BY REGD POST-ACK
DUE
Article No. RK 193806899IN dated 04 Aug 14
Non-Delivery
complaint No. 100058-31786 dated 13 Aug 14
4th
August, 2014
Shri Mukul Rohatgi,
Learned Attorney General for India,
Attorney General’s Chambers,
Supreme Court of India,
Tilak Marg,
New Delhi
– 110 001
Subject: Reference
for the Consideration of Ld Attorney General for India
Implementation
of Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.09.2012 in
I. A. No. 9 of
2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007
Union of India (MoD) & Ors Vs. Lt Col
(retd) N K Nair & Ors
List of Annexures
Text of Reference
|
1-20
|
|
Annexure
|
Subject
|
Page No.
|
A
|
Chapter 28 of the Report of 4th
CPC relevant to Pay and integrated scale for Armed Forces officers
|
21-24
|
B
|
Chapter 30 of the Report of 4th
CPC on fixation methodology for civilian and Armed Forces officers
|
25
|
C
|
Govt of India Resolution 9E
dated 18.3.1987 making improvements in integrated scale of pay for Armed
Forces officers
|
26-28
|
D
|
Special Army Instructions No.
1/S/1987 – portions applicable to issue under reference
|
29-33
|
E
|
Note 81 of MoD file No. No.
B/25511/AKDP/AG/PS-3(a) dated 27.02.2004
|
34-35
|
F
|
Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing Special Leave to
Appeal No. (CC) 5908 of 2005 in Union of
India & Ors Vs. Maj A K Dhanapalan
|
36-37
|
G
|
1.
Note 88 on MoD File No.
B/25511/AKDP/AG/PS-3(a)/D(Pay/Services) dated 25.06.2004 in reply to
2.
DOP&T
UO No. 1/2/2004-Estt (Pay-I) dated 31.05.04
3. Para 4.2(c) of GoI
(Transaction of Business Rules 1961 as amended)
|
38
39
40-41
|
H
|
Order dated 08.03.2010 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2007 in UoI
& Ors Vs. Lt Col N K Nair & others and tagged cases
|
42-44
|
J
|
Order dated 04.09.2012 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interlocutory Application No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C)
No. 56 of 2007 in UoI & Ors Vs Lt Col Nair & Others
|
45-52
|
K
|
Opinion & Advice dated
17.10.2012 of then Ld Solicitor General to implement order of the Hon’ble Court
dated 4.9.2012
|
53-58
|
L
|
Implementation Order of MoD dated 27.12.2012
|
59-62
|
M
|
Order dated 11.3.2013 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA No. 11 of 2013 in IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No.
56 of 2007
|
63
|
N
|
Calculations by O/o CGDA UO No.
AT/I/1483-Army/X dated 06.04.2010 Annexures B-2, B-3 and B-4
|
64-67
|
O
|
Emoluments of Maj Dhanapalan
pre-1.1.1986 and post order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala calculated by
CGDA - Page 290 of O/o CGDA reference No. CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/1/1063 dated
26.06.2013
|
68-69
|
P
|
DO letter from Chairman CoSC
& CAS to Hon’ble Raksha Mantri listing four anomalies in Para 4 in a DO letter No. PC-4-PA/5437 dated 18.1.2013
|
70-73
|
Q
|
MoF, DoE ID Note No. 187654/E.IIIA/2012 dated 5.07.2013
|
74
|
R
|
Opinion of then Learned Attorney General dated 3.10.2013
|
75-89
|
S
|
Government of India, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel &
Training) O. M No. 1/2/86-Estt.(
Pay-I) issued at New Delhi
on the 10th April, 1987
|
90-91
|
T
|
O/o CGDA No.
CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/II/1250 dated 26.11.2013 and UO Note No. AT/I/1483-Army/X
(PC)/V dated 26.11.2013
|
92-95
|
U
|
MoD F. No. 35(1) 2013 –the 26th April, 2013
|
96
|
V
|
MoD corrigenda Reference No. 34 (10)/2013/D(Pay/Services)
dated 24.7.2014
|
97-99
|
Dear Learned Attorney General for India,
I take courage
in my hands in writing this reference on behalf of about thousands of similarly
situated retired officers of the Armed Forces officers and widows as well as Next-of-Kin
of deceased officers.
2. I write this reference inspired by your words, “Transparency
is the antithesis of arbitrariness…..transparency is an important principle
behind executive decision making….” (Times of India, 20th June 2014). Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde has written in
his article titled ‘How to Choose a Judge’, that “….men with long careers as
government pleaders have, on the bench, proved to be very good at demonstrating
government’s chicanery from official files” (source: Deccan Herald, Bangalore
edition, 20.07.2014). I also take heart in the words of Senior Advocate Rajeev
Dhavan, “the Ld Attorney General for India is the conscience keeper of
the Government” (Daily Mail, 5th May 2013).
3. In this reference, I request the liberty to place before you
truthful documented facts in support of the sustained and prolonged search
for justice. In an endeavour to make this reference as concise and cogent as
possible, wherever photocopies or printouts of voluminous documents obtained
through RTI requests/applications have not been attached, I have quoted File,
UO, and ID Note reference numbers and dates. The documented facts quoted hereinafter
have been obtained from
(a) The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala,
(b) The website of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
(c) Replies to requests for information
under the RTI Act 2005 to Ministry of Defence (MoD), MoD/Finance (MoD/Fin), Ministry
of Finance (MoF), Department of Expenditure (DoE), and Controller General of
Defence Accounts (CGDA), and
(d) Opinion dated 03.09.2013 of then Learned
Attorney General for India,
Shri Goolam E Vahanvati.
4th Central Pay
Commission Recommendations and Govt of India Resolution 9 E
4. The 4th Central Pay Commission (4th CPC)
recommended 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 the revised pay. The recommendations by 4th
CPC for the Officers of Armed Forces contained in Chapter 28 (Annexure ‘A’) are,
inter alia,
(a) In Chapter 28.10 to 28.24 and 28.113 and
Annex 28.1 thereof.
