However, keeping in mind
the spirit of the demand, the Committee made several other recommendations to
substantially improve pensionary benefits of Armed Forces personnel, which have
since been accepted by the Government.
With
this background, the matter was examined in consultation with Ministry of Law.
Ministry of Finance has opined that the Sixth Central Pay Commission was headed
by a retired Judge and so were the earlier Pay Commissions. The Commission
looks at all categories of employees in a holistic manner and makes its
recommendations. Further, even after Pay Commission made its recommendations,
the Government has improved the fitment formula, the pay scales of Lt. Cols.,
Colonels and Brigadiers, the MSP of PBORs etc. Also a decision has also been
taken that next time the Defence Forces will have a separate Pay Commission. In
these circumstances, there seems to be no need to set up an independent
Commission to look into the grievances of serving and retired Defence personnel
as suggested by the Hon’ble Court.
Even
after a decision to this effect was communicated to the Ld. Solicitor General
of India, the matter was also discussed with him on 17th Oct, 2010
when he was apprised of the steps taken by the Government over the last 25
years for improving the pay, pensionary benefits and other service conditions
of Armed Forces personnel.
On
18.10.2010, inspite of Govt instructions, in order to see that no financial
prejudice is caused to the Government by the dismissal of its appeal (against
the order dated 8.3.2010), the Ld. Solicitor general requested and pleaded
before the Court for some more time to carry forward the suggestion in its true
spirit. Hon’ble Court granted time till 08-11-2010 and again insisted setting
up of independent commission. A copy of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated
18.10.2010 is available at Encl 46/A.
Ld. Solicitor
General of India has now written a letter dated 20.10.2010 to Raksha Mantriji.
Giving details of the subject matter (Rank Pay issue), Ld. SG has apprised RM
of suggestion of the Hon’ble Court on the issue of appointing a multi-member
commission under a retired Supreme Court judge to look into the grievances of
the serving as well as retired members of the Armed Forces.
Considering
the urgency and importance of the matter, on the request of Defence Secretary,
a meeting was held in the chamber of Secretary, Expenditure on 26.10.2010.
Besides deliberating on the various aspects of issue, it was also agreed to
request RM to have a formal meeting with FM in which Ld. Solicitor General will
be requested to attend the meeting.
Submitted please,
Sd/-----------------------------
(Naveen Kumar)
Director (AG)
27.10.2010
JS (E)
-60-
Reference
Note 59.
In reference to the letter of
Defence Secretary (Encl 58/A) to Secretary, Expenditure, a meeting was held in
her chamber on 26/X/10. The stand taken by the Ministry was reiterated on the
suggestion of the Secretary, Expenditure and other officials present in the
meeting, various options available were also discussed. Options available may
be narrowed down as follows: -
i) The stand
taken by the Ministry in consultation with MoF may be reiterated with
submission to the Hon’ble Court to decide our recall petition on the basis of
its merit; or
ii) We may
agree for one member commission with single term of reference i.e. whether the
policy decision_______________ (indecipherable) has properly been implemented
or not.
However
before taking a final stand on the issue, in view of the importance of the
matter which have huge financial & administrative implications (in the
event of the rejection of the recall petition), it was decided to request RM to
speak to Finance Minister for a meeting and Ld, SG will also be invited to
attend the said meeting to take a final decision on the suggestion of the
Hon’ble Court.
Accordingly
the file is submitted for the consideration of RM for the proposed meeting with
FM. Since the next date of hearing is 8th Nov 2010, the matter is
urgent.
Sd/----------------------------
29/X/10
AS (M)
-61-
Notes 59 ante onwards refer. In his letter to RM, Ld SG has
concluded by stating that the matter be examined at some considerable depth.
Considering
this and possible implications of this case, in the discussions between Defence
Secretary and Secretary, Expenditure, it was decided to request RM and FM to
hold discussions on then when Ld SG would be requested to be present. A brief
is being prepared separately.
RM may like
to consider raising the matter with FM.
Sd/------------------
27/X
Defence Secretary
-62-
RM has discussed the matter with FM. The meeting between FM
and RM is likely to take place on 28.X.2010. Solicitor General, Secty Exp and I
would be attending. The brief may please be prepared.
