RAJASTHANI VETERANS

RAJASTHANI VETERANS
RAJASTHANI VETERANS

Friday, 13 March 2015

RECORD OF DISCUSSION WITH RM: 11 MAR 2015 (Col. Anil Kaul)

I had the occasion to meet the RM today for a duration of 45 mins in his South Block Office. The COAS was also present. A record of our discussion is appended below.

1. Disability Issues: The Hon’ble RM wanted a firsthand account of the effects of disability from a person who had undergone such trauma as against hearing it from other sources. Certain facts were conveyed including citing of personal examples which despite over twenty five years of consideration at various levels remain unresolved. A hard copy of all such issues was handed over to the RM. 

2. Non-Implementation of Orders of SC/ Non Issue of Instructions on Disability Related issues of Def Pers including the following: -

(a) Na-Na Cases
(b) Less than 20% disability cases
(c) Disability when on leave
(d) Broad-banding for those who superannuated
(e) Broad-banding for those who took voluntary retirement?
(f) MOD is yet to issue letter for enhanced DP for enhanced pension WEF Sep`12, though case has been taken up by Service HQ.
 
Comments of RM: He said that all disability related issues would be taken up appropriately w.e.f. 13 Mar 2015.He assured me that we would soon see the issue of operative letters.

3. Additional Points: A few additional points regarding disability were also discussed with personal examples that would have an effect on the larger disabled environment of the disabled in the Armed Forces. These are enumerated below: -

(a) There no system of post disability trauma onset in any of the three services including counselling to enable a disabled soldier to start functioning anew albeit with a few parts missing. This needs immediate implementation.
 
(b) There has to be a clear cut divide between those placed in LMC in normal course and BC’s. This must percolate down to their employment and functioning. I suggested that for starters at least in the Army suitable disabled officers be posted in the AG’s & MS branches as only a disabled understands the effects of disability. Moreover such actions do not require any elaborate Govt sanctions.

(c) I submitted that “Constant Attendance Allowance” should be applicable suo moto to anyone with 50% disability especially as after superannuation all manner of physical support available in service ceases. The RMB should be the final authority with the PCDA (P) not having any say in this.

(d) Payment of double conveyance allowance, where authorised to disabled personnel should be as matter of course and not based on claims. We are all aware of who is authorised Government tpt is and who is not.

(e) All service group Insurances are private entities and should offer disability benefits to BC’s retained in service and who superannuate in the normal course.


The funds available are adequate and if necessary and additional levy on premium can cater for this aspect. To deny this to one segment is a violation of the principle of equality. Notwithstanding what the Govt provides in such cases as that is a part of a service obligation whereas group insurances are private funds meant for this. The RM was appreciative of this logic and even suggested a methodology for the COAS to consider. 

The RM even mentioned that shortfalls if any could be made up by the MoD. 

(f) As per AO 17/89 Battle Casualties have the option of taking disability pension as a capitalized value in service. However there is no provision of restoration of such commuted value as in the case of normal pension. Disability is for life and there needs to be a reconsideration of restoring the capitalized value after 15 years, for those who took this option, as in the case of normal pension. A detailed case study is as given below: 

1. Reference AO 17/89.
 
2. On Superannuation every service personnel is entitled to service pension. This consists of the service element and the disability element. As a battle casualty I come under the purview of the AO ibid.

3. Personal Illustrative Case: I am 80% disabled due to battle injuries for life. As per AO 17/ 89 I was, entitled to, as were other BC’s, “War Injury Pay”. As per awards of the 4CPC, this was specified as “percentage of disability equivalent of percentage of pay drawn at the time of injury”. My pay at that point was approximately Rs 4200/- therefore I should have been entitled to 80% of which came to Rs 3360/- pm. This was later amended to “Not more than Rs 1500/- per month allowed for 100% disability due to normal service conditions”. This was to be proportionately reduced for lower percentages. Accordingly I was entitled to Rs 1200/- pm. A loss of 3360- 1200 = 2160/- As a result BC’s lost out on higher emoluments due to some change that was not noticed by those dealing with such cases.
 
4. A second provision of the AO was that one could take the capitalized value of this amount in service or await superannuation to get a disability pension. This was to be calculated for a time period of service to an age and service in the same rank that is in my case a Major. As can be seen I lost out on the following counts: -

(a) Reduction in overall authorized amount.
(b) No consideration for promotion beyond the rank of Major.
(c) No consideration for age applicable beyond the rank of Major.

