On the Press Release

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true;

The other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

From numerous, unsolicited chain emails exchanged between “faith in Satbir Singh” and non-believers is this the latest one: -

“SPECIAL PRESS RELEASE 04 JUN, 2016: JANTAR MANTAR

1.  Maj Gen Satbir Singh had one to one meeting with Justice Reddy on 03 Jun, 2016. Meeting was held in very cordial environment and it lasted for one hour instead of scheduled half an hour as Justice Reddy evinced keen interest in all the points put up by Maj Gen Satbir Singh.

2. Gen Satbir explained in ample measures the four major anomalies viz firstly equalization of pension every year instead of every five years, secondly fixation of pension at top of the bracket instead (of) the average, thirdly implementing it from 01 Apr 2014 instead of 01 Jul, 2014 and fourthly the base year to be top of financial year 2013-2014 instead average of calendar year 2013 thus unfairly denying one increment to soldiers. Changing the very definition of OROP to periodic intervals from passing on any future enhancements in pension to past pensioners thus killing the very soul of OROP was also a topic of keen discussion”

Here is my educated, informed analysis.

This post is for wiser and discerning ESM. It is not in support to those who are either full of faith in Maj Gen Satbir Singh/IESM or for those who accuse him/IESM’s governing council/body for alleged malfeasance. In other words, this write up is for readers who can also think for themselves and come to a rational conclusion, not necessarily in agreement with facts presented (once again!) in this post. 

First, equalization of pension every year instead of every five years: - The equalisation of pension, whether annually or five yearly is like the vices of one of the witches of Macbeth - create confusion and chaos. So let us eliminate confusion and chaos.

Pension Regulations for the Army, Part I (2008), Chapter 1, Section 1, General at Para 2 (c) states: -

The day on which an individual is retired or is released or is discharged or is allowed to resign, or is invalided out from service or dies in harness, as the case may be, shall be treated as his last day in service. Provided that in the case of an individual who is retired prematurely or who retires voluntarily, the date of retirement shall be treated as a non-working day (emphasis supplied).

We may also read the following two judgments (of the many available on line): -

           

In WP (C) No. 2449 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi in New Delhi on 16 Nov 2015 quoting a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court [Source: (lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SDS/judgement/17-11-2015/SDS16112015CW24492014.pdf) ]: -

“Increment” has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jaswant Singh Kanwar 2013 (9) SCALE 671, wherein it has been held as under:

"Increment" has a definite concept in service law Jurisprudence. It is an increase or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a scale. As noted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad and Anr. 1972 3 SCC 595, under the Labour and Industrial Laws, an increment is when in a time scale of pay an employee advances from the lower point of scale to the higher by periodic additions. In other words, it is addition in the same scale and not to a higher scale. Increment is an incidence of employment and an employee gets an increment by working the full year and drawing full salary (emphasis supplied).

In Honourable Andhra High Court by Principal Accountant General and others  vs C. Subba Rao on 27 January, 2005, Equivalent citations: 2005 (2) ALD 1, 2005 (2) ALT 25, Bench: B Nazki, V Rao, P Narayana; Judgment: V.V.S. Rao, J [Source: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1005408/]: -

7…….If a retired Government servant is allowed to draw another increment after retirement, it would be contrary to Pension Rules as well as Fundamental Rules. He would then urge that as per F. R. 26, an increment can be drawn only when an employee is on duty and an employee who retires on the last working day of the month ceases to be Government employee and therefore no increment can be sanctioned to him.

Xxxx                xxxx                xxxx   

16. As per Fundamental Rule (F. R.) 17, extracted hereinabove, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post until he ceases to discharge those duties. "Pay" as defined in F. R. 9 (21) (a) means, the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant which also includes the increment given at an anterior date. Therefore, after retirement, a person will not be entitled to any pay including the increment that may be due from the posterior date. F. R. 22 regulates the initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post in time-scale and F. R. 24 and F. R. 26 regulate the sanction of increment to a Government servant, who is on duty. A reading of various Fundamental Rules extracted hereinabove would show that a person appointed as a Government servant is entitled to pay in time- scale of pay. He is also entitled to draw the increment as per time-scale of pay as a matter of course as long as such Government servant discharges duties of the post and such Government servant shall not be entitled to draw the pay and allowances attached to the post as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. In other words, as per F. R. 17 read with F. Rs. 24 and 26 annual increment is given to a Government servant to enable him to discharge duty and draw pay and allowances attached to the post. If such Government servant ceases to discharge duties by any reason say, by reason of attainment of age of superannuation, such Government servant will not be entitled to draw pay and allowances. As a necessary corollary, such employee would not be entitled to any increment if it falls due after the date of retirement, be it on the next day of retirement or sometime thereafter (emphasis supplied).

