Thursday, 16 April 2015

Letter to PM dated 06 Jun 2014 - a reply from MoD dated 01 Apr 2015

On 6th June 2014, I had written a detailed letter (Ref No. SYS/10525/Armed Forces) to the Prime Minister on the following (attaching documentary evidence): -

           (i) Rank Pay Matter

            (ii) MoD’s appeals against decisions of Courts and AFTs

(iii) OROP - delays in implementation

(iv) NFU, and

(v) Reimbursing expenditure on medical facilities  to ESM in emergencies when abroad.

The PMO sent the petition on 17 Jul 14 to the Secretary, MoD as stated in reply to a RTI application dated 12th August 2014.

In a reply dated 17 Oct 14, the PMO stated that the petition had been sent to MoD and that I should obtain the reply from MoD.

On 28 Oct 14, the MoD stated that it had not received the petition from the office of the PM and further, Central registry of MoD has also stated that they have not received the PMO reference.

My RTI appeal was also dismissed.

But it appears that MoD has once again been economical with the truth as corroborated by the reply received today, 16 Apr 15 and re-produced below: -

Dy No. 807/2015-D (Pen/Pol)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015 


Subject: Representation from Air Marshal (retd) S Y Savur on the various issues related to Defence Services personnel


            Please refer to your letter No. SYS/10525/Armed Forces dated 6th June, 2014 received through D (Pay/Services) ID No. 1(1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) dated 18th March 2015 on the above mentioned subject.

2.        D (Pen/Pol) is concerned with para 1 (iv) OROP. The principle of One Rank One Pension for the Armed Forces has been accepted by the Government. The modalities for implementation were discussed with various stakeholders and are presently under consideration of the Government. It will be implemented once the modalities are approved by the Government.

(Prem Prakash)
Under Secretary (Pen/Pol)           
Copy alongwith letter under reference (with enclosures) for appropriate action to: -
(i) D (Pen/Legal) in r/o para 1 (iii)
(ii) D (WE) in r/o para 1 (v)

*          *          *          *          *


  1. It takes almost 9 months to generate a stereotype response without any material info on record for a Govt that works. No wonder the OROP implementation is pushed further with each input- howsoever irrelevant to the case. Lets hope it sees the light at the end of the tunnel one "day day"

  2. At least on the OROP issue, one of the matters referred to in the blog post, some public statements have started re-emerging.

    No one can know for sure if the queries from the parliamentary standing committee, the resulting replies are all part of state craft to defuse understandable pressure building on account of the delay. The tactic has been observed in the past. It is a cycle of sketchy news -> public announcement -> debate in media -> long silence -> some sketchy news again.

    How far the "consensus" talked of in the news report will actually mean snipping off the requirements projected vide the services DGL, esp those on parities for time-bound ranks, will indicate the degree of resolution being aimed at by powers that be.

  3. Now its been over two weeks that the movement of your initial application has been ack. Though the central registry denies movement .... a gentle nudge to the babus seems to be in order to get real meaningful inputs from the other depts

  4. AS per this news item appearing in "Submitting its affidavit, the Defence Ministry said it had accepted all recommendations of the A V Singh Committee (AVSC) except one that related to ‘Pay benefit of non-functional selection grade pay for Brigadiers and Major Generals’"

    Does this mean that NFU (if this is indeed NFU) was recommended only for Brig & above
    The plot thickens !