Ref: SYS/10525/Armed Forces Dated: 3rd July 2014
To,
Shri Narendra Modi, MP
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,
5, Race Course Road,
New Delhi – 110 011
Some Issues Affecting the Armed Forces –
Serving & Retired
Meeting with Secretaries to the Government
for Removing Policy Paralysis
Dear Hon’ble Prime Minister,
Greetings
I request
the opportunity to place a few facts for your consideration in your quest for
Minimum Government and Maximum Governance as well as in the interest of making Government
officers responsible to the Public.
Background
2. The Defence Secretary must have made the
PowerPoint presentation but whether the issues mentioned in subsequent
paragraphs were brought to your attention is the reason for this letter. The
issues concern
2.1. About 45049 serving and retired officers
affected in the Rank Pay matter, out of whom only 19936 Pension
Payment Orders have been issued as admitted by MoD in rejoinder in February 2014
in Contempt Petition (C) No. 328 of 2013.
2.2. Approximately 25 lakh pensioners affected
by non-decision by the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) entrusted
by then Raksha Mantri on 26th February 2014 to furnish the
implementation order for payment of One Rank One Pension (OROP),
2.3. Approximately 35000 officers affected by
decision “to wait” on payment of Non-Functional upgradation considered by a
Committee of Secretaries headed by the Cabinet Secretary and sent to then Prime
Minister in August 2013,
2.4. About 3000 decisions of the Armed Forces
Tribunals, and Hon’ble High Courts and Supreme Court which have been challenged
by MoD in higher Courts and those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are not
implemented because the “decisions are not in agreement with Government Policy”
(Source: Times of India.)
3. The information quoted/given in
subsequent paragraphs has been obtained from Government of India websites and through
replies to applications under the RTI Act 2005 from the Ministry of Defence
(MoD), Ministry of Finance (MoF), Deptt of Expenditure (DoE), and office of
Controller General of Defence Accounts (o/o CGDA).
4. Case numbers of court judgments/orders
and file number(s) received in replies to RTI from MoD, MoF/DoE, and o/o CGDA
have been provided for easier co-relation.
Part I - Rank Pay
Matter (please see Annexure A-1
for list of references)
5. In early 1987, the then Prime Minister approved
an element called Rank Pay that would be paid to officers of the ranks of
Captains to Brigadiers (and their equivalents in the Navy and Air Force) in
addition to a higher salary recommended by the Fourth Central Pay Commission (4th
CPC) in Chapters 28 and 30 of its Report.
6. In February 1996, Major Dhanapalan
challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala (Original Petition No. 2448N of
1996) the interpretation and formula of re-fixation of pay by MoD realising
that his pay re-fixation had not been as per 4th CPC Report and Govt
of India/MoD Resolution 1-E but by a different formula based on MoD (Finance) logic.
Maj Dhanapalan found that instead of being paid Rank Pay in addition to his re-fixed
salary, an amount equal to the Rank Pay was being deducted and, by some
tortuous logic, which the MoD could not
explain to MoF (DoE) and DOP & T, that amount was being added again to make
a sum called the “re-fixed emoluments.”
7. While the case of Maj (retired at his own
request in August 1997) Dhanapalan Vs UoI/MoD was being heard by a Ld Single
Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the MoD issued Special Army
Instructions (SAI) No. 2/S/1998 (and corresponding special instructions for the
Navy and Air Force) on 19th December 1997 incorporating the impugned formula for re-fixation, now recommended by
the 5th CPC. As records have not been provided by MoF/DoE, the
coordinating department for Pay Commission issues, it is not possible to
conclude whether MoD, as the nodal ministry for Armed Forces, informed the 5th
CPC of the pending court case.
8. By this act of issuing SAI No. 2/S/98,
MoD appears to have committed Contempt of Court because the learned Single Judge issued a judgment in favour of Maj
Dhanapalan was on 5th October 1998 - a full 10 months after the
impugned SAI was issued.
9. MoD filed Writ Appeal No. 518 of 1999B
before the Hon’ble High Court’s Division Bench against the order of the Ld
Single Judge. The Division Bench sought
certain clarifications, reply to which was filed by MoD vide W.A. No. 510 of
2000. MoD did not mention issue of SAI No. 2/S/98 incorporating the impugned
formula in either of the Writ Appeals (518/1999 or 510/2000) thereby concealing
material facts from the Hon’ble Court. The Division Bench upheld Maj
Dhanapalan’s arguments on 4th July 2003, and again confirmed the judgment
of the learned Single Judge.
