Wednesday 21 December 2016

Is it time for the Army to stop basking in ‘political’ limelight



The present COAS and Army HQ are aware that there have been retaliatory attacks across the LoC in the past. (I will not denigrate them by terming them ‘surgical strikes,’ now common term for anything and almost everything!). That retaliatory attacks have taken place in the past has been confirmed by a former Foreign Secretary-NSA, and also the present Foreign Secretary.

It was simply the Army going about its duty that it knows best, with the quiet efficiency it is renowned for, but minimal fuss. Those days there was no chest thumping by the Army or requirement for others to hold up for display, the actions as acts of patriotism for ordinary, patriotic but grumbling (about something else) citizens of India.

The narrative appears to have changed in recent months. We have had a former Army officer, who knows better, telling the world about a retaliatory attack across the IB of an eastern neighbour, much to the chagrin of that Government! Diplomats of that country are still murmuring about that embarrassment.

As if that was not enough, we had the DGMO go about speaking of the retaliatory attack as if it was a new invention of the Indian Army of 2016! Knowledgeable and discerning viewers and readers were aghast at “we were there” type accounts of the attack by sundry politicians, spokespersons, even retired Army officers and media anchors giving us PowerPoint presentation and all. 

Another instance of politicisation of the Army is the unedifying spectacle of counting vehicles at toll gates for updating mobilisation plans! The usual (past?) practice for updating mobilisation plans is for the Command HQ to write to the Transport Secretaries of the States and GMs of the zonal Railways within their AoR, requesting an estimate of different type of good vehicles and railway rakes/wagons that could be made available in 24, 48 and 72 hours after the call for mobilisation. That/those figures are then factored into the annual update and plans revised. It also places complete responsibility for those States and Railways to make available the resources. 

Why would Army personnel stand and count vehicles at toll gates and across highways all over the North east? And how come the Navy and Air Force did not count vehicles? After all mobilisation would be for all three Defence Forces!

There has been excessive politicisation of the Army in recent times and probably now the Ashoka lion, stars and crossed batons & swords have come to roost!

So, in the matter of selecting the next COAS, what is surprising if this Govt does what the Congress Govt did (by selecting Lt Gen Vaidya for appointment as COAS by superseding Lt Gen S K Sinha)? Nothing different, for a Govt with a difference! Why should there be indignation on the Rawat appointment? Only because it was done by the Govt giving the seniority principle the go by?

Why was there a muted (or little) reaction from ex-Servicemen to a former COAS making his displeasure over the appointment of the incumbent COAS obvious (to his favourite whipping boys/girls, the ‘presstitutes’)?

Why has MoD not provided information requested vide MODEF/R/2015/60647 dated 13.3.2015 on the promotion policy promulgated by MoD vide No. 7 (1)/79/D (Air –III) dated 30.8.1986, as amended?

What was the reaction when Govt’s attention was drawn to a policy that only those who have commanded South Western Air Command (SWAC) or Western Air Command (WAC) or been the Vice Chief of Air Staff (VCAS), for are eligible to be considered fro promotion to CAS? (MoD letter No, Air HQ/S.18172/22/3/Plans/3750/D (Air-III)/62 dated 15.5.1974 and MoD No. 5 (6)/86/US-D (Air-III) dated 9.10.1987 refer).

There was no clamour on the denial of promotion to AOC-in-C to a Flying Branch (Navigator sub-stream) quoting some policy that is heavily weighed in favour of pilots, in particular fighter pilots? (MoD letter No. Air HQ/S.24702/2/(PP(O)/PC-3/471/UD/S (Air –III) dated 18.11.1992 refers).

[Note: RTI request MODEF/R/2015/60588 dated 6.3.2015 transferred by MoD was transferred to Air HQ. There has been no reply till date.]

Or an undeclared policy (covert reservation?) that there can be only two AOsC-in-C from transport/helicopter stream and that the No. 2 in Trg Comd/EAC/SAC/CAC HQ has to be a fighter pilot, if the No. 1 is a transport/helicopter pilot?    

What is the policy for appointments of Army Commander and equivalents other than the two years residual service rule? Why is the policy ‘SECRET’ or ‘CONFIDENTIAL’?

In conclusion, I draw attention to certain paragraphs of the Honourable Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3208 of 2015 in UoI & Others Vs Lt Col P K Choudhary & Others: - 

39. It was contended that the policy decision taken by Government of India was in the larger interest of national security and for making the Army more efficient and that the same did not violate any right of the respondents much less any fundamental right. The plea of legitimate expectation raised on their behalf was in that view futile for there was neither any basis for such a plea in the pleadings nor was the plea tenable in law especially when the policy change was in public interest.

40. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I (I) 151 explains the meaning of “Legitimate Expectation” in the following words:

“81. Legitimate expectations. A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice.

The existence of a legitimate expectation may have a number of different consequences; it may give locus standi to seek leave to apply for judicial review; it may mean that the authority ought not to act so as to defeat the expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so; or it may mean that, if the authority proposes to defeat a person’s legitimate expectation, it must afford him an opportunity to make representations on the matter. The courts also distinguish, for example in licensing cases, between original applications, applications to renew and revocations; a party who has been granted a licence may have a legitimate expectation that it will be renewed unless there is some good reason not to do so, and may therefore be entitled to greater procedural protection than a mere applicant for a grant.”

41. Legitimate expectation as a concept has engaged the attention of this Court in several earlier decisions to which we shall presently refer. But before we do so we need only to say that the concept arises out of what may be described as a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though the person who has such an expectation has no right in law to receive the benefit expected by him. Any such expectation can arise from an “express promise” or a “consistent course of practice or procedure” which the person claiming the benefit may reasonably expect to continue. The question of redress which the person in whom the legitimate expectation arises can seek and the approach to be adopted while resolving a conflict between any such expectation, on the one hand, and a public policy in general public interest on the other, present distinct dimensions every time the plea of legitimate expectation is raised in a case.

47. That apart, legitimate expectation as an argument cannot prevail over a policy introduced by the Government which does not suffer from any perversity, unfairness, or unreasonableness or which does not violate any fundamental or other enforceable rights vested in the respondents. …………… We have in the earlier part of the judgment dealt with the recommendations made by the Committees and the objectives sought to be achieved by the policy decisions of the Government. There is nothing perverse, unreasonable, or unfair about the policy……... In the absence of any perversity, unreasonableness, or unfairness in the policy so introduced, we see no reason to allow the argument based on legitimate expectation to unsettle or undo the policy which is otherwise laudable and intended to render the Indian Army more efficient and better equipped for combat situations…..”

Quad Erat Demonstrandum!

Thursday 15 December 2016

And disclosing file notings on SAI/SNI/SAFI 1/S/2008, 2/S/2008 and 3/S/2008 will be prejudicial to security of India!



RTI Matter
By Regd Post
No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 18th November 2016
To,
Shri S Y Savur


Subject: Seeking Information Under RTI Act - 2005

          Reference MoD ID No. MODEF/R/2016/52881/D (RTI) dated 20.10.2014 (sic) recd on 24.10.16 by the CPIO forwarding therewith your RTI application dated 19.9.2016 on the above subject. 

2.      The information/notings in the MoD file on pay and allowances of the Armed Forces cannot be provided because the information can be used to create dissatisfaction/unrest in Defence Forces which will prejudicially affect the security of the country. The information can, therefore, not be furnished as provided under Section 8 (1) (a) of RTI Act, 2005.

3.      The Appellate Authority is Shri Preet Pal Singh, Director (AG-I), Ministry of Defence, Room No 102, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.    

Sd/------------
18/11/16
(Prashant Rastogi)
Under Secretary & CPIO


BY REGISTERED POST – ACK DUE
RK362496906IN dated 15/12/2016 at 10:47 am


S. Y. Savur                                                                    141, Jal Vayu Towers,
Cell: +91 9688782227                                                 N G E F Layout,
          +91 8762617278                                                 Indira Nagar (PO)),
Email: sharad10525@gmail.com                                Bengaluru – 560038

FA/RTI/MODEF-52881/2016                                    15th December, 2016


To,

Shri Preet Pal Singh,
Director AG (I) & First Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Defence,
Room No. 102, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 011

First Appeal against order of CPIO and Under Secretary, D (Pay/Services) vide MoD letter No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) dated 18 Nov 2016
Received by Speed Post on 14 Dec 2016

Sir,

I file this First Appeal as I am aggrieved by order of CPIO & Under Secretary, D (Pay/Services) who has not provided information that I requested for vide MODEF/R/2016/52881 i.e a photocopy file notings that were issued in September 2008 i.e 8 years ago in respect of Special Army/Navy/Air Force Instructions 1/S/2008 for PBOR, 2/S/2008 for Officers and 3/S/2008 on placing Lt Cols (and equivalents) in PB-4 and Grade Pay of Rs 8000/-.