            More explicitly, having retired, an ESM ceases to be employed at the stage of the qualifying service rendered on the date of retirement.

            Next, as you read and understood from the above judgments, an increment is paid for an additional year of service. If the start for a pay band for Lt Col was Rs 38530 on 1.1.2006, the start would the lower i.e Rs 37400 for Lt Cols promoted on or after 1.1.2006, or in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014.

Please see from the table below that every serving officer starts from the same Pay in the Pay Band i.e. Basic Pay, irrespective of the year he is promoted. And every officer get an increment for every additional year of service rendered till he/she reaches the top of the appropriate Pay Band/Pay scale. Pension means the ESM is no longer in service and hence not entitled to any increment.

QS	Major 15600 -39100  +6600 +6000			Lt Col 37400 - 67000  + 8000 + 6000			Col 37400 - 67000 + 8700 +6000
	Basic	Total	Pension	Basic	Total	Pension	Basic	Total	Pension
7	21630	34230	17115	-	-	-	-	-	-
8	22480	35080	17540	-	-	-	-	-	-
9	23360	35960	17980	-	-	-	-	-	-
10	24260	36860	18430	-	-	-	-	-	-
11	25190	37790	18895	-	-	-	-	-	-
12	26150	38750	19375	-	-	-	-	-	-
13	27140	39740	19870	-	-	-	-	-	-
14	28160	40760	20380	37400	51400	25700	-	-	-
15	29210	41810	20905	38770	52770	26835	-	-	-
16	30290	42890	21445	40180	54180	27090	-	-	-
17	31400	44000	22000	41630	55630	27815	-	-	-
18	32540	45140	22570	43120	57120	28560	43120	57820	28910
19	33715	46320	23160	44660	58660	29330	44680	59380	29690
20	34925	47530	23765	46240	60240	30120	46290	60990	30495
21	36170	48780	24390	47870	61870	30395	47940	62640	31320
22	37470	50070	25035	49550	63550	31775	49640	64340	32170
23	38800	51400	25700	51280	65280	32640	51390	66090	33045
24	39100*	51700	25850	53060	67060	33530	53200	67900	33950
25	-	-	-	54900	68900	34450	55060	69760	34880
26		-	-	56790	70790	35395	56980	71680	35840
27	-	-	-	58740	72740	36730	58950	73650	36825
28				60750	74750	36370	61010	75710	37855
29				62820	76820	38410	63110	77810	38905
30				64950	78950	39475	65270	79970	39985
31				67000#	81400	40200	67000#	81700	40850

QS	Colonel 37400 -67000  +8700 +6000			Brigadier 37400 - 67000  + 8900 + 6000			Maj Gen 37400 - 67000 +10000
	Basic	Total	Pension	Basic	Total	Pension	Basic	Total	Pension
18	43120	57820	28910
19	44680	59380	29690
20	46290	60990	30495
21	47940	62640	31320
22	49640	64340	32170
23	51390	66090	33045	53220	68120	34060
24	53200	67900	33950	55090	69990	34994
25	55060	69760	34880	57010	71910	35955
26	56980	71680	35840	58990	73890	36945
27	58950	73650	36825	61030	75930	37965	61090	71090	35545
28	61010	75710	37855	63130	78030	39015	63230	73230	36615
29	63110	77810	38905	65290	80190	40095	65430	75430	37715
30	65270	79970	39985	67000	81900	40950	67000	77000	38500
31	67000	81700	40850	67000	81900	40950	67000	77000	38500
32				67000	81900	40950	67000	77000	38500
33							67000	77000	38500
34							67000	77000	38500

*    Pay Band Rs 15600 - 39100

#    Lt Col/Col/Brig/Maj Gen Pay Band Rs 37400 – 67000

Are we to understand that every serving officer will have a different starting pay in every succeeding year for the same ranks and therefore we need equalisation?

Intelligent readers would recall that if an officer was already in the rank on 31.12.2005, his pay in the 6^th CPC regime w.e.f 1.1.2006 was fixed after adding once increment. For Lt Cols it was Re 38530 against a start of scale of Rs 37400. Now look at the table below when thinking of equalisation: -

Rank	In the rank on 31.12.2005					Promoted on or after 1.1.2006
	Pay	GP	MSP	Total	Pension	Pay	GP	MSP	Total	Pension
Captain	18600	6100	6000	30700	15350	16860	6100	6000	28960	14480
Major	23810	6600	6000	36410	18205	21630	6600	6000	34230	17115
Lt Col	38530	8000	6000	52530	26265	37400	8000	6000	51400	25700
Col	43120	8700	6000	57820	28910	40890	8700	6000	55590	27795
Brig	55080	8900	6000	69980	34990	53220	8900	6000	68120	34060
Maj Gen	63000	10000	-	73000	36550	61090	10000	-	71090	35545

So is the demand for equalisation of pensions of those promoted after 1.1.2006 (hence with lesser QS) with the pensions of those who were in the specific rank on 31.12.2005 and consequently more QS, and in receipt of one increment on transition to 6^th CPC?

So, intelligent ESM, where is the equalisation required, whether annually, or once in 5 years? To my mind, when the Govt accepts, approves, and implements the recommendations of the next Pay Commission or any other authority it may appoint for the purpose of review of pay scales etc the next equalisation would be appropriate.

Second ‘anomaly’ i.e. ‘fixation at the top of the bracket (band?) instead of the average’ is neither in the much quoted Koshiyari Report nor in earlier demands by IESM or any other ESM.

As intelligent readers are aware, there are just the following pay bands (bracket?) and Grade Pay: -

PB-3: - For Lts to Maj (and equivalent) the pay band is Rs 15600-39100 with GP for Lt Rs 5400, Capt 6100, Maj Rs 6600 plus a standard MSP of Rs 6000.     

PB-4: -For Lt Cols to Maj Lt Gens the pay band is Rs 37400 – 67000 with Grade pay of Rs 8000 for Lt Col, Rs 8700 for Cols, Rs 8900 for Brig and Rs 10000 for Maj Gen. MSP is applicable to Lt Cols to Brig and notional on promotion to Maj Gen such that his pay is higher than a Brig’s.

HAG: - For Lt Gens Rs 67000 -79000 & HAG+: - Rs 75500 – 80000 respectively.

So, what does IESM demand? That Lt, Capts and Maj have their fixation at Rs 39100 (+GP+ MSP)? That Lt Cols to Maj Gens (even Lt Gens in HAG at Rs 67000) have their fixation at Rs 67000 (+GP + MSP where applicable)?   

Third ‘anomaly’ is for implementation from 01.4.2014 instead of 1.7.2014 (with a resultant loss of 3 months arrears of OROP).

Maj Gen Satbir Singh was a co-petitioner in Maj Gen SPS Vains & Others vs UoI. He must have been made aware of that in D S Nakara Vs UoI, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: -

With reference to selection of the date this Court observed as under: "The choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of the reasonable mark"(emphasis supplied).

Fourth ‘anomaly’ is of computing the pension for Calendar year 2013 results in a loss of one increment [due in July 2013?].

Intelligent ESM know that the calendar year 2013 commences in January and ends in December while the FY 2013-4 commences in April 2013 and ends on 31 Mar 2014. Whether in AY 2013 or FY 2013-14 the next increment would be due in July 2013.

In the fifth ‘anomaly’, i.e. “passing on any future enhancements in pension to past pensioners,” brings all ESM to the foundation of the OROP matter. Inclusion of the clause supports a very strong groundswell that MoD has deleted the clause, either without proper application of the mind, or worse, in a moment of pique. This anomaly needs to be removed for the sake of fairness and the promises made by the political executive.

In conclusion, in its exuberance of the meeting with Justice Reddy, it does not appear to have occurred to the think tank of IESM that solicitous remarks about the honourable Judge, about his brother and “the empathy” could encourage demands for recusal by the Judge; some on grounds that he may be sympathetic to ESM, others on the ground that he has let the brother’s case come in the way of “favourable” recommendations?