10. MoD
filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. (CC) 5908 of 2005 with IA No. 1 of
2005 (for condonation of delay) ignoring
the advice of the Addl Solicitor General, as revealed by reply to RTI
application. Again MoD did not mention the issue of SAI 2/S/98 in the
affidavit filed in support of SLP No. (CC) 5908 of 2005. The SLP was dismissed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the first hearing itself on 12th
July 2005. Maj (retd) Dhanapalan was paid arrears in 2006, after Defence
(Finance) admitted to MoF/DoE and DOP&T that the formula of deduction Rank
Pay before re-fixation was its own initiative .
11. MoD decided, as it has in many Court
orders concerning Armed Forces personnel, that the judgment was applicable only
to Maj (retd) Dhanapalan and each and every Officer entitled to be paid Rank
Pay has to approach the Courts for justice. So, many similarly situated officers
filed cases in different High Courts. MoD prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and had all the cases transferred to the Hon’ble Court in TP (C) No. 56
of 2007. On 8th March 2010, the Hon’ble Court finally ruled in
favour of all the Armed Forces officers eligible to be paid Rank Pay that the
amount equivalent to Rank Pay should not have been deducted and the MoD should
pay arrears with an interest of 6% per annum from 1.1.1986 i.e. the date from
which Rank Pay was authorised by the Govt of India.
12. MoD was not done with harassing the Armed
Forces officers, many who had retired, some of whom had died leaving their Next
of Kin (NoK) to fight for the dues. MoD filed an Interlocutory Application (IA)
No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 praying to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
“recall, re-hear, modify,” etc its order of 8th March 2010,
utilising recommendations of a High Powered Committee (HPC) comprising then
Defence Secretary, Secretary Expenditure, and Secretary Defence (Finance) to
impress upon the Hon’ble Court that it would entail an expenditure of Rs
1623.71 crores if the order was implemented as it would lead to re-fixation of
emoluments of Armed Forces officers for the periods of 4th, 5th
and 6th CPC. What was left unsaid was that it was the faulty
interpretation and delays in implementation by MoD that led to the
situation.
13. The SAI No. 2/S/98 was quoted in several
notes on files, in the Report of the HPC annexed to affidavit, but appears to
have been glossed over in briefs for Law Officers of the Ministry of Law &
Justice (MLJ). Solemnly sworn affidavits by officers of MoD did not reveal the
fact that it (SAI 2/S/98) was issued without permission of the Courts, though
deponent officers always stated that “nothing material has been concealed.” MoD
has admitted that this fact was not informed to the Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala vide MoD
vide F No. 35 (1)2013-D (Pay/Services) dated 26th April 2013 (Please
see Annexure A-2) and again letter
of even reference dated 19th July 2013 enclosing copies of the Writ
Applications filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala (please see Para 7 above).
14. On 4th September 2012, a Bench of
three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Hon’ble Court’s order dated
8th March 2010 with one modification i.e. the interest was to be
paid from 1.1.2006, the date when the first of several writ petitions were
filed by affected Armed Forces officers. On the statement of the Ld Solicitor
General who represented MoD, the Court also directed the UoI to complete
payment of arrears and interest within 12 weeks from 4th September 2012.
15. MoD again sought the opinion of the
Learned Solicitor General of India on whether there was further legal recourse
but received an opinion dated 17th October 2012 advising the MoD to
implement the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th September 2012 in
letter and spirit. Then MoD, by an implementation order dated 27th
December 2012, paid part of the arrears from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1995 by stating
that there was not enough clarity in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for
payment from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.2005 and re-fixation from 1.1.2006. Photocopies
of notes on MoD File No. 34(6)/2012/D (Pay/Services) and File No. 35(1)/2013/D
(Pay/Services) obtained through RTI confirm this.
16. A RTI application has revealed the fact of
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (vide MoF, DoE ID Note No.