(b) Para
28.13 has details of Rank Pay (of Rs 200 to Rs 1200) for officers of the ranks
of Capt to Brig & equivalents in Navy and Air Force,
(c) In Para 28.15, the 4th CPC
has stated “The integrated pay scale recommended by us covers a span of 28
years” of the integrated scale of pay (emphasis supplied). The
table at Annex 28.1 to Para 28.113 also
indicates this 28 year span of the integrated scale of pay.
5. The method of re-fixation for Government’s civilian
employees as well as Armed Forces personnel are in Chapter 30 of the 4th
CPC Report (Annexure ‘B’).
6. The Government of India accorded approval to the
Recommendations of the 4th CPC vide Resolution 9E dated 18.3.1987 (Annexure
‘C’) with two changes: -
(a) The integrated scale of pay was improved
to Rs 2300-100-3900-150-5100, (effectively reducing the time span of the
integrated scale of pay from 28 years to 24 years), and
(b) The Rank Pay of a Major was improved from
Rs. 400 to Rs. 600.
Special Army Instructions
(SAI) No. 1/S/1987 dated 25.3.1987 and corresponding Special Instructions for
the Navy (SNI) and Air Force (SAFI).
7. To implement Resolution 9E, MoD promulgated an implementing
order titled Special Army Instructions (SAI) No. 1/S/1987 dated 25.3.1987 (relevant
portions at Annexure ‘D’) and corresponding Special Instructions for the
Navy (SNI) and Air Force (SAFI). The SAI/SNI/SAFI formalised in Para 6 (a) (ii) the methodology of deduction of Rank Pay
as follows: -
“(ii) After
the existing emoluments have been so increased, an amount equivalent to the
rank pay, if any, appropriate to the rank held by the officer on 01 January
1986 at the rates prescribed in para 3 (a) (ii) above, will be deducted .
Thereafter, the officer’s pay will be fixed in the revised scale at the stage
next above the amount thus computed. In case the stage of pay falls below the
minimum pay of the rank held by the officer as on 01 January 1986 as prescribed
in the tables below, the pay will be stepped up to such minimum provided the
officer has completed the length of reckonable commissioned service as
indicated in the same table: -
Rank Minimum Pay in Completed
the Integrated years of
Scale Commissioned
Service
(aa) Officers
of all Arms and Services except AMC, ADC, RVC and MNS: -
Lt 2500 2
Capt 2800 5
Maj 3400 11
Lt
Col (Selection) 3900 16
Col 4500 20
Brig 4950 23…..
Major (retd) A K Dhanapalan Vs
UoI & Concept of 'Finality of Judgment’
8. In February 1996, Capt (later Major (retd) became aware of/that
(a) MoD’s misinterpretation and its formula
of deducting an amount equal to the rank pay before re-fixation of pay in the newly
recommended integrated pay scale by MoD.
(b) Capt (later Major) Dhanapalan’s pay
re-fixation had neither been as per 4th CPC Report & Recommendations
nor the Govt of India/MoD Resolution 9-E but by a different formula devised
by MoD and issued in SAI No. 1/S/1987.
(c) Instead of being paid Rank Pay in
addition to Capt (later Major) Dhanapalan’s re-fixed salary, an amount
equal to the Rank Pay was deducted and added again to make a sum called the
“revised emoluments” by some inexplicable logic.
9. Capt (later Major) Dhanapalan challenged the methodology in
the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (Original Petition No. 2448N
of 1996) in February 1996. The case chronology is as follows: -
(a) In O. P. No. 2448 of 1996, the learned
Single Judge issued a judgment in favour of (now Maj retired) Dhanapalan on
5.10.1998.
(b) MoD filed Writ Appeal No. 518 of
1999B in O.P. No. 2448 of 1996 before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble
High Court against the order of the Ld Single Judge.
(c) The Division Bench sought certain
clarifications from MoD. The reply to which was filed by MoD vide W. A. No. 510
of 2000. The Division Bench upheld the judgment of the Ld Single Judge on
04.07.2003.
(d) 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 then Addl Solicitor General, (as revealed by reply to another
RTI application) vide Note 81 in MoD File No. B/25511/AKDP/AG/PS-3(a)
dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure ‘E’).
(e) The SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the first hearing itself on 12.07.2005 (Annexure ‘F’.)
(f) The case (of Maj (retd) Dhanapalan
Vs UoI) attained finality when Maj (retd) Dhanapalan was paid arrears after
the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal on 12.7.2005.
(g) Therefore, Maj (retd) Dhanapalan Vs
UoI case that commenced with O. P. No. 2448 of 1996, attained
`interest Republicae ut sit finis litium' to quote Mr Justice Dalveer
Bhandari and Mr Justice H L Dattu of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and their order in
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India & Ors (Source: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1356184/)
with dismissal of SLP (CC) No. 5908 of 2005 on 12.7.2005.
10. Maj (retd) Dhanapalan’s pay in the integrated scale re-fixed
and he was paid arrears from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1995) in 2006. In the process
MoD admitted that the formula of deduction Rank Pay before re-fixation
was its own initiative in Note 88 on MoD File No.
B/25511/AKDP/AG/PS-3(a)/D(Pay/Services) dated 25.06.2004 in reply to
MoF/DoE and DOP&T UO No. 1/2/2004-Estt (Pay-I) dated 31.05.04 (Annexures
‘G-1’ & ‘G-2’).
11. Both documents clearly bring out that neither DoP&T nor MoF/DoE,
whose approval was necessary under Para 4.2(c) of GoI (Transaction of
Business Rules 1961 as amended) (Annexure G-3), were aware of the
methodology i.e. deduction or rank pay from revised emoluments and then adding
the rank pay to the reduced amount. It would not be out of place to mention
that approval of the Cabinet for recommendations of Central Pay Commissions is
processed by MoF/DoE.
