Monday, December 16, 2013

Update on Rank Pay Case in Mail Today

Facing contempt, Supreme Court orders CAG, top babus for an 'in person' appearance


The on-going fight between retired defence officers and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) over the 'Rank Pay' took a new turn with the apex court ordering top bureaucrats, including Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Shashikant Sharma, to appear before the court in person. The order was issued by the Supreme Court's Deputy Registrar on November 27, 2013 mandating the top four MoD bureaucrats to come to the court on February 13, 2014.

The appearance pertains to a 49-page contempt petition filed by the Retired Defence Officers Association (RDOA) in the apex court over non-implementation of the court's order of September 2012.

Explaining the context behind the contempt petition, Group Captain (Retd) KS Bhati who represents RDOA said, "In our contempt petition before the SC, we've sought exemplary punishment for what we believe has been deliberate and intentional non-compliance of this court's order against ex-Defence Secretary and present CAG Shashikant Sharma, RS Gujral, Secretary in Department of Expenditure, Arunava Dutt, then Controller General of Defence Accounts & Priti Mohanty, Adviser Finance in MoD."

A copy of the two-page order accessed by this correspondent states, "Whereas your attendance is necessary to answer a charge of contempt of this court as alleged in the contempt petition." It further mentions, "You shall attend the court in person on the above mentioned date and shall continue to attend the court on all days thereafter to which the case against you stands adjourned and until final orders are passed on the charge against you. HEREIN FAIL NOT."

Reacting to this, former head of Air Force's training command, Air Marshal (Retd) Sharad Savur who is also a member of the RDOA said, "Every passing day is getting lost without veterans getting their legitimate dues. Regarding the presence of the CAG in court, if a person who is alleged to have committed a contempt is appointed to a constitutional post it shows how poorly screening committees function in India. Our contempt notice was sent when Mr. Sharma was still the Defence Secretary."

Group Captain (Retd) KS Bhati, lawyer RDOA: We want that the CAG and other bureaucrats follow the SC's order. If these people seek exemption from appearing in court we will oppose till, they agree to implement SC's orders.

What is the Rank Pay case about?

The case, famously known as the Rank Pay case was initiated by Major AK Dhanapalan when he approached the Kerala High Court in 1998 praying that as per Government of India resolution, 'rank pay' was admissible to army officers in addition to their integrated scales. Since this was taking place since 1.1.86 i.e. date of implementation of the fourth pay commission, court allowed him re-fixation of his pay from that day without deducting his pay based on rank pay - a practice which was taking place before. Subsequently, RDOA took up this case on behalf of serving and retired officers against which the MoD lost all appeals and petitions before all courts including SC. 

Friday, October 4, 2013

Strategic Triangle of Siachen-Daulet Beg Oldie-Karakoram Pass


Strategic Triangle (Siachen-Karakoram Pass- Daulet Beg Oldie)

The Shimla Pact of 1972 demarcated the LOC on map as well as on ground upto point NJ 9842 and left it delineated beyond with the words ‘northwards’ since at that time the area beyond NJ 9842 was perceived as inhabitable and covered by snow throughout the year which is now known as ‘SIACHEN’. The line extending northwards of NJ 9842 has different perceptions for Pak and India. Pak feels the LOC extends towards the imaginary line joining to Karakoram Pass whereas to India it means the line running along the top of the Siachen Glacier peaks till it meets the Saksham Valley and Karakoram Highway. India pre-empted Pak in 1984 by occupying the glacial heights under ‘Op Meghdoot’ and continues to dominate the area around. Pak efforts to force India to vacate Siachen has not borne fruits. Even Track 2 diplomacy has not helped.  Given the cost factor to maintain troops at such heights, Siachen has become ‘strategically’ important for India.
China’s Ladakh intrusion: Two maps tell this dangerous story


What happens if India vacates Siachen?
(a)     Should Pak occupy these heights; it would be next to impossible for India to capture/occupy them again.
(b)     Pak can occupy and lease the area to China as it has done with the Shaksam Valley. Thereafter India can forget about Siachen.
(c)      China can exert pressure on India or fight a limited war so that India vacates Siachen and China occupies it giving strategic depth to the Karakoram Pass and the Karakoram Highway. In that context occupation of Siachen, Depsang valley and Daulet Beg Oldie gives India the upper hand to dominate the triangle area and threaten the Karakoram pass and Highway.
(d) Pak/China will have easy access to the Leh District/Valley

So, therefore under no circumstances should India vacate Siachen. In fact India should improve its border infrastructure by developing roads and permanent defences. India should ‘pump in’ more troops and keep elements of the Mountain Strike Corps to restore areas taken away by China. Ideally India should induct one more Mountain Division and an Armed Bde under Hq 14 Corps in the area of responsibility of 14 Corps in Western Ladakh.