2.      The subject matter, other than complete file notings, has been disclosed quite extensively, amongst others, in the following replies to requests for information under the RTI Act, 2005: -

(a)     MoD letter No. 237/RTI/D (P/P) dated 30.11.2015,

(b)     MoD letter No. 21(1)/2015 – D (PCC) dated 8.12.2015 requesting payment of Rs 130/- for 65 pages of information pertaining to MoD’s comments for 7 CPC,

(b)     MoD letter No. 237/RTI/S (P/P) dated 16.5.2016 requesting payment of Rs 84/- towards photocopying charges for 42 pages of information regarding CSC – 2009 and CSC - 2012.

(b)     MoD ID No. PC-237/RTI/D (P/P)/2014 dated 13.06.2016

(b)     File notings etc of MoD File No. 10 (1)/2009/D (Pen/Pol) processing the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) Recommendations of 2009,

(c)     File notings etc of MoD File No. 12 (11)/2012/D (Pen/Pol) processing the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) Recommendations of 2012,

(d)     File notings etc of MoD File No. 21 (1)/2015- D (PCC) on Note 26 dated 08 May 2015 processing comments for the Seventh Central Pay Commission,

(e)     Photocopy of MoD ID No. 22/S/2014 – D (PCC) addressed to Shri D K Rai, Director, Seventh Central Pay Commission of same date.

3.      The above (MoD) disclosed information is already in the public domain at Aerial View blog (URL: sharad10525.blogspot.in). There has been no dissatisfaction or unrest in the Defence Forces with respect to the ibid SAI/SNI/SAFI. The so called dissatisfaction, if any, has been addressed by two Cabinet Secretary Committees (CSCs) whose reports have already been disclosed by MoD.

4.      Therefore, the CPIO & US D-Pay/Services is not being truthful and is resorting to a blatant attempt to conceal information requested for by the indiscriminate use of Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005.

5.       Being aggrieved, it is requested that the First Appellate Authority may order CPIO & US D (Pay/Services) to provide the information.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-

(S Y Savur)

Imagine the MoD does not have the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report that it quotes extensively!



RTI Matter
By Regd Post
No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 18th November 2016
To,
Shri S Y Savur


Subject: Seeking Information Under RTI Act - 2005

          Reference MoD OM of even number vide which your RTI application dated 20.5.2016 was forwarded to RTI Cell of Ministry of External Affairs as the Pranab Mukherjee Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of then Minister of External Affairs. Now RTI Cell of Ministry of External Affairs vide their OM No. RTI/551/1679/2016 dated 14.10.2016 has returned the application stating that no papers/files on the subject is available with them (copy enclosed).

2.      In this connection it is stated that this section is not in possession of the notings and deliberations, discussion in meetings relating to the above said Report as sought vide application dated 20.5.2016. As regards copy of the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report, it is stated that this section is not the custodian of original record as sought by you and, in vies of this, are unable to furnish to you the same. 

3.      The Appellate Authority is Shri Preet Pal Singh, Director (AG-I), Ministry of Defence, Room No 102, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.    

Sd/------------
18/11/16
(Prashant Rastogi)
Under Secretary & CPIO


BY REGISTERED POST – ACK DUE
RK362496906IN dated 15/12/2016 at 10:47 am

S. Y. Savur                                                                    141, Jal Vayu Towers,
Cell: +91 9688782227                                                 N G E F Layout,
          +91 8762617278                                                 Indira Nagar (PO)),
Email: sharad10525@gmail.com                                Bengaluru – 560038

FA/RTI/PMCR/2016                                                  15th December, 2016


To,

Shri Preet Pal Singh,
Director AG (I) & First Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Defence,
Room No. 102, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 011

First Appeal against order of CPIO and Under Secretary, D (Pay/Services) Under RTI Act, 2005 vide MoD letter No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) dated 18 Nov 2016
Received by Speed Post on 13 Dec 2016

Sir,

I file this First Appeal as I am aggrieved by CPIO & Under Secretary, D (Pay/Services) who has not provided information vide abovementioned letter that I requested for i.e a photocopy of the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report on Pay & Allowances of serving Armed Forces personnel and Pension, including One Rank One Pension (OROP) of Ex-Servicemen.   

The Pranab Mukherjee Committee was constituted by the Govt of India/MoD to examine and prepare a Report on the subject matter referred to in Para 1 above, for the consideration of the Govt. References to the above Report are available, amongst other files of MoD in the following files of MoD: -

(a)     MoD File No. 10 (1)/2009/D (Pen/Pol) processing the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) Recommendations of 2009,

(b)     MoD File No. 12 (11)/2012/D (Pen/Pol) processing the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) Recommendations of 2012,

(c)     CSC Report of 30 Jun 2009 and CSC Report of 18 Aug 2012 forwarded vide No. 237/RTI/D (P/P) dated 30 Nov 2015,

(d)     MoD File No. 21 (1)/2015- D (PCC) on Note 26 dated 08 May 2015 processing comments for the Seventh Central Pay Commission,

(e)     MoD ID No. 22/S/2014 – D (PCC) addressed to Shri D K Rai, Director, Seventh Central Pay Commission of same date.

          It has been quoted by MoD, including D – Pay/Services, as recently as August 2015 in comments prepared for the Director, Seventh Central Pay Commission. It is therefore, impossible that such an important Report is not available in the Ministry of Defence.

          I appeal for an order that a copy of the report be made available to me.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(S Y Savur) 

Friday 25 November 2016

Dissonance between Words and Deeds



‘Atrocious!’ roared the honourable Minister in his objection to the comparison of deaths of 40 Indian citizens standing in queues to exchange their hard earned old high denomination (OHD) notes with the death of 19 Indian Army’s soldiers, killed by terrorists’ bullets.

There is more atrocity. Alas, the victims are the serving and retired Indian Armed Forces personnel. These are not discussed elsewhere, even in muted voices.

For the first time in the history of 70 years of India’s independence, both serving and retired Central Govt’s civilian employees have enjoyed increased (2.57 times) salaries, pension, and arrears for the past three months. The Finance Minister’s statement that long queues are because the arrears of the Seventh Pay Commission are being exchanged is proof, if one was needed!

But serving Indian Armed Forces personnel and widows of those who made the ultimate sacrifice and retired Veterans have not been paid.

Again, for the first time in 70 years after independence, the Indian Armed Forces have politely declined, in writing, to implement Govt’s orders dated 5th September 2016 in respect of pay and disability benefits. The polite regrets are to a Govt that extols every soldier’s death and sacrifice. The Govt appears to have agreed with the Seventh Pay Commission’s recommendations put up by the bureaucrats aka Empowered Committee of Secretaries (ECoS).                

Once again, for the first time in 70 years after independence, the Govt has approved “the payment of arrears on an ad-hoc basis, @ 10% of existing Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance@ 125%”  because the Indian Armed Forces have stood firm that the Seventh Pay Commission has adulterated the genuine entitlements of the Indian Armed Forces.

Why the dissonance between what the Govt says about Indian Armed Forces and what the Govt does for them? Here are just 4 instances of many.

1: - Govt’s orders of 2008 on pay for Indian Armed Forces personnel state that Military Service Pay (MSP) is to be added to Pay in the Pay Band (or Basic Pay) and Grade Pay including for calculating pension for all purposes  except for calculating annual increments and determining status. The Seventh Pay Commission decided not to include MSP even for calculating the entry (Basic) pay from Sepoys to Brigadiers.

The Govt, despite praises for the sacrifices of the Indian Armed Forces every time a soldier dies, did not question non-inclusion of MSP for calculating the new Entry (Basic) Pay. Therefore, without MSP being added to calculate the new Entry (Basic) Pay, Govt’s orders of 5th Sep 2016 will result in a loss of approximately Rs 9000/- per month for Sepoys (and equivalents), which increases to a loss of Rs 21000/- per month for Brig (and equivalents).  

2: - Seventh Pay Commission recommended, and the ECoS concurred with lower scales of disability benefits for Indian Armed Forces. The Govt has issued orders without questioning the ECoS. The ECoS, living in the comfortable, air conditioned environs of North and South Blocks, appear unaware of disabilities due to adverse elements - the biting cold of Siachen, injuries due to the misfiring/jamming INSAS rifles, explosions of bombs and ammunition because of faulty design coupled with delays by the Govt in taking remedial action, partial deafness due to the noise levels in the cockpits of An-32 aircraft and helicopters et al.     

3: - Seventh Pay Commission has recommended that Indian Armed Forces officers be paid Rs 31500 per month and JCOs/ORs Rs 21000 as Hazard Allowance of the highest degree for serving in Siachen. On the other hand, the Pay Commission recommended that All India Services officers (which comprise IAS, IFS, IFoS, and IPS officers) be paid an additional 30% of their Basic Pay as an additional incentive to serve in Northeast states, Ladakh!. Aren’t they All India Services? Aren’t North-eastern States and Ladakh in India?  

4: - a One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) was formed to adjudicate on OROP. MoD asked Veterans to make representations through the MoD, the administrative Ministry for the OMJC. Natural justice is denied because MoD knows the Veterans representation but Veterans know nothing of the MoD’s rationale on the same issues. The results of the OMJC may not surprise 18 lakh ESM and widows.    

The list of woes of Indian Armed Forces personnel are mis-treated is longer, but brevity prevents listing all of them.

A wise old man said, “Every society is judged by how it treats its least fortunate amongst them.” Sadly, the Indian Armed Forces appear to be the least fortunate! 
   
Pray for Indian Armed Forces that they may continue to defend our country, never mind the mendacity of the bureaucrats, and lip service of the Govts of the day!
   
Jai Hind 

Friday 18 November 2016

Back to my seeking information and blogging

The Golden Jubilee Commemoration & Celebration - 2016 of 96th Pilots Course, 34th and 35th Navigators Course was held successfully at the Vivanta by Taj, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

Thanks to the Vivanta staff, managers, General Manager and, Director (Revenue) we had 4 enjoyable and flawless days and nights of catching up and reminiscing about that day (29 Oct 1966) 50 years ago.

We had a video address by the Marshal of the IAF Arjan Singh, DFC to start the proceedings, a video on today's IAF followed by the Commemoration (a silent presentation).

Now, to resume that quest.

MoD - D(Pay/Services) has requested payment of Rs 70/- to provide 35 photocopied pages leading to the Resolution 01 (E) and 02 (E) dated 05 Sep 2016. I will be sending that off soon and then, we await the revelations!

So, cheer up and provide me with support and encouragement to obtain and share information, for after all Being Informed is the Best Weapon.

P.S: Amendment to last message:-  I am off to Mhow to share information with the Higher Command Wing on 23 or 24 Nov 16. 

An Open Letter to PM from a Naval Veteran (published at his request)

                                           AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PM
                                                    by a veteran
Dear Prime Minister,

 The OROP which you managed to get underway a year back, would certainly not have been possible without you at the helm of power. I congratulate you on this single most ground breaking policy decision taken since Independence. The recent suicide by a veteran over his pension, brings to the fore, how poorly and inefficiently pension matters of veterans are handled. The defence minister was quick to deflect the blame, by publicly announcing that the blame was with the paying bank. Later he said only about 5% veterans were not happy with OROP. In the numerous issues where this defence minister after studying files and records comes up with the worst conceivable answers, all against the interests of the armed forces, such unsubstantiated statements was but expected. I have had privilege of being of some help to many veterans over their pension issues, and some of the cases make very interesting reading on where the blame actually lies, and what corrective actions are required by the concerned department, probably,the same department that is giving the minister his figures and percentages.

Example 1: - Maj A.N.T retired (prematurely) in 1989. He called me up from Warud(MH) to tell me he was hardly getting any pension. I asked him to send me his PPO. The PPO was so badly prepared that it resulted in his getting a very low pension right from day one, and through the 4th, 5th and 6th CPCs. In 2014,his basic was just Rs12400.He had written a number of times to PCDA Allahabad,
but as he could not fathom the reason, he could not explain what the exact problem was.


He was getting the pension of a major with QS=20 yrs (not mentioned in the original PPO), whereas he had 20 yrs commissioned service + 6.5 yrs pre-commissioned service. A due drawn statement finally was made from 1989 to 2014 (14 pages) giving him the minimum pension in the rank of Lt Col(TS) through all pay commissions, and his pension restored to Rs 18205 in the 6th CPC (from a paltry 12000+). This resulted in PCDA making a fresh retiring PPO stating his QS, giving
him additional CVC on retirement+gratuity and in addition payment of arrears till 2014, a total of over Rs 4.5 lakhs. SBI was the bank in question which just kept forwarding his letters to PCDA, with no result. He could have bought a good 2 BHK home in Pune(the city of his choice), had he been given his correct dues in 1989.
 

Example 2: - Maj M.A. Z sought premature retirement in 1999. One look at his PPO was enough to make a letter to CDA(O) to revise his LPC. We went to CDA(O) with the letter, and found his name
missing from their database! Based on his letter he finally got arrears.
 

Example 3: - Lt Col SK T, retired in 2002.Similar case as example 1. His retirement benefits were revised, and he got a good sum in 2016.
 

Example 4: - Col S. U retired in 2002 (again premature) and a poorly prepared PPO again did him in. His retirement benefits were revised and he got a new retirement PPO with a handsome amount.
 

Example 5 Capt S K (IN) prematurely retired in 2004. A poorly and hastily prepared PPO resulted in a largely depressed retiring pension in 2004 and the following years. His PPO underwent a complete overhaul in end 2013 resulting in huge amount of arrears, including CVC and pension arrears as on 2004.
 

So what must the above reveal to the Defence Minister?
 

1. It must reveal at whose door the blame must lie. The CDA has always been inefficient in its functioning, but has successfully protected this fact from successive Defence Ministers. In fact
if a suicide has occurred over pension, why has he not asked for the PPO , to be publicised, to shame the real perpetrators? Why hide them.
 

2. The Defence Minister must know that with the plethora of computer systems and manpower available with them, manual records (ledgers) are still seen in rows of tables in CDA(O), Pune. Why? The reason being that they cheated the armed forces ,and then to undo the damage done, they had to issue thousands of fresh LPCs. But their basic nature is to short change the armed forces at every possible stage. Had they concentrated their efforts in preparing an iron tight pensioners’ data base, it would have served us better. This data base is not available for 100% defence pensioners.
 

3. The Defence Minister must know that if a pensioner who retired in 1999 is not on their data base, then it must raise serous questions of accountability, and must immediately lead to a data audit to understand where veteran’s records actually stand. The Defence minister stated that only ‘in about one lakh cases, the OROP had not been resolved’. Who gave him that figure, or how did he arrive at it? The same organisation which has not computerised the full data and which also told the earlier UPA govt that OROP was neither  'administratively or financially possible’ ?

4. An organisation that denies a pensioner the right to pension, by writing to banks to stop pension to a family pensioner (unless his/her date of birth is mentioned in thePPO), is assuming extra constitutional
powers.The same organisation issued a circular (to banks)10 yrs ago stating that `any of the following documents’ were okay for proof of birth-PAN, AADHAR, driving license etc etc. Yet when the PAN card copy was provided, they still insisted that AHQ/AG verify the date of birth. A letter had to be written to the PM by the pensioner, and immediately action was taken by SBI on that letter! In that I must congratulate the PM.
 

5. Another point of importance, to be understood by the Defence Minister, is that the initial commutation is the `capitalised’ value of commutation. There is a purpose for its release. Most veterans
use it for purchase of a roof over their heads. If any part of this is wrongly withheld and gets released
at a later date, the amount wrongly withheld should be scaled up using the CPI index figures, so that the amount released years later , meets the `capital’ requirements of the individual indexed at the time of its payment. Capital gains tax is computed in much the same way. This if enforced will mean that Rs 2 lacs, not given in 1989, would amount to over Rs 65 lacs today, and not Rs 3 or 4 lacs, as was actually paid in 2015!
 

6. The last and most important point is regarding CGDA’s data base of pensioners. Please release it in parliament and make it available to the ESM organisations. Each Parliament MP must also be given the responsibility to check district wise correctness of pensioners in the CGDA database to clean it up for correctness within 12 months, so that all defence and other pensioners’ problems
are ironed out. 


SA Kanetkar
 

The writer is a retired Naval Officer

Saturday 22 October 2016

Should this blog also have the Pinocchio Test



Source: - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/

The Pinocchio Test
Where possible, we will adopt the following standard in fact-checking the claims of a politician, political candidate, diplomat, or interest group.
We do make some allowance for statements made in live interviews, as opposed to a prepared text. We will judge more harshly statements from a prepared text, on the grounds that the politician and staff had time to discuss the statistic. We also make allowances if the politician or interest group acknowledges an error was made. Finally, we also have a feature called “Recidivism Watch,” which highlights claims repeated by politicians even though the claim has been previously debunked.

pinocchio_1

One Pinocchio

Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods. (You could view this as “mostly true.”)
 pinocchio_2

Two Pinocchios

Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. Can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people. (Similar to “half true.”)

Three Pinocchios

pinocchio_3

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of “mostly false.” But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three.

pinocchio_4

Four Pinocchios

Whoppers.


GeppettoCheckmark

The Geppetto Checkmark

Statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will be recognized with our prized Geppetto checkmark.

Monday 17 October 2016

Actions Do Speak More Than Words



Remember a few days ago the PM said that the Raksha Mantri is like the Armed Forces, all action and hardly any words or some such thing?



Well, after the submission of the 7th CPC report an Empowered Committee of Secretaries was convened and should have interacted with all stakeholders, or that is what the Govt’s directive was.



So, the MoD, all action and now words ensured that as this extract from a reply (Ref No. C/7026/VIth CPC/14 dated 06 Oct 16) to a RTI request indicates: -



….2. The applicant has requested for information by way of dates, names, designation of stakeholders in the Army, Navy and Air Force and Veterans Association/Movement/League/Federation etc (met) the Defence Secretary and/or Ministry of Defence has had interactions with which all or any specific persons.



3.      However, all interactions are conducted/organised by MoD and this office is not part of any interactions. Services has requested MoD for inclusion of Services reps in ECoS interaction, even though no reps from Services attended any interaction. It is requested that the query may be asked from CPIO of MoD, as MoD conduct/coordinate all interactions at ECOS….”



Readers may draw their own conclusions.            

Friday 14 October 2016

Golden Jubilee of the Commissioning of 96th Pilots, 34th & 35th Navigators Courses

This author will be away out-station from 23 Oct 16 to 01 Nov 16 for the above occasion.

Therefore, posts and comments will take a temporary break.

Thank you, in anticipation, for the good wishes. 

Wednesday 5 October 2016

In Hot Pursuit of Promises: A Reality Check



In Hot Pursuit of Promises: A Reality Check

          Angst over the state of pay, allowances, pensions, and retirement benefits of serving personnel, Veterans, and widows of deceased personnel of the Armed Forces respectively has become, not unreasonably, in recent times a perennial condition. It appears that the Govt which is also the Competent Authority in bureaucratic language, does not find the restricted fundamental rights, and sacrifices of Armed Forces personnel adequate enough to justify matching by positive action the promises of equality and justice in benefits.

The marginal improvements in compensation often after protracted deliberations on files, some times nudges of the Courts, do not match the glory of those whose lives and limbs were lost or were at stake for the sovereignty of the nation.

The CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL RULES, 1965 definition is as follows: -
In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to article 309 and clause 5 of article 148 of the Constitution read with Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and in supersession of paragraph 2 of the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms number S.O. 5041 dated the 11th November, 1975 as amended by the notification of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) number S.O. 1752 dated the 30th June, 1987, and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the President hereby directs that with effect from the date of publication  of this order in the Official Gazette, all civil posts under the Union, shall be classified as follows :-
Sl.No.
Description of Posts
Classification of posts
1.
A Central Civil post carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than Rs. 13,500
Group A
2.
A Central Civil post carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than Rs. 9,000 but less than Rs. 13,500
Group B

The file –pushers found it very simple and easy to bestow benefits like the Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (colloquially known as NFU) on themselves quoting the 6th CPC, and smug in the satisfaction that they made the recommendations, they ‘examined’ it, and they found it worthy of selective implementation with a definition of Organised Group ‘A’ services tailored to keep out the officers of the Armed Forces vide OM No. I-11019/12/2008-CRD issued by DOP & T on 20 Nov 2009. The ‘surgical strike’ in this OM was Para 1 (iii) “At least 50% of the vacancies in Junior Time Scale (JTS) in such services are required to be filled by direct recruitment.” JTS is the scale into which newly commissioned officers enter. In other words, does it mean that only 50% of vacancies will have to be set aside for newly commissioned officers and the rest will have to filled by promoting Gp B (JCOs) to JTS? 

Sadly, the Competent Authority (whether UPA-1 or UPA-2 or NDA-2) has not challenged this prejudice against the Armed Forces, the one institution that has defended the Nation’s sovereignty and integrity at the peril of their lives.
         
The growing disenchantment in now being reflected on the politicians who, though the Competent Authority, are led by the bureaucrats. The disenchantment is reflected in appeals before the Armed Forces Tribunals, High Courts, and the Supreme Court. It is also the reason for fratricide and disobedience of rules, regulations, even misappropriation. Shorn of the aiguillettes, collar tags, and dialectics, an objective analysis on CPC related matters shows that it is some what like the sequel to movies (the box office success ones) or serials on TV (that rely on TRPs), with one difference, the continuity is apathy.

Episode - 1 was the 2008 edition post the 6th CPC. The then Chiefs of the Armed Forces expressed their anguish and sought permission of the Govt not to implement the Govt’s orders (Resolution) on inconsistent recommendations of the CPC pointing out 46 anomalies (some of which are actually demands). The then Raksha Mantri gave assurances of redress and corrective action. The Govt went ahead and implemented the Resolution and left the Armed Forces and Veterans and Widows to approach the AFT and the Courts for redress.

A Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by then External Affairs Minister considered the apprehension and rendered a report. In the face of festering discontent, the UPA constituted two Committees chaired by the Cabinet Secretary (CSC) to consider the issues. Members of CSC 2009 and CSC 2012 quoted the report of the GoM quite extensively to back up their “Not Recommended.” Nothing more could have been expected from two committees of bureaucrats, even if headed by the Cabinet Secretary, for it would be blasphemous to think out of the ‘precedent’ box (that foundation of the bureaucracy) let alone think differently from a GoM.

The RM disappointed the Armed Forces by being too insipid and timid, but things have not improved considerably. His classic was “Wait” when NFU issue was referred to him in minute on MoD file provided in a reply (F No. 35 (11)/2013/D (Pay/Services, received vide ibid reply date 08 Oct 2013).

 The UPA Govt announced approval for One Rank One Pension (OROP) on 17 Feb 2014. OROP was presented, perhaps as a reaction to the pre-election promises which raised hopes and aspirations from September 2013 onwards.

Implementation of OROP is cited as one example of ‘caring for Armed Forces Veterans’ by this Govt and though it was denied for 67 years by the previous governments including NDA–1, (which brings me to that mischievous thought – if OROP was prevalent till 3rd CPC as is bandied about, how is it 67 years!) 

Some Veterans raised aspirations, often coloured in hues of misrepresentation [before 3rd CPC pension was 70%, that OROP was in existence when actually it was Standard Pension i.e One amount (Rs 300) for One rank (Capt) irrespective of the qualifying service above 20 years)], and mis-quoting of Koshyari Committee report’s recommendation on annual equalisation (The Koshyari Report only records the  submission made by Army and Air Force representatives for either a 5 yearly equalisation or Pay Commission to Pay Commission equalisation. Neither of them is in the recommendations of the Koshyari Committee Report at Para 11) and much else.

for information through the RTI Act, 2005 brought out the script, the screenplay and the comments and opinions of various officers up the chain in the decision making apparatus known as MoD. It will, if the pattern of Episode – 1 persists, show that Armed Forces placed a list of anomalies/demands, the Govt/MoD conceded some, the Govt/MoF overruled some of those, and finally a sagacious decision will be taken to pass the responsibility to the 7th Central Pay Commission for a ‘holistic view.’ On reads how ‘holistic’ that view was.

History will, however, record a first to the credit of this Govt. It is the setting up of the One Man Judicial Commission (OMJC) to adjudicate on Govt order on OROP. The OMJC is an improvement on the Cabinet Secretary Committees (CSCs).

So, other than OROP (or its diluted or adulterated version, depending on the opinion of reticent or vociferous critics) what are the other promises that this Govt has fulfilled? Pension fixation w.e.f 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012? No, that was a consequence of a Supreme Court ruling in S-29 pensioners’ case. What about deletion of the pro-rata deduction for pre 1.1.2006 pensioners as it was applicable to post 1.1.2006 pensioners? No again, it was the Supreme Court’s order in the MO Inasu case. 

Episode – 2 is the 2016 edition, with one change in the script. The present Chiefs of the Armed Forces express their anguish and have sought permission of the Govt not to implement the Govt’s orders (resolution) on inconsistent recommendations of the CPC pointing out another list of anomalies (some of which may again actually be demands). The Raksha Mantri gives assurances of redress and speedy corrective action. The Govt goes ahead and issues the Resolution and leaves the Veterans and Widows to approach the AFT and the Courts for redress. The one change in the script is that a serving officer has approached a High Court for redress.    

          Future requests for information through the RTI Act, 2005 will bring out the script, the screenplay and the comments and opinions of various officers up the chain in the decision making apparatus known as MoD. It will, if the pattern of Episode – 1 persists, show that Armed Forces placed a list of anomalies/demands, the Govt/MoD conceded some, the Govt/MoF overruled some of those, and finally a sagacious decision will be taken to pass the responsibility to the 8th Central Pay Commission for a ‘holistic view.’

          It will need the Govt’s decision, like the strike on terrorist launch pads, to achieve any effect on the bureaucracy. In the strike on the terrorists’ launch pads, the Govt trusted the capability, the ability, and the intelligence of the Armed Forces to deliver the desired results, befitting a Govt that means what it says and is ready to take a hard, deliberate, and well thought of decision, including using the perfect tools (the Armed Forces in this case). The Armed Forces vindicated the confidence of this Govt.

Will this Govt issue orders for another ‘surgical strike’ on the anomalies/issues by engaging directly with the Armed Forces and leaving implementation to the bureaucracy. 

Will the Govt to live up to the promises made to the Armed Forces by another ‘surgical’ decision? 

Hold your breath & watch this space.

Jai Hind, Jai Jawan

*        *        *        *        *        *