187654/E.IIIA/2012 dated 5th July 2013 has stated that MoD for not
preparing even a draft reference on a SoC dated 2nd April 2013 furnished
by Services HQ (Reference No. Air HQ/19141/7/AFPCC). MoD forwarded the same to
the Ld Attorney General for India, again without any draft reference. The opinion
of Ld AG dated 3rd September 2013 was available to MoD immediately
thereafter.
17. Fresh orders of then Defence Minister,
Shri A K Antony on 14th June 2013 to his own Ministry to send
separate Statements of Cases (furnished by Service HQ on 25th
November 2013) for a comprehensive legal reference to the Ld Attorney General
for India did not appear to have any effect on the MoD till December 2013.
18. Please contrast this with when the
Department of Telecommunications (DoT) was not clear about the 2G judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010, the DoT filed an IA in
2012 seeking clarifications.
19. MoD could have done so too, when it filed
an IA praying for extension of time till 31st May 2013for
implementation of the Hon’ble Court’s orders of 4th September 2012,
to implement the Hon’ble Court’s order, MoD did not seek any clarifications. If
MoD had done so, the Rank Pay matter would have been clear to itself as well as
affected Officers and Veterans and Next-of-kin of deceased officers/Veterans.
20. Now the Rank Pay case is before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as Contempt Petition (C) No. 328 of 2013 in Lt Col N.K.
Nair & Anr Vs UoI. Defence Secretary and CGDA are now Co-Contemnors,
impleaded under instructions on 31st March 2014 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court Bench presided over by Justice (now Chief Justice of India) Shri
R M Lodha.
21. In reply to an RTI application, MoD’s Dir
(AG-I) intimated vide F No. 35(1)/2013-D (Pay/Services) dated 12th
December 2013 (Annexure A-3) that
“……In this connection it is stated that the Rank Pay matter after opinion of Ld
AG dated 3.9.2013 is under consideration in MoD in consultation with CGDA,
Defence (Finance) and MoF” and is signed by Shri Praveen Kumar, then Director
(AG-I). Whether MoD will take action with the same alacrity as it did in
(General) Vijay Kumar Singh Vs UoI in Writ Petition (C) No. 26 of 2012 in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is a subject of speculation.
Part II - MoD’s Appeals
against decisions and orders of Armed Forces Tribunals, High Courts, and Supreme
Court
22. MoD (Pension/Legal) issued, with alacrity,
an order vide MoD I. D. No. 1(11)/2013/D(Pension/Legal) dated 2nd
January 2014 to HQ of Army, Navy and Air Force to file appeals without the necessity
to refer the matter to MoD. After Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Hon’ble MP wrote
to Raksha Mantri on 28th January 2014, this ID was withdrawn and
communicated to the Hon’ble MP vide D. O. No. 2(1)/2014/D(Pension/Legal) dated
8th February 2014.
23. Information available indicates that MoD
has filed appeals in about 3000 cases decided by Armed Forces Tribunals (AFTs)
in High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court such as NANA (Not Attributable, Nor Aggravated by Service) in CA
No. 4949 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) 6940 of 2010 have been
challenged/appealed against. It may be known that AFTs were set up to reduce
Armed Forces personnel appealing/filing cases in High Courts and Hon’ble
Supreme Court. But by filing appeals the MoD has willy-nilly dragged the litigants
to these Higher Courts. Till recently MoD, the primary respondent, had not
empowered AFTs with powers of Civil Contempt for wilful disobedience of
decisions. MoD admitted in a PIL (Civil Writ Petition No. 27324 of 2013
(O&M) dated 19th May 2014) in the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana that AFTs could resort to action under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure
Code 1908, but it has not been notified in
the Rules.
Part III - One Rank One Pension (OROP)
For
24. Another issue is of One Rank One Pension (OROP)
for Armed Forces officers. MoD has given, more like alms, to officers who
retired before 1.1.2006, a pension parity which is nowhere near the pension of
equivalent ranks who have retired after 1.1.2006. On the other hand, the MoD
has given OROP to Armed Forces personnel other than officers, this creating a
schism that is being exploited by many demoralising many who have always placed
their lives at the service of the Nation.
Please Read
24. Another issue is of One Rank One Pension
(OROP) for Armed Forces personnel. MoD has given more like alms, to personnel
who retired before 1.1.2006, a pension parity which is nowhere near the pension
of equivalent ranks who have retired after 1.1.2006, demoralising many who have
always placed their lives at the service of the Nation.