 

Thursday, September 12, 2013

LOC to LAC: COMBINED AFFAIR


The recent heightened cease fire violations along the LOC with Pakistan and the continued ingress by the Chinese in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh along the LAC needs to be viewed with concern as compared to the relatively quiet border couple of months earlier. Ever since Pak Premier Nawaz Sharief  has assumed office the border flare ups have gone up. Either these incidents are with his connivance or he has no hold on the Pak military. Which ever way one looks at, the sanctity of the ceasefire has been broken and would henceforth remain a continued proxy war.

The CBM measures with China along with assurances to maintain peace and tranquility along the LAC are repeatedly broken with intrusion in Ladakh as well as in North East. Although no firing has taken place, it cannot be ruled out that in future it may not happen. The excuse given as to the perception of the LAC by either side at every violation has to be substantiated by maps and ground positions. The infrastructure along the LAC on the Chinese side is well developed with network of roads and railway duly supported by airfields for logistic support in case of war. Comparatively India is badly off when it comes to infrastructure. All border roads development projects are behind schedule or non existent in a large number of forward posts leaving it to the Airforce to support for logistical backups or movement of troops in case the situation demands.

The thought process that India would face either Pak or China in any war scenario can be put in cold storage. India will have to be prepared to deal with LOC and LAC activity simultaneously on twin fronts and will have to prepare accordingly. The idea of switching forces from one theatre to another as was done during the Kargil War can be ruled out convincingly. On, both the LOC and LAC, India needs to have adequate force levels to deal with any eventuality with logistic backup and air support.

Indian politico- bureaucracy should get over the fear that military coup-de-etat can take place. The chances are remote as India is too vast a country with multi lingual religions. So, therefore raising of para military forces to counter the military should be shelved and the military should be given its rightful place in being part of the National Security apparatus for which it is meant

LOC with Pakistan

After the Kargil War, India deployed more formations to guard the LOC and reoriented the area of responsibility of the 14, 15 and 16 Corps formations. As on date India is adequately poised to deal with Pak effectively. India has made it clear to Pak that Siachen will not be vacated under any circumstance which is of strategic importance to both Pak and China as India can blockade the Karakoram Highway. The pressure to vacate Siachen will remain and India should remain steadfast. Pak has given away Saksham Valley to China on lease. This is adjoining Siachen and strategic to the Karakoram highway.

At other places along the LOC, the stalemate will continue. Neither India nor Pak are in a position to capture POK or J&K. Option to convert LOC into a International Border (IB) would not be agreeable to either country. India will have to firmly deal with the terror outfits and should put all talks on hold till such time Pak gives up aiding these covertly operating organizations.

At other places along the LOC, the stalemate will continue. Neither India nor Pak are in a position to capture POK or J&K. Option to convert LOC into a International Border (IB) would not be agreeable to either country. India will have to firmly deal with the terror outfits and should put all talks on hold till such time Pak gives up aiding these covertly operating organizations.

 

 

With this as the backdrop, a holistic view of the deployment and operational control of the BSF/ITBP/SSB should be taken and restructuring where required should be carried out. As has been the pattern to dply BSF along the International border (IB) should continue but to use BSF/ITBP/SSB along the LOC in penny packets of battalion/company level strength under the Home Ministry is certainly not advocated as it amounts to dual command of troops which can work counter productive in situations where army has to take decisions. Along the LOC wherever BSF units are dply, these should be under the operational and administrative control of the army. Use of ITBP/SSB units along the LOC should be avoided.

If at all BSF/ITBP/SSB units have to be used in the valley, then such units should be dply in the hinterland to augument the army resources in cordon and search, and law and order issues. Again this should be under unified command of the highest military officer present in location. The  Police-Army equation needs to be revisited and should be restored as it existed earlier. When it comes to National Security personal egos and one up man ship needs to be set aside. Even political interference should be limited. Only then can the Army-Police-Politico-babus combine can achieve the desired goals.

