Wednesday, 11 March 2015

More Twists in the Rank Pay Tales

It appears that CGDA or Def (Fin) or whoever reportedly provided the inputs to the MoD for filing a status report in Contempt Petition (C) No. 328 of 2013 needs education.

It appears, and I have not yet seen the status report, the wise CGDA has re-fixed the pay on transition from 3rd to 4th CPC at a lower amount than was being drawn by each rank on 31 Dec 1985!

More when I have correct information requested from the MoD in a RTI. 


  1. Sir, this presents an ideal opportunity for RDOA to establish its grounds for "contempt".

    Unfortunately, till this blog post was published, stakeholders had been totally in the dark on account of a total silence on the matter from RDOA, in view of which it has been impossible to even offer suggestions or views that might or might not be useful.

    The RTI application and a reply when received would serve to fill in a lot of gaps in the absence of details, or bare outlines of details, from RDOA that I had mentioned in a previous comment.

  2. RDOA shares all inputs and information but is presently unable to do so because Lt Col Sharma is busy with a couple of other cases in the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as CA 8875 of 2011 and connected cases etc. Earlier he had Lt Col Satwant Singh to help but after the stroke he is recuperating.

    Therefore, you will have to make do with what I obtain.

    Yes, the Contempt Petition is being pursued and with vigour.

  3. May i know how many pages is the status report?I can offer my services (free of cost) to scan(so that typing effort is eliminated) & upload the document to my server from where every one can download it through a simple URL.
    For this all i need is a copy of the report

    1. @Venkatesh VT : You are aware, aren't you, that the status report is part of ongoing litigation?

      If it was in the public domain, anyone could have scanned it and blogged it.

      Best to wait and see how the case develops.

    2. @corona8,

      Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00838/SG/1777
      Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00838/SG

      The only exemption of Section 8 (1) which might remotely apply is Section 8 (1) (b) which states, ‘information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;’ can be denied.
      This clause does not cover subjudice matters, and unless an exemption is specifically mentioned, information cannot be denied. Disclosing information on matters which are subjudice does not constitute contempt of Court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. I respectfully have to disagree with the earlier decision cited by the appellant since it is per incuriam.
      This Commission rules that a matter being subjudice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the Right to Information Act.

    3. "does not constitute contempt of Court"
      Sir, absolutely.

      My reply to @Venkatesh VT was in the context of the possible sensitivities of litigating parties towards free sharing of information that they might consider a source of needless confusion arising from online debate, that too at what would be a crucial stage, for them, in their legal process.

      Of course, information derived through RTI or through the court should be made public if those with access feel the information needs to be aired.

      It is just the needless free flow of information for merely scanning and other basic tasks by those volunteering to do the job that could be an issue as it might cause all manners of errors of transcription and flaws in dissemination.

    4. @corona8, please pardon my pointing out certain similarity in the argument by Services HQ on why I should be denied the JSM "needless confusion arising from online debate.....what would be a crucial stage..." if 7th CPC is considering the JSM as it exists.

      If it was made available, we could provide suggestions to resolve - one example - the pre-AVSC officers' pension problem. It would be up to Service HQ to accept the suggestion(s).

      Similarly, online enhancement of information could strengthen the case by such inputs like VenkateshVT has shared.

      But you have a view and others have be it.

    5. "..pre-AVSC officers' pension problem..";
      Sir you have highlighted a really crucial area.

      In fact, your blog was the first source of some reassurance for retirees from that era when you published the blog post with text of the DGL from services HQs which attempted to resolve that issue.

    6. @corona8 Flow of information is what internet is all about.I really dont know what are your issues with my asking for info.It is well with in the person from whom i am asking info to deny it.How ever thirty party i.e. you has no say in it.You are certainly welcome to your opinion but kindly dont make statements which reveal your ignorance about the power of public domain to discuss & transfer information & knowledge, for the common good

    7. @Venkatesh VT : "..dont make statements which reveal your ignorance about the power of public domain.." Another thing people on the sub-continent, esp those with a lifetime habit of hearing from others and telling people what to say or not to say, take some time to learn is their censorial leanings don't really count very much on the web.

      You have made a comment on a blog, if another blog reader expresses a public view about it, it is hardly an attempt to restrict your right to transfer information. Or receive it, which appeared to have been the attempt here. Whatever you mean by thirty party you will have to decide for yourself. But a blog is not your personal domain. You are as much a reader as others are. No one is commenting on your personal communications with the blog owner. This is a b-l-o-g. If the blog owner permits a comment to be published it is his discretion and sometimes extreme kindness.

      So let us get that basic issue right.

    8. The crux of the matter is sharing of information for common good .You seem to be against it & that is what any free thinking person will object to & i have done the same..
      You want to use the web but is against others asking for information. This is anti web (if there is such a word)
      This is the basic issue.& i really pray that you will get this right(& i am not trying to be sarcastic)

    9. @Venkatesh VT: "..sharing of information for common good.."; After reading all comments, I see that you have only shared information about your own D & D statement. If all of us try to share that sort of information, this blog will look like a complaints forum.

      I think unless information needs to be connected with the subject and purpose of a blog post, it is generally termed as "Off Topic", if not outright "spam", and is not in tune with any ideas of "flow of information" as you have called it.

      Besides, I have seen nothing in comments here, apart from your own, stating what anyone should or should not be saying.

  4. Sir, I type so that I can read and understand each words. Thanks anyway

  5. In my due drawn statement , they have shown me as a time scale Lt Col (giving rank pay of a lt col when i completed 21 years of service) with out even seeing my PPO of 2003( premature retirement) which clearly shows me a Colonel
    IT does mean that they have been not seeing the records or maintaining the records.
    This can be certainly construed as contempt of court & adds more weight to the contempt case
    Luckily i have promotion part II orders & my PPO & i have sent them to the CDA,pune
    Hence seeing the status report is getting more relevant

    1. @Venkatesh VT, Please send scans to RDOA as they are preparing a rejoinder to the status report submitted on behalf of UoI/MoD.

  6. @Venkatesh VT and @corona8, Please cease fratricidal fire!

    1. Wilco Sir.
      Just a small thought .I always believed in sharing information(how ever unpalatable it may be to self) & understand the importance of being fully transparent even during my serving days.I have seen how transparency helps in making a system better & how the confidence of people goes up when they see a system being transparent & admitting its mistakes(every one makes mistakes)
      To that extent i give out my real name in all blog postings.I do try to practice what i preach.
      At the same time i do realize i can not make every one else practice what they preach.Of course i do pray for such a miracle :)
      I rest my case & am indeed sorry for any comments that may be considered offensive.

  7. @corona8, Venkatesh VT, and other readers of this blog,

    Information posted on this blog has to meet the one or more of the following criteria: -

    1. It is obtained as information in reply to a RTI request from a CPIO/PIO,
    or appeal to First Appellate Authority.

    2. Affidavits/status reports posted on this blog are always after their filing and
    hearing in the respective Courts.

    3. It is not a piece of speculative information.

    4. Any conversation/discussion with a third party is approved for posting by
    that third party.

    5. It is not subject to any restriction by a decree of any Court.

  8. Comments on this post are closed.