Part IV - Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU)
25. The third issue is that the Central
Services have conferred n themselves the Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU).
Simply put, if a bureaucrat is promoted and the rest of his batch lags behind
for whatever reason, for 2 years, the rest of the batch would be paid the NFU,
which will bring up their remuneration to the same level as that promoted
officer. It is not extended to the Armed Forces, as the MoD, despite the report
of the Cabinet Secretary’s Committee (without a single member of the Armed
Forces), has “decided to wait.” An application under RTI drew this laconic
reply and an appeal fared no better (please see Annexure B).
26. The pyramidal structure of Armed Forces arrived at
from the sanctioned strength of the Army, Navy, and Air Force is placed below.
It clearly brings out that only 0.82, 0.68 and 0.75% of officers reach the rank
of Maj Gen/R Adm/AVM in the Army, Navy and Air Force respectively. Only 0.005%
reaches the top of the pyramid. It may not be out of place to see that NFU is an imperative
given the stagnation that takes place in the Armed Forces as may be seen from
the following table (source: College
of Defence Management): -
PYRAMIDAL RANK STRUCTURE IN THE
ARMED FORCES
|
||||||||
Nos
|
ARMY
|
NAVY
|
AIR FORCE
|
TOTAL
|
||||
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
|
Gen
|
1
|
0.005
|
1
|
0.005
|
1
|
0.005
|
3
|
0.005
|
Lt Gen
|
90
|
0.25
|
20
|
0.23
|
20
|
0.24
|
140
|
0.25
|
Maj Gen
|
295
|
0.82
|
60
|
0.68
|
74
|
0.59
|
429
|
0.75
|
Brig
|
1117
|
3.12
|
273
|
3.10
|
211
|
1.69
|
1601
|
2.80
|
Col
|
4762
|
13.29
|
547
|
6.21
|
872
|
6.97
|
6181
|
10.82
|
Lt Col
|
9996
|
27.91
|
2724
|
30.93
|
3840
|
30.70
|
16560
|
28.98
|
Major
|
10007
|
27.94
|
2476
|
28.11
|
3915
|
31.29
|
16398
|
28.70
|
Capt
|
6333
|
17.68
|
1304
|
14.80
|
2576
|
20.59
|
10213
|
17.87
|
Lt
|
3218
|
8.98
|
1403
|
15.93
|
991
|
7.92
|
5612
|
9.82
|
Total
|
35819
|
100
|
8808
|
100
|
12510
|
100
|
57137
|
100
|
27. And the following comparison with IAS, IPS,
and Gp A would provide the NFU in the correct perspective: -
Cadre Strength: IAS/IPS/Gp A
& DEFENCE FORCES (Officers)
|
||||||||
Apex Scale
|
HAG+
|
HAG
|
SAG
|
JAG
|
STS
|
JTS
|
Total
|
|
IAS
|
252
|
897
|
1489
|
1569
|
458
|
581
|
5246
|
|
IPS
|
54
|
202
|
489
|
496
|
1328
|
2151
|
4720
|
|
Gp A
|
20
|
29
|
331
|
1771
|
3506
|
4307
|
4296
|
14260
|
Defence
|
26
|
39
|
78
|
429
|
40740
|
10213
|
5612
|
57137
|
Part V - Medical Facilities in Emergency when on holiday/tourism
abroad
28. Veterans, who proceed abroad to visit
their children/tourism and fall ill, cannot avail medical facilities abroad and
be re-imbursed under the Ex-Servicemen’s Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS). But
on the other hand one read in the newspapers that bureaucrats are entitled to
proceed abroad for medical treatment, with family in tow, with all expenses paid
for by the Government of India.
Request
29. Please extend your kindness to have these
issue examined as Armed Forces personnel – retired and serving – look to you for
solutions to these pending and other outstanding issues.