Union of India & Others Vs. Lt Col
(retd) N K Nair & Others
12. Other Armed Forces officer-claimants, on being informed by
MoD that the judgment was applicable only to Maj (retd) Dhanapalan, approached several
High Courts for justice. MoD compelled the similarly situated Armed Forces
officers, many of who had retired and are senior citizens, and NoK of those of
whom had died to fight for their legitimate dues at their own cost.
13. MoD prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and had all the
cases transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Transfer Petition (Civil)
No. 56 of 2007 came into existence. The litigants in TP (C) No. 56 of
2007 (and the subsequent I. A. No. 9 of 2010 are UoI & Ors Vs Lt Col N K
Nair & Others.
14. The chronology of this case, which is not ‘Major
Dhanapalan case,’ is as follows: -
(a) In its order in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007, the Hon’ble Court, on 08.03.2010 (Annexure ‘H’) ruled in favour of all the litigant Armed Forces officers stating, inter alia,
“We have carefully perused the judgment dated 5.10.1998 of the learned Single Judge as well as judgment dated 4.7.2003 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala and we respectfully agree with the reasoning given therein for grant of rank pay retrospectively from 1.1.1986. We also direct interest to be paid thereon at 6% p.a. Accordingly, these writ petitions as well as the transferred writ petitions are allowed” (emphasis supplied).
(b) MoD then filed an Interlocutory
Application (I. A.) No. 9 of 2010 (settled
by then Ld Solicitor General Shri Gopal Subramanium) 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, citing recommendations of a High
Powered Committee (HPC) comprising then Defence Secretary, Secretary (Expenditure)
MoF, and Secretary Defence (Finance) to impress upon the Hon’ble Court that it
would entail an expenditure of Rs 1623.71 crore 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.
(c) On 4th September 2012, a
Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Hon’ble Court’s
earlier order dated 8th March 2010 as follows (Annexure
‘J’): -
We have heard Mr. R.F.
Nariman, learned Solicitor General of India and Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned
senior counsel for the respondents.
2.
On thoughtful consideration of the entire matter, we are satisfied that
the order dated March 8, 2010 does not require any modification or variation,
save and except the interest part.
3. As regards interest, on totality of the
circumstances including the circumstance that Special Leave Petition arising
from the judgment dated July 4, 2003 in the matter of Major A. K. Dhanapalan was
dismissed by this Court in August, 2005 and the Kerala High Court had not
ordered payment of interest on the arrears of pay, we direct that the interest
shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondents @ 6% p.a. from January 1,
2006 instead of January 1, 1986. It is clarified that this order shall govern
all similarly situated officers who have not approached the court and also
those who have filed Writ Petitions which are pending before various High Courts/Armed
Forces Tribunal.
4. We
record and accept
the statement of the
learned Solicitor General that arrears of pay
with interest, as
directed above, shall be
paid to the concerned officers expeditiously and positively within twelve
weeks from today (emphasis supplied).
5. I.A. No. 9 of 2010 stands disposed of
accordingly.”
MoD Process of
Implementing the Hon’ble Court’s
Order dated 04.09.2012
15. Despite the assurances of the Ld Solicitor General to have
the process completed within 12 weeks from 04.09.2012, MoD, after prolonged
discussions with O/o CGDA and MoF/DoE, issued an implementation order on the
last day of the 12 weeks i.e. 27.12.2012 (Annexure ‘L’).
16. The process that preceded the issue of the order dated
27.12.2012 (according to information obtained under the RTI Act 2005) indicates
that MoD, the administrative ministry was over-ruled by the O/o CGDA’s opinion that
there was not enough clarity in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court” for
restoration of deduction of Rank Pay from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.2005 and
re-fixation from 1.1.2006, despite affidavits to the contrary, solemnly sworn
and submitted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, MoD ordered that arrears
be paid for the period from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1995.
17. MoD could have sought clarifications by filing an I.A. if, as
CGDA stated, there was a lack of clarity in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders
of 08.03.2010 and 04.09.2012. But, though MoD filed I.
A. No 11 of 2013 it was for extension of time to implement the Hon’ble Court’s
order dated 04.09.2012.
18. MoD obtained an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated
11.3.2013 (Annexure ‘M’) allowing an extension of time till 31st
May 2013 for implementation of the Hon’ble Court’s orders of 4th
September 2012. MoD, inspite of the perceived lack of clarity, did not seek
any clarifications.
19. Please contrast this with the Department of Telecommunications
(DoT), which, not being clear about the 2G judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010, filed an I. A. in 2012 seeking clarifications
so that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order could be implemented in letter and
spirit.
20. At this stage the facts germane to this reference are reiterated:
-
(a) The top of the integrated pay scale
affects only officers of the ranks of senior Lt Colonels, Colonels and
Brigadiers (and equivalents) as shown in calculations by O/o CGDA in Annexures
B-2, B-3 and B-4 of CGDA UO No. AT/I/1483-Army/X dated 06.04.2010 (Annexure
‘N’). The ibid Annexures clearly indicate the following: -
(i) In Annexure B/2 – given the
integrated scale of pay from 1.1.1986 a Lt Col starts to stagnate at the top of
Rs 5100 within 3 years. He then gets decreasing amounts of benefits from Rs 600
to Rs 50 against a Rank Pay of Rs 800 from MoD’s interpretation of the orders
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(ii) In Annexure B-3 – given the
integrated scale of pay from 1.1.1986, a Col
stagnates at the top of Rs 5100 in the second year of and gets decreasing
amounts of benefit from Rs 300 to 150 against a Rank Pay of Rs 1000 from MoD’s
interpretation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(iii) In Annexure
B-4 – the top of the integrated scale of pay on 1.1.1986, a Brig has
already stagnated at Rs 5100, and gets no benefit against a Rank Pay of Rs 1200
from MoD’s interpretation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, the Brig does not get even the 20% increase over pre-revised
benefits approved by Resolution 9E, let
alone Rank Pay.
(b) Major Dhanapalan retired as a Major on
31.8.1997 at his own request and his pay was fixed at Rs 3200 on 1.1.1986. (Page
290 of O/o CGDA reference No. CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/1/1063 dated 26.06.2013 in reply
to a RTI request (Annexure ‘O’). It clearly indicates that Maj
Dhanapalan was nowhere near the top of the integrated scale of pay of Rs 5100.