5. I was paid such compensation after ten years of my injury. A request for interest on delayed payments was initially rejected till the Delhi High Court gave a ruling in my favour on which CDA (O) paid me the interest in the year 2000, i.e. after thirteen years of my injury and a court case lasting over two years. 
6. The acerbic language of Army HQ, as a measure of no respect to battle casualties, stated, “ That the case stands closed and no further discussions would be appreciated” So much for winning a gallantry award and losing your limbs.


7. Appeal: Notwithstanding the above as in the case of commuted value of service element of pension that is restored after a finite period of 13/15 years, similarly the capitalized value of disability pension needs restoration after a suitable period of time. In my case, the capitalized value has been taken for the rank of “Major” superannuation was 50 years that I crossed in Jul 2001 a full four years before superannuating in 2005 in the rank of “Colonel”. Considering that the capitalized value was applicable from 12 Oct 1987 but paid to me in 1996, a total of 25 years have passed and therefore the disability element of pension paid as capitalized value in service now needs restoration, keeping in mind that the disability is for life and as one ages the effects become more debilitating.

(g) A staff check would show that there would be a handful of such personnel in such a predicament.

4. OROP 

The RM gave out the status of OROP as on date. The salient features of which are as follows: -

(a) The final document duly cleared by the FA (Def) and signed by him is being fwd to the FM today. I.e. 11 Mar 2015.

(b) The amount worked out remains at Rs 8298 Cr. 

(c) He is scheduled to meet the PM & FM on 16 Mar 2015 on the issue.
 
(d) He is adhering to the time schedule as indicated on 2 Mar 2015 to the IESM delegation. I.e implementation instructions by 31/3 15. At worst case 30/4/15.

(e) 86% of beneficiaries are JCO’s & NCO’s, The balance 14% divided between Officers and family pensioners i.e. Vir Naris.

There being no other points the meeting was closed.

Anil Kaul
Col Anil Kaul, VrC
11 Mar 2015

(Source- Face book post)

Monday, 9 March 2015

SC rules in favour of broad banding disability percentage

  • HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times, Chandigarh
  •   |  
  • Updated: Dec 12, 2014 11:57 IST
  •  



In an order that will benefit lakhs of disabled soldiers, the Supreme Court has dismissed more than 800 multiple appeals that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had filed against broad banding of their disability percentage.

The fifth pay commission had introduced the concept of broad-banding to minimise medical subjectivity and rationalise the mistakes of medical boards by providing that those with below 50% disability would be granted a disability element by treating it as 50%; those with 50 to 75% disability would be granted the benefit of 75%; and above-76% cases would be considered as that of 100% disability.
By rounding off, the disability percentage enhances, which means higher pension. However while implementing the concept, the MoD granted it only to the personnel who were invalided out on medical grounds post 1996. The rounding-off benefit was not given to pre-1996 cases or those released with disability pension on superannuation or completion of terms, though all categories were afflicted equally with the problem of medical subjectivity.
Military pension rules, however, provided that defence personnel released in a low medical category were deemed invalided out of service for purposes of disability pension.
In a series of litigation later, various benches of Armed Forces Tribunal, high courts and the Supreme Court held that pre-1996 disability cases and those released on completion of terms or superannuation could not be deprived of broad banding. One of the lead cases was of Panchkula resident and former army vice-chief lieutenant general Vijay Oberoi, who had lost a leg in the 1965 war with Pakistan.
in 2011, in spite of a decision of the-then chief of the army staff, general VK Singh, to refuse to file appeals against judgments in favour of disabled soldiers, the MoD insisted on filing appeals in all matters, stating that the decisions were “against the government policy” and instructing the government lawyers to file appeals in thousands of these cases in the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, a three-judge bench of the apex court head more than 800 clubbed cases and dismissed all appeals, bringing relief to the disabled and war-disabled soldiers.
All-India Ex-servicemen Welfare Association (AIEWA) chairman Bhim Sen Sehgal, welcomed the decision, saying that disabled soldiers had suffered for long. “Rather than resolving pension anomalies, the MoD forces disabled and war-disabled soldiers to litigate unnecessarily till the Supreme Court, causing unnecessary heartburn and burden on taxpayers’ money,” said high court lawyer major Navdeep Singh. He added that the lower bureaucracy was working against the spirit of the directions of the current government.
Public figures, including actor Kabir Bedi, parliamentarian Rajeev Chandrasekhar, former defence services chiefs, and 1971-war hero brigadier Kuldip Singh Chandpuri (retd), had written to the Prime Minister on Armed Forces Flag Day that most of MoD appeals in the Supreme Court against disabled soldiers were “alarming enough to make the entire citizenry hang its head in shame”.