Yours truly,
(S Y Savur)
Encl: Annexures
ANNEXURE – A-1
List of References
1. Fourth Central Pay
Commission (4th CPC) Report – Chapters 28 and 30
2. Government of India,
MoD Resolution No. 1E dated 18th March 1987 approving 4th
CPC Report relevant to Armed Forces
3. Special Army
Instructions No. 1/S/87 (and corresponding instructions for Navy and Air Force)
on methodology of implementation of the Resolution 9E
4. Original Petition (OP) No. 2448N of 1996
filed by Capt (later Major retired) A K Dhanapalan vs. UoI in the Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam challenging the impugned methodology of deduction
of Rank Pay for re-fixation
5. Fifth CPC report dated 30th
January 1997 including Para 147 and 148 describing the impugned methodology
challenged by Maj A K Dhanapalan with illustrations
6. Resolution No.
50(1)/IC/97 of the Govt of India dated 30th September 1997
7. Special Army
Instruction No. 2/S/1998 dated 19th December 1997 incorporating the
impugned methodology of deduction of Rank Pay for re-fixation
8. Judgment of the Ld Single Judge of the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 5th October 1998 upholding the
challenge of Maj (now retd) A K Dhanapalan
9. Writ Appeal No. 518
of 1999 filed by UoI before Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala
against the judgment of Ld Single Judge
10. Writ Appeal No. 510
of 2000 filed by UoI in providing clarifications to queries by Hon’ble High
Court
11. Judgement of Division Bench of Hon’ble
High Court dated 4th July 2003 upholding judgment of the Ld Single
Judge
12. Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No. 5908 and
IA No. 1 for condonation of delay dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12th
July 2005
13. Order dated 8th March 2010 in
Transfer Petition (C) No. 56 of 2007 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the
judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala
14. Opinion of the Ld Solicitor General dated
31st March 2010 to file Interlocutory Application No 9 of 2010 for
“recall, re-hearing, modification...” of order dated 8th March 2010
15. Report of High Powered Committee date 7th
April 2010 on financial implications of implementing order of Hon’ble Court
dated 8th March 2010
16. Order dated 4th September 2012
in IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 upholding its order of 8th
March 2010 with one modification – interest on arrears to be paid from 1.1.2006
instead of 1.1.1986
17. Opinion of Ld Solicitor General dated 17th
October 2012 (Encl 13A of MoD File No. 34(6)/2012/D(Pay/Services) advising MoD
against filing any further petition and also to implement the order dated 4th
September 2012 in letter and spirit
18. MoD No. 34 (6)/2012/D (Pay/Services) dated
27th December 2012 for implementation of the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court
19. Objections by
Service HQ dated 18th January 2013 sent to Hon’ble Raksha Mantri
20. Statement of Case
(SoC) from Service HQ dated 2nd April 2013 for opinion of Ld
Attorney General on the orders of the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri
21. Opinion of the Ld
Attorney General dated 3rd September 2013 upholding two of the four
issues in the SoC of Service HQ
vide MLJ
No. AG QW/2013-ADV. ‘C” DT. 1408.2013 & AG Dy. No. 325/AG/OPIN DT 14.8.2013
22. MoD File Numbers
34(11)/2010/D (Pay/Services), 34(6)/2012/D(Pay/Services and 35 (1)/2013/D
(Pay/Services)
23. MoD letter F No.
35(1)/2013/D (Pay/Services) dated 12th December 2013
* * * * *
ANNEXURE - A-2
F. No. 35(1) 2013-D
(Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 26th
April, 2013
To,
Shri S. Y. Savur,
141, Jal Vayu Towers,
NGEF Layout,
Indira Nagar (PO),
Bangalore – 560038
Subject: Your letter No. SYS/RTI/MoD/2013 dt 15.04.2013
Sir,
This is with reference to your request
for information No. SYS/RTI/MoD/2013 dt. 15.04.2013 received in this office on
18.04.2013.
2.
The para-wise information as sought by you is
as under: -
(i)
The information sought does not exist in D
(Pay/Services) records.
(ii)
The information sought does not exist in D
(Pay/Services) records.
(iii)
The reasons which are not available on record
have been sought and as such they cannot be supplied.
(iv)
Not applicable in view of (i) above.
(v)
The information sought does not exist in D
(Pay/Services) records.
(vi)
Not applicable in view of (v) above.
(vii)
The information sought does not exist in D
(Pay/Services) records.
(viii) The
information sought does not exist in D (Pay/Services) records.