Sd/-----------
AS (M) 27/X
JS (E)
-63-
The matter was discussed with AS (M). The meeting was held
in the chamber of FM on 28/X/10 which was attended by RM & SG.
It could be ascertained from AS (M) that a decision has been
taken to file an affidavit in the court giving our consent for a Single member
Commission with 2 TORs (Terms of
Reference) i.e.: - i) whether rank pay as recommended by IV Pay Commission
was properly implemented or not and ii) streamlining the pension payment
procedure.
While we prepare the exact TOR on point (i), we may request
ESW to prepare the TOR on (ii). Besides the procedure of formation of
Commission logistics to be provided need to be ascertained. So please prepare
the draft TOR & collect all other information.
A meeting will be held in the chamber of AS (M) on 1/11/10
at 11 AM to discuss the above issues. Pl invite ESW, Def (Fin), JS (Pers) MoF
Shri Alok Saxena, Secretary Postal (?)
Board to attend the meeting.
Sd/------------------
29/X/10
Dir (AG)
Sd/------------
29/10
US (P/S) Issue Encl 64A
SO (P/S)
-65-
This is regarding consideration
of the suggestion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for setting up Commission headed
by a former Supreme Court judge to look into the grievances of the members of
the Armed Forces both serving as well as retired.
Earlier view of the Government was
that we may not agree to setting up a Commission for various stated reasons including
the fact that such a course of action would amount to agreeing to the stand
taken by the Court that Government has not taken adequate measures to solve the
grievances of the Armed Forces personnel.
In the
meeting of RM with FM on 28.10.2010 which was also attended by Ld Solicitor
General it was decided that an affidavit may be filed in the Court giving our
consent for a single member Commission. The terms of reference of this
Commission could be :
(i)
To examine the correctness of the implementation
of IV Central Pay Commission recommendations related to Rank Pay as given in
Para 28.113
(ii)
To make recommendations for further improvements
of the procedure for pension disbursement to retired Armed Forces personnel
based on Government orders subsequent to VI Central Pay Commission’s
recommendations.
The Terms of Reference as stated
above are put up for approval, please.
Sd/---------------------------
Naveen Kumar
Director (AG)
01.11.2010
JS (E)
-66-
The TORs at Para 3 (i) & (ii) were discussed in the
chamber of AS (M) with the reps of MoF & Def (Finance) and they are in
agreement with the proposed TORs.
May be appd for forwarding the
same to MoF though Def (Finance) for their concurrence.
Sd/------------
1/11/10
AS (M) Sd/------------ 1/XI
JS (E) Sd/--------- 1/XI/10
Addl FA & JS (S) Sd/--------- 1/11/10
DFA (AG)
-67-
Ministry of Defence (Finance)
Fin/AG
This is
regarding the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on setting (up) of a Commission headed by a former
Supreme Court judge to look into the grievances of the Armed Forces personnel
including ex-Servicemen. Notes 59/ante onwards may kindly be seen.
2.
The case for setting (up) a Commission to look into the grievances of the Armed Forces
personnel was seen earlier by Ministry of Finance. Photocopies of their notes
at Encl 26A opposite (not provided) and
Note 24/ante (not provided) are
relevant.
3.
As indicated in the preceding notes, the matter
has since been discussed between the Hon’ble RM and the Hon’ble FM. In
pursuance to the decision to file an affidavit, conveying consent of MoD for a
single member Commission, draft terms of reference for the proposed Commission
have been formulated as in preceding Note 65 ante. These were discussed in a
meeting taken by AS (M) today (1.11.2010). Officers from the MoF were present
in the meeting.
4. The file is accordingly proposed to be referred to MoF for concurrence
to the draft terms of reference. Secy (Def/Fin) may kindly like to see for
approval before the file is referred to Ministry of Finance.
Sd/-----------------------
(A.
K. Gambhir) 1/11/10
DFA
(AG)
JS & Addl FA (S) Sd/------------
1 Nov 10
Secy (Def.Fin) Sd/----------------
2/11
Addl FA (S) Sd/-----------------
2/11/10
DFA (AG) Sd/-------------------
2/11/10
Joint Secretary (Pers) Deptt of Expenditure
MoD (Finance) ID No. 534/PA dated 2.11.2010
-68-
Ministry of Finance
Department of
Expenditure
E.III-A Branch
*******
Ministry of
Defence may please refer to their notes on page 67/N in file No. 34/11/2010/D
(Pay/Ser) whereby concurrence of Department of Expenditure has been sought on
the draft Terms of Reference for the proposed Commission to be headed by a
former Supreme Court Judge in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
2. This
Department concurs with the draft Terms of Reference for the said Commission as
spelt out at page 65/N of the file in question.
3. This issues
with the approval of Secretary (Expenditure).
Sd/-
Renu Jain
Director
Sh. Arun Kumar Bahl, JS (Estt), Ministry of defence, Room
No. 67, South Block, New Delhi
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, U.O No.
871832/JS(Pers)/10 dt 03.11.2010
-69-
Received ………….. Encl
69A
-70-
Reference
Note 65/ante.
2. On 8th
September 2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while hearing Writ Petition (C) No.
268 of 2010 – Lt. Col. Arun Kumar and others Vs Union of India suggested (Encl
-7B) that Government set up an independent Commission headed by a retired
Supreme Court Judge to look into the grievance of the Services and retired
personnel of the Armed Forces. Ld. Attorney general and the Ld. Solicitor
General appearing to assist the Court were asked to take instructions from the
Government on the Court’s suggestion and convey it to the Court on 18th
October 2010 when the subject Writ Petition would be heard along with our
recall petition IA No. 9 of 2010.
3. Briefly, the issue dates back to 1987 when the 4th
Central Pay Commission recommended introduction of rank pay in case of officers
of the Armed Forces upto the rank of Brigadier. Going to the specific
recommendation of the Pay Commission, it was decided in consultation with
Ministry of Finance that while calculating revised pay of the officers, rank
pay of the officer as on 1st January 1986 would be deducted from the
existing emoluments and after revised pay is fixed in the revised pay scale,
rank pay as per the rank of the officer would be added. (Readers may note that it is not stated that this methodology was
between MoD and MoF. It was not as
recommended by 4th CPC, though all UoI affidavits state so!) In
one case, involving an officer, Maj Dhanapalan, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court
in its order dated 5th October 1998 decided that no deduction of
rank pay would be made while calculating revised pay. The appeal of the
Government was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 4th July
2003. Subsequent SLP filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on
12th July 2005 on account of delay. In light of this, the decision
of the Kerala High Court was implemented in favour of the officer vide Army
HQrs letter dated 26th August 2005.
4. In view of the favourable order to the applicant officer, a
number of other officers started filing writ petition on this count in different
High Courts. To meet the situation, on the advice of the then Ld Additional
Solicitor General and in consultation with Ministry of Finance, transfer
petition was filed in Hon’ble Supreme Court tagging two other writ petitions which had also been filed. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court after hearing both the sides, agreed with the recommendation (the Apex Court order states “agree with the
reasoning”) given by the Kerala High Court and directed the Government to
make the payment along with the interest at the rate of 6& per annum. Since
the implementation of such an order involves huge financial implications on the
advice of the Ld Solicitor General, Recall Petition IA No. 9 of 2010 has been
filed.
5. With this background, it may be mentioned here that Government
is fully concerned with the grievances of the Services personnel. Their
grievances may be categorised briefly as under: -
i) Rank Pay
ii)
Grievances related to Pay and Allowances
iii) One
Rank One Pay (Pension) (OROP)
6. Rank Pay
The
matter which has been raised before the Hon’ble Court does not actually relate
to grant of Rank Pay to Armed Forces officers but the issue involved therein is
the methodology adopted for re-fixation of pay.
The IV Central Pay Commission
recommended that since rank pay is a separate element of pay the same may be
taken into account while fixing pay in the integrated scale of pay. This
recommendation was followed by certain illustrated examples (sic) in which Rank Pay was deducted
from the revised emoluments and the pay was then fixed at the stage next above
the amount thus computed in the integrated scale of pay. Revised pay having
thus been fixed, Rank Pay appropriate to the rank of the officers was to be
granted separately. The recommendations were accepted by the Government (some words are missing) has acted
strictly in accordance with the recommendations and no dilution whatsoever has
been made.
6.2. After implementation of the V Pay Commission recommendations,
the demand of the Services to merge Rank Pay with Basic Pay was considered by a
Committee formed under Defence Secretary followed by another Committee under
the Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary which did not agree to the demand.
Moreover, the order of the Hon’ble Courts seem to have misinterpreted the
directions of Para 28.113 of the IV Central Pay Commission which makes it clear
that rank pay is to be deducted from the existing emoluments while calculating
revised pay of officers upto the rank of Brigadier and has to be added to after
revised pay is fixed.
6.3. Besides, the acceptance of the Hon’ble Court order dated 8th
March 2010 would also lead to subsequent changes at other places. In the
present manner, implementing the Hon’ble Court’s order re-fixation of pay of
officers entitled to rank pay would lead to revision of pay scales of
personnel above and below such officers with effect from 1-1-86 firstly and
then from 1-1-96 and 1-1-2006 and at the time of subsequent pay revisions.
Similarly, this would be carried out for pension of the retired personnel (underlined by the author of this blog for
emphasis). As there is parity in the pay scales of armed forces and other
civilian officers in certain ranks, the change over will eventually spill over
to Civilian employees which was the intention of the IV Central Pay Commission.
More so, the grant of this unintended benefit would place heavy burden on the
exchequer.
7. PAY AND ALLOWANCES
During
the last 25 years, the recommendations of various Pay Commissions have been
implemented as well as further improved upon by the Government greatly
improving pay, allowances, retirement benefits including pension and other
service conditions of all Central Government employees (emphasis by author of this blog) including
in the Armed Forces.
7.2. As an example, after the VI Central Pay Commission submitted
its report to the Government in March 2008 recommending increased pay and
allowances, the Services represented to the Government seeking common pay
scales to PBORs, re-fixing of grade pay, improvement in MSP, Assured Career
Progression (ACP) to PBORs and other matters related to pension, gratuity and
terms and conditions of service. In order to look into these issues, the Prime
Minister appointed a Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by Shri Pranab Mukherjee,
the then Minister of External Affairs to look into these demands. On the basis
of the report of the GoM, the Government agreed to grant Pay Band-4 status to
Lt. Col/equivalent officers with a Grade pay of Rs 8000/-. It was also decided
that in future, pay revision of armed forces should be de-linked from that of
civilians and a separate Board or Commission should be set up for pay revision
for the armed forces.
7.3. Even thereafter, the Government has granted HAG+ Scale (Rs
75000-80000) to 1/3rd of total strength of such officers, revised
HAG Scale (Rs 67000-79000) to all Lt Gen/equivalent officers and NCs(E)
Allowance @ Rs 1000/-p.m. to Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Indian Air
Force.
7.4. While responding to a Parliamentary Question, Services have stated
that the award of the VI Central Pay Commission had been largely well received
by all ranks. However, certain anomalies were also stated to have been raised.
These and some more demands of the Services are presently under active
consideration of the Government.
7.5. Internal
Redressal Mechanisms
To look
into the various pay and pensionary anomalies, the government has well
structured mechanisms which are as follows: -
i) (a)
Anomalies are dealt with in MoD on a case by case basis.
(b) In the Department of
Ex-Servicemen Welfare, an anomaly Committee has been constituted under the
Chairmanship of Secretary, Defence/Finance consisting of representatives of
three Services, CGDA and ESW dept.
ii) Armed
Forces tribunal (AFT): Armed Forces Tribunal has been set up exclusively to
hear the grievances of Service personnel and provides a judicial forum to sort
out any grievance related to pay, allowance and pension matters (Section 14 of
AFT Act).
8. ONE RANK, ONE PAY (PENSION?)
Out
of the grievances pertaining to pension related issues, the most important
being One Rank, One Pension (OROP). (Note:
finally MoD got that right – so much for the eulogy of its concerns for armed
forces officers). Apart from recommending liberalised pay scales, the VI
Central Pay Commission made a big change in recommending Military Service Pay
for all Armed Forces personnel – officers as well as PBORs. This has
consequently resulted in increased pension and other retirement benefits.
Higher rates of pension for all retires and family pensioners of higher age
groups have also immensely benefits the aged pensioners. Ministry of Law, when
consulted on the issue of OROP, relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of D.S. Nakara [1983 (2) SCR 165], K.L. Rathi and S.C.
Dhingra [2008 (2) SCC 229] did not recommend the demand. As the Armed Forces
pensioners still continue to raise their demand for OROP and some related
issues, the Government set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of Cabinet
Secretary to look into these matters. The Committee, taking into consideration
all the factors – financial, administrative and legal – did not find it
feasible to recommend OROP as such. However, keeping in mind the spirit of the
demand, the Committee made several other recommendations to substantively
improve pensionary benefits of the Armed Forces personnel, which have since
been accepted by the Government.
9. With this background, the matter was examined in
consultation with Ministry of Law and Ministry of Finance. The opinion of
Ministry of Finance was that 6th Central Pay Commission was headed
by a retired Judge and so also the earlier pay commissions. The Commission
looks at all categories of employees in a holistic manner and makes its
recommendations. Further, even after the Pay Commission made its
recommendations, the Govt has improved its fitment formula, the pay scales of
officers and PBORs, etc. Also, a decision has been taken that next time, the
Defence Forces will have a separate pay commission. In these circumstances,
there seems to be no need to set up an independent commission as suggested by
the Hon’ble Court.
10. The views of the Govt. were conveyed to the Ld. Solicitor
General through a brief (Encl 45A – not
included in reply) followed by discussion with him on 17.10.2010 when he
was apprised of the steps taken by the Government over last 25 years for
improving the pay, pensionary benefits and other service conditions both for
serving and retired Armed Forces personnel. But on 18.10.2010, considering the
reaction of the Hon’ble Court and in order to see that no financial prejudice
is caused to the Government by the dismissal of the recall petition, Ld
Solicitor General requested the Hon’ble Court for some more time to carry
forward the suggestion in its true spirit. Hon’ble Court has granted time till
8.11.2010 (Encl 46A – not included in
reply) and again insisted for setting up multi-member independent
Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge. Ld. Solicitor General has
now written (Encl 50A - not included in reply) a letter dated
20.10.2010 to RM requesting the matter to be examined at ‘some considerable
depth.’
11. The letter of the Ld Solicitor General clearly acknowledges
and appreciates the steps taken by the Government to look into the grievances
of the Armed Forces personnel both serving and retired. When grievances are
being looked into on a regular basis through various internal mechanisms and at
regular intervals through Pay Commissions mostly headed by retired Supreme
Court Judges, setting up such a Commission is not going to serve any useful
purpose nor bring any finality to the matter. It may also be pointed out here
that if our recall petition I.A. No. 9 is not allowed, then the effect may
follow in implementation of the matter would be enormous both financially and
administratively.
12. Further to that a meeting was held between Secretary,
Expenditure and Defence Secretary on 26th October 2010 which was
also attended by officials of the Department of Expenditure and MoD. It was
decided in the said meeting that before taking a final stand and in view of the
importance of the matter, which have huge financial and administrative
implications, Raksha Mantri will be requested to speak to Finance Minister for
a meeting and the Ld Solicitor General will also be invited to attend the said
meeting.
13. Subsequently, in the meeting of RM with FM on 28.10.10 which
was attended by the Ld Solicitor General it was decided that an affidavit may
be filed in the Court giving our consent for a single member Commission to
examine two basic issues -
i) Whether
recommendations of IV Pay Commission on Rank Pay was properly implemented or
not; and
ii) Fast
tracking the pension disbursement process.
Accordingly, a meeting was held
in the chamber of AS (M) on 1.1.2010 with representatives of Ministry of
Finance, Defence (Finance) and ESW and following TORs were finalised.
i)
To examine the correctness of the implementation of IV Central Pay Commission
recommendation related to Rank Pay as given in Para 28.113.
ii)
To make recommendations for further improvements of the procedure for pension
disbursement to retired Armed Forces personnel based on Government orders
subsequent to VI Central Pay Commission recommendations.
14. The proposed TOR was also forwarded to department of
Expenditure through Defence (Finance) for their concurrence and we have
received concurrence of the Department of Expenditure (Note 68 ante). The
proposed TOR was also shown to the Ld Solicitor general who has approved the
same making some minor changes (Encl 69A – not
included in reply). Accordingly the final TORs as approved by the Ld SG are
as follows: -
(i)
To examine the correctness of the implementation of IV CPC recommendation
related to Rank Pay as given in Para 28.113.
(ii)
To make recommendations for further improvements to the procedure for
disbursement of pension to retired Armed Forces personnel based on Govt orders
subsequent to VI CPS’s recommendations.
15. As there are no material changes, file may not be sent to
Ministry of Finance again. However, Director, Ministry of Finance has been
informed the same over telephone.
16. Submitted for
the kind approval of RM. If approved, the views of the Government will be
intimated to the Ld Solicitor General for appropriately defending our case in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The matter is urgent as the next date of hearing of
the case is on 8th November 2010.
Sd/----------------------------------
Naveen
Kumar
Director
(AG)
3.11.2010.
JS (E)
-71-
Ref
Note 70.
Para
16 above may kindly be considered.
Sd/-------------------
3.11.10
AS(M) Sd/------------
3/XI
Defence Secretary Sd/---------------
3/XI
RM Sd/------------------
4/11
Def Secy
JS (E)
Dir (AG)
-72-
Draft letter addressed to Ld Solicitor general of India is
placed opposite for approval/ sign pl.
Sd/----------------
4/XI
JS (E) Sd/---------------
4/11/10
Dir (AG) Sd/--------------
4/11/10
US (P/S)
-73-
Issue Encl
73A
-74-
Supreme Court order
dt 8.11.2010 Encl 74A
-75-
Draft Affidavit Encl
75A
Receipt letter dt 11th Nov 2010 from Ld Solicitor
General of India containing finalised
Draft Encl
76A
-77-
Lt. Col Arun
Kumar and some other Army Officers filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 268 of 2010
in the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking the benefit of the Hon’ble Order dated 8th
March 2010 passed in the matter of Rank Pay. While hearing the petition, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court suggested for setting up of a Commission headed by a
retired Supreme Court Judge to look into the grievances of the members of the
Armed Forces both serving as well as retired. The details of the case are
mentioned in Note 70/ante.
2. The case was heard again on 8th November 2010 and
the Court granted one week time (by 15th November 2010) for filing
of the affidavit. Accordingly, a draft affidavit as prepared (Encl 75A) and
shown to the Ld Solicitor General of India. Ld SG has finalised the draft
affidavit by incorporating certain changes. One of the material change is that
“An Independent Commission headed by a
Retired Judge of the Hon’ble Apex Court” has been used instead of “An Independent Single Member Commission”
as mentioned in the draft affidavit of the Ministry. Ld SG has instructed to
file the affidavit today itself. Next date of hearing is on 15th
November 2010.
3. Submitted
for the kind approval of RM. If approved, the affidavit may be filed in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Sd/-----------------------------
(Naveen
Kumar)
Director
(AG)
11.11.10
JS (E)
-78-
Ld SG has
insisted that the affidavit must be filed by 2.30 pm today.
To obviate the problem as given
above, it is proposed to change para 31 to indicate that the Commission shall
be set up by the Govt. JS (E) has been sent to Supreme Court to get comment of
Ld SG to this change.
I have spoken to Secretary
(Expenditure) who has agreed to this. She has been informed also accordingly
thru’ a letter. Defence Secretary has been consulted on phone and has agreed to
this change.
For kind approval for filing of
affidavit as revised
Sd/-----------------
AS
(M)
11/10
Defence Secretary - on leave
RM Sd/-----------11/11
-79-
Reference Note 77.
The undersigned met the SG in his
chamber and conveyed the stand taken by the Government. The amendment in the
affidavit which we propose to make was also shown to him (Para 30 of Encl 76/A –
not provided with reply.) He was in
agreement with the amendment which we proposed. However he made some changes in
the sentence which was basically in line with the amendment which we had
proposed and the prerogative, as being affirmed, lies with the Govt to appoint
the Commission. A copy of the changes he made is placed opposite for kind
perusal.
Sd/-----------------
JS
(E)
11/11/10
AS (M)
-80-
Note 77 ante onwards
refer for kind perusal. The affidavit has since been filed.
Sd/--------------
Defence Secretary
Sd/-----------------
12/11
AS (M) Sd/--------------
JS (E) Sd/--------------------
12/11
Dir (AG) Sd/-------------------
15/11
US (P/S)
-CONCLUDED-
No comments:
Post a Comment