(c) Therefore Maj Dhanapalan
(i) being a Major, his pay was fixed
according to his rank.
(ii) Neither was eligible to be paid
the re-fixed, at the top of the integrated scale of pay, amount of Rs 5100,
(iii) Nor could Maj Dhanapalan raise this
matter in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in his Original Petition No.
2448 of 1996 or in any subsequent judicial proceedings arising out of the ibid
Original Petition.
(d) Contrary to the assertions of the O/o
CGDA and MoD that the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Ld
Single Judge and the Ld Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court actually dismissed Union of India’s Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) CC 5908/2005 on 12.7.2005 in the case of UoI Vs Maj Dhanapalan
and attained finality of judgment at this stage.
(f) UoI did not file either a Review
Petition or a Curative Petition against the judgments (of Maj Dhanapalan vs
UoI).
(g) In TP (C)
No. 56 of 2007 and the subsequent I. A. No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007,
orders in the Maj Dhanapalan Vs UoI case were never challenged/brought into
question in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(h) O/o CGDA, MoF/DoE or MoD stating in the
reference that the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala’s orders and have misled even then learned Attorney General for India, Mr
Goolam E Vahanvati.
Statement of Case (SoC)
furnished by Service HQ for Ld Attorney General for India
21. After a detailed perusal of the MoD’s implementing order
dated 27.12.2012, Services HQ recommended resolution of four anomalies listed in
Para 4 in a DO letter No. PC-4-PA/5437 dated 18.1.2013 (Annexure ‘P’) from
the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee (CoSC) & Chief of Air Staff (CAS)
to the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri.
22. The Hon’ble Raksha Mantri directed Service HQ to furnish a
Statement of Case (SoC) for reference to and for legal opinion of then Ld
Attorney General for India
(Shri Goolam E Vahanvati). Services HQ furnished the SoC, (reference No. Air
HQ/19141/7/AFPCC dated 02.4.2013), with numerical illustrations, for the
consideration of then Learned Attorney General and sent it to his office
thorough proper channels i.e. MoD. This SoC comprising the following four
issues, and was sent by MoD to O/o CGDA and MoD (Finance) for comments: -
(a) Issue (Query) I – As on 1.1.1986
vs. With Effect from 1.1.1986
The factual
position being as follows:-
(i) In implementing the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order
dated 4.9.2012 by MoD in its order dated 27.12.2012 substituted the words in
the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court “with effect from 1.1.1986”
with “as on 1.1.1986” for.
(ii) Service HQ opined that by doing so, MoD created
two classes of officers in the same rank – those who were in the ranks of Capt
to Brig as on 1.1.1986 getting the benefit of the Hon’ble Court’s order and
Rank Pay appropriate to the rank and those who would be promoted to the ranks
of Capt to Brig on or after 2.1.1986 being denied Rank Pay.
(iii) By using the term “w.e.f. 1.1.1986”
the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s verdict would be complied with and Rank Pay would
be continuous process for officers already in the ranks of Capt to Brig &
equivalents as well as those who would be promoted to those ranks thereafter.
(b) Issue (Query) II – Was there a Minimum
of Pay for Each Rank in the recommendations of the 4th CPC.
The factual
position being as follows: -
(i) Though CGDA and MoD asserted to the contrary
quoting the Annexe 28.1 to Para 28.113, the 4th
CPC did not recommend a minimum of pay for each rank. The 4th CPC
provided a table in its Report at Annex to Para
28.113 but that visualised two aspects
(aa) An annual increment of Rs 100 from Rs 2300
to Rs 5000 (Para 28.113 and Annex 28.1.), and
(ab) The table (placed as illustration by 4th
CPC at Annex 28.1 to Para 28.113) was for 28 years span of service from Lt to
Brig (Para 28.15).
(ac) SAI No. 1/S/1987, in para 6 (a) (ii)
introduced a minimum pay for each rank, and
(ad) In the ibid para, MoD also indicated the
completed reckonable service for each rank. It may be noted that completed
reckonable service for rank of Brig (and equivalent) is 23 years i.e. one year
before he/they attain top of the integrated scale.
(c) Issue (Query) III – Increase in the
top of the Integrated Scale by the extent of restored Rank Pay.
The factual
position being as follows: -
(i) MoD admitted that it had deducted Rank
Pay before revising the pay (Annexure ‘G’).
(ii) Service HQ therefore logically
concluded that the Rank Pay of a Brig (Rs 1200) was also deducted to
arrive at the top of the integrated scale amount of Rs 5100, even though a DIG,
who was stated to be a Brig’s equivalent in pay matters in the 3rd
CPC report but who did not draw Rank Pay, was placed at Rs 6350.
(iii) Govt of India vide Resolution 9E, while
approving the report of the 4th CPC
(aa) Improved
the integrated scale from Rs 2300-100-4200-EB-100-5000 to Rs
2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB-150-5100,
(ab) By this improvement, made the table
(quoted often by O/o CGDA, MoD (Finance) and MoF in the reference to then Ld
Attorney General)) at Annex 1 to Para 28.113
redundant, especially after integrated scale of Rs 3900,
(ac) By the improvement also reduced the
time span to 24 years by keeping the top of the scale at Rs 5100, and
(ad) Thereby, Resolution 9E left an unfilled
and unexplained gap of four years in the integrated scale,
(ae) SAI No. 1/S/1987, in para 6 (a) (ii)
introduced a completed reckonable service for each rank. It may be noted that
completed reckonable service for rank of Brig (and equivalent) is 23 years i.e.
one year service before he/they attain top of the integrated scale.
(iv) Therefore, if top of the integrated scale
is not increased, then senior Lt Colonel, Colonel and Brigadier and equivalent
in the Navy and Air Force would never enjoy the benefit of Rank Pay, or be paid
a reduced amount of Rank Pay, and in some cases even be denied the 20% increase
recommended by the 4th CPC and approved by the Govt of India in
Resolution 9E.
(d) Issue (Query) IV – Applicability of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court order to 5th CPC and consequent
improvement in the Pay Bands for 6th CPC
The factual
position being as follows: -
(i) Service HQ’s position was that Rank Pay
deduction had been held to be wrong by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(ii) Further, MoD had filed an affidavit in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I. A. No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007,
attaching findings of the High Powered Committee, solemnly swearing that
implementing the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 08.03.2010 would result in changes
in scales for 5th CPC, and consequent effect on the pay Band and
Grade Pay in the 6th CPC, and an outgo of Rs 1671.23 crore.
Comments on the SoC furnished
by Service HQ by O/o CGDA, MoD (Finance) and Deptt of Expenditure, MoF
23. MoD sent the Service HQ SoC dated 02.04.2013 to MoF/DoE on
04.06.2013 for its comments after obtaining comments of CGDA and MoD (Finance) dated
23.05.2013. A RTI application has revealed that Ministry of Finance, Deptt of
Expenditure vide MoF, DoE ID Note No. 187654/E.IIIA/2012 dated 5.07.2013 (Annexure
‘Q’) has stated that “MoD has not prepared any draft reference to be
made to then Ld Attorney General. The gist of comments of CGDA, MoD (Finance)
and MoF (encompassing about 255 pages) have been brought out by the Ld Attorney
General in the portion below titled ‘Opinion dated 03.09.2013 of then
Learned Attorney General for India on the SoC and Comments thereon.’
24. Kind attention is drawn to the following aspects before a
reading of the opinion of then Ld Attorney General based on the comments of O/o
CGDA and MoF/DoE:-
(a) MoD has stated that the “Pay Commission are only
recommendatory authorities and that the final decision is taken by the Cabinet
and as such the Cabinet decision is the final word on these matters”. In
the present case as the illustrative examples were part of the recommendations
in para 28.113 and the para in whole was approved by the Government, the
existing methodology is in order” in Para 8
(xiii) of Note 70 of MoD File No. 34 (6)/2012-D (Pay/Services). This assertion
of “methodology being in order” has since been faulted by the Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala in O.P No. 2448 of 1996 and W A No. 518 of 1999 as well as by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007.
Further, illustrative examples are neither recommendations nor mandatory orders
but explanations for easier understanding of the concept(s).
(b) The above statement of MoD is an obvious
and avoidable obfuscation of the truth. Resolution 9E (Annexure ‘C’),
which is the approval of the Cabinet states at
“II. Recommendations relating
to other matters
…….(ii) The recommendations of the
Commissions relating to fixation of pay, grant of allowances, date of effect
etc shall be accepted broadly after extending, where applicable to service
officers, the improvements which have been accepted in regard to personnel
below officer rank.”
(c) MoD and its subordinate department i.e.
O/o CGDA, quote Para 28.113 of the 4th
CPC Report (Annexure ‘A’) titled “Fixation of pay in the proposed
scales” which states, inter alia,
“In Chapter 30
we have recommended the method for fixation of pay in the proposed scales for
civilian employees, we recommend that the same method may be adopted for
fixation of pay of armed forces personnel also. Since rank pay is a separate
element for officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent, the same may be
taken into account while fixing pay in the integrated scale of pay recommended
by us…..
(d) Chapter 30 of the 4th CPC
Report (Annexure ‘B’) reads, inter alia, as follows: -
“We have given
careful consideration to all these suggestions. Taking all factors into account
we recommend that pay of employees may be fixed in the proposed scales of pay
in the following manner: -
(i)
For all employees, an amount representing 20
per cent of basic pay in the existing scale subject to a minimum of Rs 50/-
may be added to the “existing emoluments.” Pay may thereafter be fixed in the
proposed scale at the stage next above the emoluments thus computed. If the
minimum of the proposed scale is more than the amount so arrived at, pay may be
fixed at the minimum of the proposed scale. For this purpose the term “existing
emoluments” will include the following: -
(a) Basic pay
in the existing scale,
(b) Dearness pay, additional
dearness allowance, and ad hoc dearness allowance appropriate to the basic pay
admissible at index average 608 (1960 = 100), and
(c) Amounts of first and second
instalments of interim relief admissible on the basic pay referred to in (a)
above………”
Opinion dated 03.09.2013 of
then Learned Attorney General for India on the SoC and Comments
thereon
25. The opinion of then Learned Attorney General dated 3rd
September 2013 (Annexure ‘R’) resolved the following two issues: -
“Query (I): Whether
the MoD orders dated 27 Dec 12 have modified the Special Army Instructions
1/S/87 and corresponding Navy and Air Force Instructions in so far as it
relates to deduction of Rank Pay and direct to re-fix the initial pay of the
concerned officers of the three services in the revised scale (integrated
scale) as on 1.1.1986. Whether the term ‘with effect from 1.1.1986’ should be
used as given in the Single Bench’s order dated 05.10.98 passed in the High
Court of Kerala, instead of using ‘as on 01.01.1986’? What consequences this
change in term will entail?.....
29. The Kerala High Court held deduction of rank
pay, in terms of Para 6 (a) (ii) to be
unlawful, and this view has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
30. Thus,
the effect of decisions of the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court is that
at the time of fixation of pay in the revised scale, rank pay should not be
deducted. The underlying principle is that rank pay is an emolument, and
therefore, cannot be deducted when revised pay is fixed with reference to the
pay being drawn earlier.
31. The
Government needs to implement the orders of the Supreme Court in this spirit.
It cannot confine the benefit of the orders to those officers whose pay was
fixed as on 1.1.1986 after deduction of rank pay in terms of Para
6 (a) (ii). It must grant benefit to all those officers whose pay has been
fixed after deducting rank pay, whether as on 1.1.1986 or after 1.1.1986. This
must be done after properly verifying the facts.”
“Query (IV): Since
the treatment to Rank Pay while pay fixation carried out in 5th CPC
was similar to that of the 4th CPC, whether orders of the Apex Court
dated 04.09.2012 be applied to all subsequent Pay Commissions i.e. V and VI CPC
under such circumstances…..
42. In
my opinion, the Government needs to implement the underlying principle laid
down in Major Dhanapalan’s case i.e. rank pay cannot be deducted at the time of
fixing pay in the revised scale. It is immaterial that in Major Dhanapalan’s
case, only 4th Pay Commission was involved. The principle of law
laid down is that rank pay cannot be deducted by fixing pay in the integrated
scale. Since rank pay has been deducted at the time of fixing pay in subsequent
pay commissions, the same would definitely have to be corrected. The officers
covered by 5th and 6th Pay Commissions cannot be expected
to approach the Courts for orders in the same terms.”
Issues/Queries Requiring
Resolution
26. On the two remaining issues (queries) O/o CGDA presented certain
statements through MoF and MoD (Finance) to then Ld Attorney General. Based on
these statements, then Ld Attorney General stated, inter alia, “that O/o CGDA
has stated in their note No. AT/1/1483/RB/X (PC)/V dated 23.5.2013 as follows:
-
Query (II) Whether
the minimum pay for each rank given in Para 6 (a) (ii) of SAFI 1/S/87, needs to be re-fixed/changed?
32. Para 6 (a) (ii) of the Instructions dated 26.05.1987
refers to officers in the ranks of Captain, Major, Lt Colonel, Colonel and
Brigadier and indicates minimum pay in the integrated scale against each
rank (emphasis
supplied).
33. According
to the armed forces, the minimum pay for each rank needs to be revised after
taking into account the non-deduction of rank pay in terms of the Court’s
order.
34. The
CGDA has indicated that the minimum pay for each rank has not been arrived at
after deduction of rank pay. It was in fact a recommendation of 4th
CPC. Minimum pay has not been depressed due to deduction of rank pay. Further,
there is no court order directing change in minimum pay for the rank.
35. The
Ministry of Finance has indicated its agreement with views of CGDA.
36. The
issue of revision of pay scale did not arise and was not decided in Major
Dhanapalan’s case. The issue of the minimum pay scale does not pertain to the
real issue dealt with above. When the officer’s pay is revised in implementation
of the Court’s order, the minimum of the pay scale does not come in the way,
because if the pay has to be fixed at a stage next higher than the minimum, the
same can be done. There is no need to revise the minimum, if as stated by
the CGDA, it has been fixed on another basis (emphasis supplied).
Query
(III) Whether the Basic Pay ceiling of
integrated Scale in IV CPC for officers up to Brig/equivalent, which is Rs
5100/- also needs to be modified to give effect to the Court orders?
37. The differing views on this issue are as
under:
ISSUE 3: REVISING THE TOP OF INTEGRATED
SCALE
CGDA has pointed out that in order to
benefit such officers an element of personal pay was projected in the instant
case to MoF. But it was not agreed to by Ministry of Finance. In view of para 6
(o) of SAI 1/S/87 (Annexure XX) which states as under: -
‘If the amount so computed as at
sub-para a (ii) above is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay
will be fixed at the maximum of the revised scale.’
The relevant Service Instructions
provide for maximum three stagnation increments upto the rank of Brig, after
completion of every two years qualifying service once the officer reaches the
maximum of the scale. However, it is ensured that Basic Pay plus Dearness
Allowance plus stagnation increments do not exceed the maximum of Basic Pay
plus rank pay of the next higher rank i.e. Major General – Rs
5900-200-6700.
Further, there is no court order
directing changing of the integrated pay scale. In case the demand is met, the
pay scale of next senior officers will get burst, disturbing the horizontal and
vertical relativity pay scales on Services side, paramilitary forces and
civilian side also.
Then
Ld Attorney General quotes MoF views (vide MoF/DoE ID Note No.
187654/E.III-A2012 dated 5th July 2013) (were) as follows: -
“This Ministry agrees with the view
of the office of CGDA on this issue as contained in their note No.
AT/1/1483/RB/X (PC)/V dated 23.5.2013.
However, it has been mentioned in the
said Note of the CGDA that in cases where emoluments (revised pay) computed
without deducting rank pay crosses the maximum of the revised integrated scale,
the Ministry of Defence has proposed that the difference by which the revised
pay of the integrated pay scale may be protected by way of Personal Pay to be
absorbed in stagnation increments or pay on promotion, but the same was not
agreed to by the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance did not agree to
the same for the following reasons: -
(i) At
the outset, this issue was neither prayed for by Major Dhanapalan in his
petition nor was it considered by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court nor is it
covered in the order passed by the Hon’ble Court dt 5.10.1998.
(ii) Para
6 (o) of Section II of the Special Army Instructions dated 26.5.1987 (Annexure
XX) already provided that if the amount so computed as at pata 6 (a) (ii) is
more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay shall be fixed at the
maximum of the revised scale. In other words, if the initial pay fixed in the
revised integrated scale exceeds the maximum thereof, pay cannot be more than
the said maximum. Thus now that the …. Pertaining to deduction of rank pay part
at para 6 (a) (ii) from existing emoluments (or revised emoluments) as on
1.1.1986 has been removed, the amount computed without deduction for the
fixation of initial pay/fitment in the revised pay scale as on 1.1.1986 also
cannot exceed the maximum of the revised integrated scale effective from
1.1.1986 as the principle laid down in said para 6 (c) is not part of judicial
pronouncement based on which the order of 27.12.2102 has been issued.
Thus the demand of Service Headquarters
does not flow from the judicial pronouncement in this case. This being so, its
implementation as part of the order dt 27.12.2012 does not arise.
Apart from the above, the proposal of
the Ministry of Defence for Personal Pay, in such a case is not justified on
merits also as brought out below: -
(i) A
person drawing pay in a particular scale of pay attached to the post held by
him, cannot draw pay in excess of the maximum of the connected scale of pay.
This is the concept of a Specific pay scale. Of course since the rank pay is a
separate element, the total pay (Pay in the integrated scale + rank pay) can
very well exceed the maximum of the integrated pay scale and that is exactly
what is happening here. It is being …. that Rank Pay is a separate element in
addition in the pay in the integrated scale and as such Pay + rank pay is not
restricted to the maximum of the integrated scale. It is only the pay in the
integrated scale that is not to exceed the maximum thereof.
(ii) A
similar provision exists in proviso (b) to Rule 7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules
1968 relating to fixation/fitment of initial pay of civilian Government
servants in the revised pay scales as on 1.1.1986. A copy of the relevant
extract from the said Rules is at Annexure XXII. Therefore, no special
dispensation can be allowed in this case now that the pay to be fixed in the
integrated pay scale as on and w.e.f
1.1.1986 exceeds the maximum of the integrated scale.
(iii) In
case a person stagnates at the maximum of the scale, stagnation increments in
the concerned pay scale as preapproved Rules are applicable. Office of CGDA has
confirmed that stagnation increments are admissible to Armed Forces officers as
per orders of 11.9.1987.
(iv) In
fact the phenomenon of initial pay fixed in a revised pay scale at the maximum
from the very date of implementation of the revised pay scales has been
specially taken note of by the 6th CPC. The 6th Central
Pay Commission noted that many of the pay scales recommended by the 5th
Central Pay Commission got “burst” at the time initial fixation where revised
pay of some of the employees became higher than the maximum of the revised pay
scales and these employees, therefore, had started to stagnate right from the
time of implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission pay scales.
It is for this reason that the 6th Central Pay Commission has
recommended the concept of running pay band instead of specific pay scales. The
Commission noted that since the individual pay scale has a limited span, it
often leads to stagnation. The Commission, therefore, recommended the concept
of running pay bands to address these issues. In this connection, the
recommendations of the Pay Commission contained in para 1.2.7, 1.2.8. and 2.2.4
are collectively placed at Annexure XXIII.
(v) Thus
the situation as it existed upto 1.1.2006 was that there were cases of the
employees reaching at the maximum of the individual pay scale and this did not
by itself mean allowing them to draw pay more than the maximum of the pay scale
by way of Personal pay. They were only allowed stagnation increments and that
is admissible in case of Armed Forces personnel also. Therefore, any benefit in
the form of personal pay is the instant matter is against the normal and
general policy.
(vi) Also,
the initial pay fixed in this as on 1.1.1986, which is of course w.e.f 1.1.1986
after the order dated 27.12.2012 in implementation of the judicial
pronouncement in this case, does not fall below the initial pay earlier fixed
in the integrated pay scale before issue of the order dt 27.12.2012 and,
therefore, this is no actual loss in the initial pay and hence, there is no
basis for grant of personal pay in such cases.”
38. Para 6 (a)
(c) of the Instructions dated 26.05.1987 provides as follows: -
“If the amount so computed as at
sub-para (ii) above is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay will
be fixed at the maximum of the revised scale.”
39. It
is clear from the above that ceiling on pay scales rises out of Para 6 a) (c), which did not arise nor was considered in
Major Dhanapalan’s case.
40. The
only issue decided by the Kerala High Court and consequently the Supreme Court
is whether rank pay is to be deducted at the time of fixing pay in the
integrated scale in terms of Para 6 (a) (ii). Ceiling fixed under Para 6 (c) is not subject matter of these judgments.”
Facts not presented to then Ld
Attorney General
27. Lord Chelmsford once observed “half a truth will sometimes amount to a
real falsehood” (Peek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377 at 392. The following
documented facts are presented as a rebuttal of comments of CGDA and MoD
(Finance) dated 23.5.2013 and comments of MoF thereon dated 5.7.2013 (Annexure
‘Q’): -
Fact No. 1:
(i) MoD filed an IA No. 11 of 2013 in IA
No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 seeking extension of time for
implementing order of the Hon’ble Court dated 4.9.2012.
(ii) MoD did not seek any clarification in
any of the issues raised by Service HQ vide letter dated 18.1.2013.
(iii) Therefore, MoD’s assertions of “issues
not raised” is a convenient ploy to limit the effect of the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Fact No. 2:
Neither the
O/o CGDA, MoD (Finance) nor the MoF/DoE placed before the Ld Attorney
General the following fact(s) and/or document(s): -
(i) When Major Dhanapalan filed the O.P.
No. 2448 of 1996 in February 1996, he was in the rank of Captain.
(ii) Maj Dhanapalan retired from the Army at
his own request on 31.8.1997 in the rank of Major.
(iii) The improved integrated scale of pay of
Rs 2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB-150-5100 is for officers from the rank of Lieutenant
to Brigadier and equivalents in the Navy and Air Force.
(iv) An officer would have to be at least a
senior Lt Colonel or a Colonel or a Brigadier (as tables provided by O/o CGDA
placed at Annexure ‘H’ show) to be affected by the top of the integrated scale
after the wrong act of deduction of Rank Pay was corrected by the Hon’ble High Court
of Kerala.
(v) If Major Dhanapalan had been in the rank
of a senior Lt Colonel or Colonel or Brigadier then, and only then, could he
have approached the Hon’ble Court to address the issue of increasing the top of
the integrated scale so that he does not suffer a pecuniary loss.
(vi) Major Dhanapalan’s emoluments were
nowhere near the top of the scale (Annexure ‘O’).
(vii) Therefore the occasion for Major Dhanapalan
to raise the issue or appeal for increase of the top of the integrated scale
did not arise, and Maj Dhanapalan did not consider these issues in his
original petition as they would have been irrelevant, infructous, mischievous, frivolous
and vexatious.
(viii) However, among the similarly situated
officers, merely because they have reached the top of the scale, there are many
senior Lt Colonels, Colonels and Brigadiers who have not been given the
pecuniary advantage of the restoration of the deduction of rank pay (Annexure
‘N’) by the Hon’ble Court correcting a wrong act of the MoD.