(ix)
No
reference was made to SAI/SNI/SAFI 2/S/98 of 19th December 1997 in
Memorandum of Writ Appeal and Additional Affidavit filed therein. Copies of
these documents are enclosed herewith. Information on the background of the
decision not to inform the High Court cannot be given as it is not available on
records of D (Pay/Services) (emphasis supplied).
(x)
No other information apart from what has
already been provided to you exists in this matter.
The Service Hqrs also
submit their demands to the Pay Commissions. You may also like to take up the
matter with them to seek the relevant information from their side/records.
3.
In case you are not satisfied with the reply
you may appeal to Shri Praveen Kumar, Director (AG-I), Ministry of Defence,
Room No. 103, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
4.
With reference to para 4 of your letter No.
SYS/RTI/MoD/2013 dt 16.04.2013 received on 26.04.2013 in this office it is
stated that while the contents of the file are not normally numbered
sequentially, sometimes the papers in the file are not numbered for various
reasons. No action, therefore, is left to be taken in this regard on MoD part.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/------------
(P. S. Walia)
Under Secretary &
CPIO
Encls: as above
////TRUE TYPED COPY\\\\
ANNEXURE
– A-3
Reply: Received on 08
Jan 2014
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
No. 35(1)/2013/D
(Pay/Services) New Delhi,
the 12th December 2013
ORDER
Subject: Appeal under Section 19 of
RTI Act, 2005 filed by S. Y. Savur
Reference is invited to online Appeal
forwarded by D(RTI) section vide No. MODEF/A/2013/60073/D(RTI) dated 21.11.2013
(recd. On 25.11.2013) filed by Shri S Y Savur against
non-response within the time limit by CPIO of MoD to his RTI application dated
11.10.2013 regarding decision of MoD to implement or not to implement the
opinion of Ld Attorney General of India dated 3.9.2013 given in the Rank Pay
case.
2. I have considered the aforesaid appeal on
the basis of the facts submitted by the appellant and comments furnished by the
CPIO of MoD. It is stated that your RTI request dated 11.10.2013 (received on
17.10.2013) has already been considered in the section and reply has already
been sent to you on 14.11.2013 which may have been received by you now.
3. The appeal is, thus, not maintainable
against the CPIO of MoD. However, a copy of MoD reply dated 14.11.2013 is again
sent to you for information. It is further stated that your RTI application
dated 25.10.2013 has also been transferred to this section by MoF. In this connection it is stated that the
Rank Pay matter after opinion of Ld AG dated 3.9.2013 in under consideration in
MoD in consultation with CGDA, Defence (Finance) and MoF (emphasis
supplied).
Sd/--------------------------
(Praveen
Kumar)
Director
(AG-I) & Appellate Authority
Copy of this order be
supplied to: - Shri S Y Savur, 141 Jal Vayu Towers, NGEF Layout, Indira Nagar
(PO), Bangalore – 560038
////TRUE TYPED COPY\\\\
* * * * * *
ANNEXURE
- B
No. 35 (11)/2013/D (Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New
Delhi, the 8th October, 2013
To,
Shri S Y Savur,
141, Jal Vayu Towers,
N G E F Layout,
Indira Nagar (PO),
Bangalore – 560038
Subject: Information sought under RTI
Act 2005 – Non Functional Upgradation
Sir,
This
is with reference to your application dated 4.9.2013 (received on 17.9.2013)
and dated 23.9.2013 (recd on 27.9.2013) and two applications sent via internet
dated 8.9.2013 received from D (RTI) section vide MoD ID No. MODEF/R/2013/(60351/60352)/D
(RTI) dated 11.9.2013 on the above subject.
2. The issue of Non Functional Upgradation to personnel of the
Armed Forces was one of the five issues relating to service personnel which
were considered by the Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary. The Committee
submitted its Report to the Prime Minister. It is stated that the recommendations on pay related issues of the
report of the Committee have been further examined in Ministry of Defence and
it has been still decided to wait (emphasis supplied).
3. If you are not satisfied with the information provided you may
write to the Appellate Authority, Shri Praveen Kumar, Director (AG-I), Ministry
of Defence, Room No. 102, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi within 30 days.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-----------------------
(P. S. Walia)
Under Secretary & CPIO
////TRUE TYPED COPY\\\\
* * * * *
Track Result for:EK512142985IN
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Detailed
Track Events For EK512142985IN
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment