tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post2222335447507659804..comments2024-02-08T19:00:06.509+05:30Comments on Aerial View : More on the DGL for MoD Corrigenda dated 24 Jul 14 Aerial Viewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17115360943663046368noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-68599922781440809172020-09-16T14:43:36.446+05:302020-09-16T14:43:36.446+05:30Sir,
I became substantive Sqn. Ldr. in 1988. On fi...Sir,<br />I became substantive Sqn. Ldr. in 1988. On fixation of my pay as on 01.01.1996, AFCAO/Dy.CDA has not taken into account of my increments earned in the regime of 4th Pay Commission. Despite my request to correct the mistake, they are adamant on their stand and say everything is fine. As per 5th Pay Commission Corrigendum, I am supposed to one increment on the basic fixation and one increment on each of three increments in the pay of 4th Pay commission regime. I hope DAV, AFCAO and Dy. CDA wakes upSqn.Ldr.(Dr.) J.P. Singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02301487359199453951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-789984690341735472014-10-08T12:54:58.610+05:302014-10-08T12:54:58.610+05:30Sir,
One serving offr has got Rs 14000/- as arrea...Sir,<br /><br />One serving offr has got Rs 14000/- as arrears. It is listed as Arrears of P&A in his Sep salary slip.Period shown is 1/1/96 to 31/8/14. The break up amount is also given and the period is fromfrom 1/1/96 to 5/11/97.<br /><br />The officer became substantive Maj on 5/11/97 and therefore the arrears are for the period when he was Capt or Actg Maj. His date of Commission and senirity was Mar 86 and Nov 86 respectively. Surprising nothing for the period when he was Subs Maj or Lt Co.<br /><br />Hope it throws some light on CDA's mischievous calculations.<br /><br />Rgds,<br /><br />RCRChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804069588088375268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-88865972560590838352014-10-06T12:55:57.561+05:302014-10-06T12:55:57.561+05:30Sir,
I do not know details of the earlier court p...Sir,<br /><br />I do not know details of the earlier court proceedings and therefore my understanding as given in the following para may not be fully correct. Taking the liberty of verifying it with you. If the understanding is correct then may be RODA can consider the issue in the Contempt Proceedings.<br /><br />The total amount due to officers as given in above mentioned documents is at a very wide variation from the calculations given by Govt earlier to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Based on the earlier figures submitted the Govt had pleaded before the Court that implementation of orders would result in huge cost to exchequer and had sought waiver of interest payments on the amounts due. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court changed the date for payment of interest from the date on which amount become due to 1.1.06. Now the Govt is saying that there is hardly any payment due. In light of current projected figures does it not amount to misleading the Court by making incorrect submission. Should this also not be part of our Contempt Petition and probably we should seek court directions to revert to interest payments from the day the amount became due to the officers rather than from 1.1.06.<br /><br />Probably the earlier calculations would be correct as the government has cheated a very large number of officers over an extended period of more than twenty years. Still we may decide to bring the date of interest payment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />RCRChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804069588088375268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-25202873542242348922014-10-05T09:42:51.865+05:302014-10-05T09:42:51.865+05:30@Venkatesh VT,
Thank you but the sarcasm does not...@Venkatesh VT,<br /><br />Thank you but the sarcasm does not befit a Lt Col/Col that i think you were, though your cynicism befits a general cadre's ignorance. But I will venture to place before Your Highhandedness these facts (most of which which are on Aerial View).<br /><br />I am not a soothsayer/astrologer/palmist/numerologist etc to predict "future happenings." I will leave that to you, because the framer (no pun intended) of the questions must have the answers too...<br /><br />If you take time off to read the Apex Court orders in (Gen) Vijay Kumar Singh Vs UoI (WP 126 of 2012), you will learn that then Ld AG (may his soul rest in peace) and then SG did inform the Apex Court of an action of the MoD in withdrawing a certain impugned document. Then the Gen's lawyer withdrew his petition.<br /><br />The Govt is, as your informed self knows, behaving in the manner it deems best - deny, defy and, if nothing succeeds, delay implementation of the orders of the PB CAT, Delhi High Court, Supreme Court in OA 655 of 2012.<br /><br />As your intelligent mind would have told you when you framed the sarcastic question about disability benefits, the UoI has lost its Review Petition (C) No. 2688 of 2013 recently in UoI Vs Capt KJS Buttar. Now, DESW will drag its mind, body and soul before it implements the orders in Capt Buttar's case and will use services of Govt's law officers to do the same in other similarly placed personnel.<br /><br />OROP - nothing will happen till the PM decides that it is to be paid because if despite the RM's orders, the CGDA is denying, defying and delaying, she has some more powerful entity who has tacitly approved her action/inaction.<br /><br />Finally, NANA (CA No. 4949 of 2013) - DESW was seeking opinion of Govt Law officers. Status is not known.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16599233400842278493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-4415351324815332042014-10-05T07:34:34.591+05:302014-10-05T07:34:34.591+05:30@Taaza Khabar Some clarifications
I am enlightened...@Taaza Khabar Some clarifications<br />I am enlightened with the clarification from the horse's mouth.May i also kindly request you to provide clarifications regarding the future happenings in the rank pay case specially wrt to the contempt & also what SC would do if the ld SG's advice was against its orders & finally why the govt is dealing with the pre 2006 pensioners court cases in an unexpected way(S 29 case for e.g) , the disability cases of the armed forces & finally what is going to happen wrt OROP<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11219026867367225038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-10294962856713003732014-10-04T15:43:04.616+05:302014-10-04T15:43:04.616+05:30Some clarifications.
It is not contempt for a rep...Some clarifications.<br /><br />It is not contempt for a reply to be vetted - settled in legal language. SG gives no opinion but vets the affidavit prepared by one of the law officers on the correctness in terms of the Rules in the Hon'ble Supreme Court handbook.<br /><br />Does he have the authority to interpret? There was an interpretation on 31.3.2010 by then SG, Gopal Subramanium which was followed by the HPC report. <br /><br />Then there was another opinion sought from the next SG, R F Nariman (now Judge of the Apex Court) which was conveyed on 17.10.2012.<br /><br />In the contempt petition the "necessary parties" are the Defence Secretary and the CGDA. <br /><br />FM reiterated the Parliament's powers to make tax laws applicable retrospectively and levied tax on Vodafone after the Apex Court struck down the tax levied. No refund has been ordered and even this Govt is still plodding to arrive at a solution. <br /><br />Any retrospective legislation must also change the terms and conditions of service with retrospective effect and it will be up to the Apex Court whether there have been violations of the Constitution because a law cannot be changed for one set of Govt employees (Armed Forces) without the other being subjected to the same change.<br /><br />You are absolutely right - far fetched is actually an understatement. Lack of understanding would have been more appropriateAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16599233400842278493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-6130660652776041402014-10-04T12:16:10.428+05:302014-10-04T12:16:10.428+05:30Quoting from one of the letters above
"Reply...Quoting from one of the letters above <br />"Reply against the Contempt Petition as settled by the Ld Solicitor general has also been filed."<br />It is very evident that the Def ministry woke up only due to the contempt petition & tried to shift blame away from itself in trying to involve the SG.I am sure the SG was certainly aware of the contempt petition & in trying to give his opinion,may himself committed contempt.<br />Does he has the authority to interpret the SC's decision specially after the contempt was initiated.Even now his opinion seems to toe the govt way of thinking & not follow the judgement in letter & spirit<br />From the examples given for Capt it can be seen that many Captains may get more than a Major in 5th pay commission initial fixation if there is no minimum for each rank laid down.The ld SG seems to have over looked this (deliberately or otherwise is a matter for the SC to decide)<br />Any how the final savior is the SC & hope the procedure for appointment of judges remains as it is & not changed as the politicians want<br />I also remember of the FM's words regarding power of the parliament to make retrospective laws & he specifically mentioned about over ruling SC's judgement through retrospective legislation in case of taxes already collected & SC orders a refund<br />I wont be surprised if he tests the water through retrospective legislation on the govt employees including the Services for not changing already implemented pay scales<br />This may look far fetched.How ever the babus are wily & not going to lose their rule making powers<br />See <br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySTbfOE8i8Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11219026867367225038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-60844662703490085352014-10-03T18:40:58.524+05:302014-10-03T18:40:58.524+05:30Sir,
The babus re taking us for a ride as usual, h...Sir,<br />The babus re taking us for a ride as usual, hope this is exposed in the Contempt hearing. The stake holders ie the Services have not been heared or reffered to, the decision of the Babus is being forced upon the Services/ Veterans<br />Regards<br />Col Ravi Rao (Retd)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03188373771785917865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5780881198603853530.post-34963502527536549892014-10-03T14:24:20.745+05:302014-10-03T14:24:20.745+05:30It is surprising to see that by some weird logic t...It is surprising to see that by some weird logic the 2 remaining issues were not referred again to Ld AG as these babus were afraid that their nefarious design will be undone. Also, it is beyond comprehension that these one exam wonders and accountants could not read the opinion of Ld AG on these remaining issues whereas he has qualified his comments by saying that "if what cgda said is correct" or something to this effect. As regards some babus comments that judgement does not ask for change of payscales , well it is administrative ministry's responsibility to implement the judgement in letter and spirit. Judgements do not give detailed calculations as to how the effect is to be calculated. In this case it involves change of pay scales due to wrong deduction of rank pay while devising payscales. aaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03806498210995687719noreply@blogger.com