Strategic Triangle (Siachen-Karakoram Pass- Daulet Beg Oldie)
To follow:

 

Monday, May 20, 2013

Indo China Border: Percieved LAC


PART 2

What options does India have on the LAC with China?

Without getting into the statics, let us examine how India is placed wrt China both militarily and economically. Let us face the facts. We are no match to China militarily as well as economically. China is able to flex its muscle because it is militarily strong backed by economic power. Not only along the LAC but even in the South China Sea the domination of China is visible.
 
After the 1962 conflict China has been slowly and gradually nibbling at the LAC towards positions which it perceives as its own territory. These have not been authenticated on ground nor on maps.  The following maps will reveal how the LAC has shifted since 1962.
 
 

 
 

Monday, April 1, 2013

Truth and Deceit:IV CPC Rank Pay Case: Part III


Part III

DSR 1987 Regulation has equated time scale Lt Col, even if substantive after 24 years of service, equivalent to Major. This equation was not laid in paragraph 65 of Regulation 1962. This has caused financial loss to the non-selection list of officers. It should be noted that Time scale Lt Col were given the pay scale of Lt Col on completion of 21 yrs of service by the V CPC. Such officers were promoted to the rank of Col with implementation of A V Singh committee recommendations and are drawing pay and grade pay of Col after 6 CPC.

            Regulation for Army is a administrative document and is not required to        include any instructions concerning financial implications. That being so, Regulation of    1962 edition did not include any financial clause in this administrative document,           whereas 1987 Regulation did include financial clause under para 66(i) by     incorporating amendment like “no selection officers will count against officers in the rank of Major”.

 

                        Perhaps the ‘Rank pay’ factor was not catered for, but the definition of rank                        pay is  very clear and needs to be implemented now both at IV as well as V                            CPC. This has concurrence of the MoF as per letter of 29 Feb 2000. It                           will restore pay and  pension denied since 1986 to date.

     
            The DGL as submitted by the Service HQ’s to MoD is the ‘Apt’ Document fully          implementing the directive of the apex court incorporating all the judgment    clauses. It needs to be persued by the Services to ensure that the ends of justice     are fully met. It has all the tables which are exhaustive for each rank from Capt to    Brig till 6 CPC corrections. Extract of that has been given in Part II. This was  obtained through RTI.To that end the Do Letter by COSC to MoD holds good and    has been put on this blog earlier.

            Pension for Pre 1986 retirees

 

            The pre 1986 retiree officers have been given notional rank pay with minimum for            each rank as revealed in their PPO.eg Major given pension of 3400 plus RP 600 and      Lt Col given 3900+RP 800 etc.


            Q         How is their pension set to change?

            A         Once the minimum for each rank as given in para 6 (a)(ii) is changed which has been reflected in Part I the pension will change accordingly as the minimum  will go up.This will also change at V CPC and then to minimum of pay in pay band at 6 CPC  which is given in the table that follows.

Revised Pension for Pre 2006 Retirees

The pension being given to pre 2006 retires (officers) is based on 50% of  sum of minimum of pay band plus grade pay plus Military Service Pay ie (37400+8000+6000) = 25700 in case of Lt Col. As per Committee of Secy’s Report formulated by the Prime Minister to go into the pay and pension anomalies of Ex Servicemen; the pension would be based on 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band as per rank held on 1/1/2006 plus grade pay plus MSP. For example for Lt Col the revised pension would be 50% of (42120+8700+6000) = 28410. Diff (28410-25700=2710) and 72 % DA thereon wef 01 July 2012. A table showing the revised pension is given from the rank of Capt to Brig.


Rank
Existing Pension as on 1/1/2006
Revised Pension as on 1/1/2006
Diff in
Pension
Family
Pension
 
50% of Min of pay band +GP+MSP
50% of Min of pay in pay band as per rank +GP+MSP
 
60% of Revised
pension
Captain
15600+6100+6000=13850
19350+6600+6000=15975
2125
9585
Major
15600+6600+6000=14100
26650+7600+6000=20125
6025
12075
Lt Colonel
37400+8000+6000=25700
42120+8700+6000=28410
2710
17046
Colonel
37400+8700+6000=26050
46050+8900+6000=30475
4425
18285
Brigadier
37400+8900+6000=26150
48870+10000+6000=32435
6285
19461

 
Note:  The figures quoted are the ones which will change when the HSC order of 04 Sept 2012 is implemented in toto. As of date changes have been made as recommended by Committee of Secys of the MoD letter applicable from 24 Sept 2012 the arrears of which will be paid by PDAs hopefully in Apr 2013.