Fact No. 3:
(i) Rule
7 (1) (A) of the CCS (RP) Rules 1968 reads as follows: -
(1) The initial pay of a Government
servant who elects, or is deemed to have elected under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6
to be governed by the revised scale on and from the 1st day of
January 1986, shall unless in any case the President by special order
otherwise directs, be fixed separately in respect of his substantive pay in
the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien if it had
not been suspended, and in respect of his pay in the officiating post held by
him…….…..(emphasis
supplied)
(ii) There was a remedy available but ignored
by experts in CGDA, MoD (Finance) and MoF for unfathomable reasons. This
document is Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) O. M No. 1/2/86-Estt.( Pay-I) issued
at New Delhi on the 10th
April, 1987 (Annexure ‘S’) which reads, inter alia, as follows: -
…. “2.
In supersession of all the various existing orders, the President is
pleased to decide that where a Government servant is promoted or appointed to
another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than
those attached to the post held by him, the provisions contained in FR. 22-C
shall apply without pay limits”…...(emphasis supplied).
Fact No. 4:
A request for
information on the non-applicability or otherwise of the ibid OM
from the CPIO O/o CGDA elicited the following response vide No.
CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/II/1250 dated 26.11.2013 and UO Note No. AT/I/1483-Army/X
(PC)/V dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure ‘T’): -
Para 6 (i): No advice on the
non-applicability or otherwise of provisions of Para 2 of DOP&T OM dated 10th April 1987 (quoted in the
application) vis-à-vis Rule 7 (1) (A) of CCS (RP) Rules 1986 is found to have
been rendered by this office in this case.
Para 6 (ii): Neither any advice on
‘different options’ on this issue is found to have been sought by MoD nor given
by this office in this case.”
Fact No. 5:
(i) CDA (O) [now PCDA (O)] decided after
12.7.2005 (the date Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed UoI’s SLP (CC) No. 5908 of
2005) that Maj Dhanapalan would be paid only for the tenure of the 4th
CPC, without informing him that the 5th CPC report dated
30.9.1997 contained the impugned deduction of Rank Pay while the
matter was still to be decided by the Ld Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court
of Kerala.
(ii) Maj Dhanapalan retired before the recommendations
of the 5th CPC came into effect with the issue of SAI No. 2/S/98
dated 19.12 1997.
(iii) The Ld Single Judge pronounced his
judgment in O.P. No. 2448 of 1996 on 5.10.1998 upholding Maj
Dhanapalan’s argument that Rank Pay was deducted wrongly for re-fixing his
revised emoluments.
(iv) In none of the subsequent cases, either in Maj Dhanapalan vs
Uoi & Ors (W. A. No. 518 of 1999 or W. A. 510 of 2000 with clarifications
required by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala) or in UoI vs. Lt Col N K Nair &
Ors MoD has stated F. No. 35(1) 2013 –the 26th April, 2013 (Annexure
‘U’) as follows
…..(ix) No reference was made to SAI/SNI/SAFI No. 2/S/1998 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)…..
Fact No. 6:
The MoD and CGDA
have put
misleading statements or half-truths in their briefs to the Senior Ld
Law Officers such as Additional Solicitor-Generals and Solicitor-Generals of
the Government of India and Hon’ble Courts in
(a) Writ Appeal No. 518 of 1999 in O. P. No.
2448 of 1996 in Maj Dhanapalan Vs. UoI & Ors, and
(b) Transfer Petition (C) No. 56 of 2007
& tagged cases as well as Interlocutory Application No. 9 of 2010 and
tagged cases in UoI Vs Lt Col N. K. Nair & Others.
28. Subsequent to opinion of Ld Attorney General dated
03.09.2013, the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee & CAS again met the Raksha
Mantri, who directed that Service HQ and MoD to send separate cases to the Ld
Attorney General, placing their views and information on the two disputed
issues. Service HQ, vide Air HQ/99139/19/AFPCC (Ty BM-XIII) dated 25.11.2013,
sent to then Ld Attorney General another SoC which he returned unactioned with
comment that it be sent through MoD. MoD then referred the same, after fresh
approval of then Hon’ble Raksha Mantri, to the LA (Defence) on 07.01.2014.
29. LA (Def) reiterating the opinion of then Ld Attorney
General dated 03.09.2013 returned the file as ‘no fresh legal issue
on which the legal opinion of the Ld A.G may be sought’ after discussing
with and obtaining the approval of JS & LA (Shri Inder Kumar) on 13.02.2014.
Notes Nos. 53 to 60 of MoD F No. 34 (10)/2013-D (Pay/Services) refer.
Corrigenda dated 24.07.2014 to
MoD letter dated 27.12.2014
30. MoD issued a corrigenda No. 34 (10)/2013/D(Pay/Services)
dated 24.7.2014 (Annexure ‘V’), implementing the two issues
resolved in then Ld Attorney General’s opinion dated 03.09.2013, a day prior to
the hearing on 25.07.2014 of Contempt
Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 2014 in Lt Col N K Nair & Anr Vs UoI with
incumbent Defence Secretary and CGDA as alleged Contemnors impleaded on the
direction of the Hon’ble Court dated 31.3.2014.
Conclusion
31. In conclusion, believing in the National motto of Satyam ev
Jayate and exercising a citizen’s fundamental duty, I have placed the truth and
facts available from Hon’ble Court orders and from UoI’s files obtained in
numerous requests for information under the RTI Act 2005, for perusal of the incumbent
Ld Attorney General, the Conscience Keeper of the Govt of India and its highest
Law Officer. My hope is that you will have them verified from original
documents, take cognisance of the veracity of the aforementioned statements and,
then decide to act of the side of truth and justice by rendering your informed
and learned opinion on the remaining two issues (which are also part of the
ibid Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 2013: -
(a) Issue/Query II: Whether the 4th
CPC had recommended a minimum pay for each rank, and if not whether a revision
to the extent of applicable Rank Pay for each rank is required,
(b) Issue/Query III: Whether the
ceiling of the scale of pay needs to be increased by the amount of Rank Pay (of
Brigadiers & equivalents).
Yours truly,
Enclosures: Listed Annexures
No comments:
Post a Comment