Q         When will pension arrears be paid by PCDA Pension Allahabad?

A.        Once the correct fixation has been done, CDAO Pune will fwd Last Pay Certificate (LPC) in respect of each officer to PCDA Pension Allahabad who in turn will work out the pension arrears from the time the officer retired till date. This will be remitted separately by PCDA pension through the banks. As on date no LPC has been recd by PCDA Pension.

Q.        What happens to increase in pay of officers who got promoted after 1/1/1986?

A         The minimum for each rank from Capt to Brig at IV CPC has to undergo change in terms of para 6 (a)(ii) of SAI 1987, which is very much part of the HSC judgment. Once that is done their minimum and DA admissible thereon will change through V CPC to 6 CPC eg Capt to 3000, Maj from 3400 to 4050, Lt Col from 3900 to 4700 etc. This logic equally holds good in case of officers who were in service as on 1/1/1986 and retired pre 1986.

 
 This is the only way by which this historical rank pay anomaly can be resolved in keeping with the directions of the HSC order dated 04 Sept 2012. Anything short of it would be violation of HSC order and lead to contempt proceedings.

 

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Armed Forces Tribunal to be under Ministry of Law


Parliamentary Committee supports removing control of Defence Ministry over Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)

Agreeing with the proposal that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) should not function under the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in its 18th Report submitted this month has recommended that placing AFT under the Ministry of Law and Justice would go a long way in building a strong and independent institution.

It may be recalled that the Punjab & Haryana High Court in its decision in the Public Interest Litigation titled Maj Navdeep Singh Vs Union of India has already directed that the AFT should be placed under the Law Ministry and not the MoD to ensure independence and that keeping in view the separation of powers enshrined in the constitution, government should have minimal say in its functioning.

Deposing before the Parliamentary committee, all witnesses vouched for shifting of AFT from the purview of MoD. The Indian Ex-Services League (IESL) was of the view that the situation was subjective since AFT was to comment on the actions of the MoD itself. Col Satwant Singh opined that control should not be with MoD so that AFT can render judgements fearlessly without bias and without worrying about loss of hidden perks. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice also informed the committee that the Department of Justice had already mooted establishment of a ‘Central Tribunals Division’. Another representative of the Law Ministry informed the committee that MoD did not want to leave control over AFT and the Defence Ministry is also filing appeals in almost each and every matter decided by AFT.

The Defence Services and Department of Ex-Servicemen welfare (DESW) have expressed reservation on grant of civil contempt powers to AFT while the Defence and Law Ministries have fully supported such powers. Experts associated with the issue have also expressed shock over the brazen manner in which DESW has stated before the committee that AFTs cannot disregard govt policy and that is the reason why decisions of AFT are not implemented. The Defence Secretary’s stand however has been appreciated wherein he has stated on record that challenging any authority is a fundamental right of every individual, whether he is in service or retired and he has to be provided reasonable opportunity to air grievances.

 

 

 

 

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Truth and Deceit:IV CPC Rank Pay case: Part II


Part II

From the above it is crystal clear that the rank pay was deducted twice. Once at the time of fixing the minimum initial pay for each rank from Capt to Brig in terms of para 6 (a) (ii) of SAI of 1987, and again at the time for calculation of emoluments which has been partially corrected now after the SC order. In most cases even the 20% fitment weightage was denied. 

The increased minimum initial pay at IV CPC will have a cascading effect on the pay scales at the V CPC as the integrated scale was replaced by individual rank based pay scales. Rank pay was also deducted at the time of pay fixation of V CPC both at the time of deciding on the rank based pay scales as well as at the time of fixation. The existing pay scales of V CPC are depressed scales based on the lowered minimum for each rank at IV CPC which needs to be corrected. Accordingly the new scales would be as given

Rank/Pay Scale
Existing as per SAI 1997 at V CPC
Revised scales w/o deduction of rank pay at V CPC
Captain
9600-300-11400 +RP 400
10000-300-11800+ RP 400
Major
11925-325-14850+RP1200
12800-325-16050 + RP 1200*
Lt Col
13500-400-17100+RP 1600
15100-400-18700+RP1600
Colonel
15100-450-17350+RP 2000
17100-400-19350+RP 2000
Brigadier
16700-450-18050+RP 2400
19100-450-20450+RP 2400

 
* Note:  The corresponding Civil scale of Major of 4100/4500, were rationalized and merged and given 14300-400-18300. Here again the Majors were given a raw deal.

Once this is implemented, then for VI CPC, the minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay will correspondingly increase.


Rank
 
Existing /
Revised Scales
 
Pay in the pay band
Grade
Pay
MSP
Total
Pay
Diff
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Captain
Existing
Revised
9600+400 RP
10000+400RP
18600
19350
6100
6600
6000
6000
30700
31950
1250
Major
Existing
Revised
11600+1200RP
13125+1200RP
23810
26650
6600
7600
6000
6000
36410
40250
3840
Lt Colonel
Existing
Revised
13500+1600RP
15100+1600RP
38530
42120
8000
8700
6000
6000
52530
56820
4290
Colonel
Existing
Revised
15100+2000RP
17100+2000RP
40890
46050
8700
8900
6000
6000
55590
60950
5360
Brigadier
Existing
Revised
16700+2400RP
19100+2400RP
43390
48870
8900
10000
6000
6000
58290
64870
6580

                       
Q         Was rank pay as admissible to Lt Col paid to Lt Col (TS)?

A         No, neither at IV CPC nor at V CPC.

Q         What is the definition of rank pay?

A         Rank pay as defined by the IV CPC states’ Rank pay is admissible to an officer appropriate to the rank actually held, either in acting or substantive capacity, in addition to the pay in the revised scale. It is also stated therein that rank pay forms part of basic pay. It has been further clarified by MoD vide their letter of 29 Feb 2000 that, It is that element of their pay which is identified with their rank, which in turn has a relationship with their scale of pay. It will consequently be taken into account for determining their entitlement to such of those financial benefits/concessions etc including retirement benefits, as are directly related to the basic pay or their pay scales.

The Army/Navy/Airforce instructions would be amended accordingly.

Q         What does DSR say on substantive pay?

            A           Changes in DSR 1962 Edition vs 1987 Edition

             Para 65 of 1962 edition

            “Substantive promotion to the rank of Lt Colonel of officers not promoted by selection
            under para 66 below, against the authorized establishment of Lt Cols, may be made,
            subject to their being considered fit in all  respects by time –scale, on completion of
        24 years reckonable commissioned service provided they  have not attained the
age  age  of  compulsory retirement. Officer so promoted will not  be reckoned, against the
tthe    authorised establishment of Lt Cols, but will be held in the separate ‘non-selection’  list   
  list, except that an officer selected to act as a Lt Col before completing 24 years  service and made substantive under this rule on completing 24 years’ reckonable service will be held against
an authorized Lt Col appointment”.         

          Para  66(i) of 1987 edition

 

           “Substantive promotion to the rank of Lt Col of officers not promoted by selection

            against the authorized establishment of Lt Cols, may be made, subject to their being

            considered fit in all  respects, by time scale, on completion of 21 years reckonable

            commissioned service but not more than 26 years reckonable commissioned service

            provided they  have not become due for retirement on the basis of the age of

            superannuation prescribed for the rank time scale of Lt Col. Officers so promoted will     not be reckoned, against the authorized establishment of Lt Cols, but will be held in             the  separate ‘non-selection’ list.  The number of officers held on the ‘non selection’         list will count against the authorized establishment of officers in the rank of           Major”.         

 
 1987 Regulation has equated time scale Lt Col, even if substantive after                     24 years of service, equivalent to Major. This equation was not laid  in  paragraph 65 of  Regulation    1962. This has caused financial loss to the non-selection list of officers. It should be noted that Time scale Lt Col  were given the pay scale of Lt Col on completion of 21 yrs of service by the V CPC. Such officers were promoted to the rank of Col with implementation of AV Singh committee recommendations and are  drawing pay and grade pay of Col after 6 CPC.


              Regulation for Army is a administrative document and is not required to                                include any instructions concerning financial implications. That being so, Regulation
of 1962 edition did not include any financial clause in this   administrative document, whwhereas 1987 Regulation did include financial  clause under para 66(i) by incorporating amendment like “non    selection  officers will count against officers in the rank of Major”.

           Perhaps the ‘Rank pay’ factor was not catered for, but the definition of                                 rank pay is very clear and needs to be implemented now both at IV as well as V CPC. This has concurrence of the MoF as per letter of 29 Feb 2000. It will restore pay and pension denied since 1986 to date. Concluded Part III