Saturday, 28 February 2015

One Rank, One Pension stuck between Services and Defence Ministry


Finance Minister Arun Jaitley arrives in Parliament to present the annual budget 2015-16 in New Delhi on Saturday. (Source: PTI)


By: Press Trust of India | New Delhi | February 28, 2015 5:01 pm


Reinstating government’s commitment on implementing the ‘One Rank, One Pension’ policy, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Saturday said the issue is pending as the method of calculating pension is stuck between the Armed Services and the Defence Ministry.

“I have already in the last Budget said that we are going to implement ‘One Rank, One Pension’. This need not be stated on every occasion. We are completely committed to it,” Jaitley told reporters here when asked about the delay in launching the scheme.
Explaining the reasons behind the delay, the Minister said: “The methodology of calculating the One Rank, One Pension is an issue pending between the Services and the Defence Ministry.” As and when that idea is formulated, not only it should be implemented, it will be implemented, he added.
“You may only notice that I have today, despite the squeeze, increased the allocation for Defence by almost Rs 25,000 crore,” Jaitley said.

Last month, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had said that ‘One rank, One pension’ scheme will be rolled out soon.
The scheme, which seeks to ensure that a uniform pension is paid to defence personnel who retire at the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement, has been a long-standing demand of the over two million ex-servicemen in the country.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/OROP 

Thursday, 19 February 2015

SUPREME COURT DIRECTION TO CENTRE

Implement ‘one rank, one pension’ in three months: SC to Centre

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to implement its six-year-old verdict to follow the one rank, one pension (OROP) principle for retired armed forces personnel, reminding the BJP government that it had promised to do so in the run-up to last year’s Lok Sabha elections.

    A bench of justices TS Thakur and AK Goel warned the government of contempt if it failed to abide by its order within three months. “We make it clear that no further time will be granted for the purpose of implementation of the judgment,” the bench told additional solicitor general Pinky Anand who assured the bench that modalities would be worked out till then.

“This was part of your manifesto for the Lok Sabha elections. You must keep your word,” justice Thakur reminded Anand while hearing a contempt petition filed by retired Major General SPS Vains who dragged the defence ministry to court demanding the OROP scheme.

Armed forces personnel holding the same rank will get the same pension, regardless of the last drawn pay, years of service and the years served in a particular rank, under the OROP scheme.

Vains’s counsel, senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, said the Union government wasn’t doing charity since there was a court order in his clients’ favour. “We have a judgment. It has been six years and we are still waiting,” Gupta told the apex court.

 He later told HT, “Before this judgment came, there was disparity among retired armed forces personnel receiving pensionary benefits that were calculated as per their pay-scale. So a major general, who retired before 1996 when the fifth pay commission was introduced, drew pension lower than not just a similarly ranked officer who retired post-1996 but also a brigadier, colonel and a lieutenant colonel.”

“The 2008 judgment brought everyone at par as the verdict said there should be no classification due to the date of retirement,” he added. Successive governments in the past have opposed OROP on the grounds that it would not be financially feasible.
However, the Modi government has promised to implement the policy that will benefit around 25 lakh ex-servicemen. OROP for the armed forces is likely to be part of the Union budget and could be implemented soon.

http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

LATEST ON O.R.O.P

LATEST ON O.R.O.P




It is with considerable interest that I read the musings/op ed of Brig V Mahalingam (retd), a noted TV debater/expert and of Col Rajvardhan Singh Rathore (retd), MP and now Hon'ble MoS respectively on the OROP. I do not wish to comment nor am I qualified or knowledgeable enough to do so.

But their learned comments sparked off some questions.

1. What happens in the OROP of the pre-AVSC Majors and Lt Cols with 26 years of service? Would they want the pension of Lt Cols and Cols? 

Would they be satisfied if a Major (with 26 years service) was given OROP based on an extended table i.e. 13 years table of a Lt Col with an average of Grade Pay of Major and Lt Col (i.e Rs 8000-6600= 1400 divided by 2 = Rs 700) extended to 26 years of service as on 1.4.2014?  

Similarly, would the Lt Col with 26 years service be satisfied with an OROP based on an extended table i.e.  20 years of Col with an average of Grade Pay of Lt Col and Col (i.e. Rs 8700-8000= Rs 700 divided by 2 = Rs 350 extended to 26 years of service as on 1.4.2014?

2. Has the equalisation of 3% been misunderstood to mean increment of 3% annually? Suppose two Lt Cols A born on 01 Jul and the second B on 02 Jul. A would retire on 30 Jun and B on 31 Jul. A would not get the increment that B gets. Now what happens if both had the same number of years of service on retirement? Shouldn't their pensions be equalised? Wouldn't it be acceptable as the financial effect may be 1 to 2 % of the total?

3. How would the financial outgo be impacted if Army which has a larger number of Y Group puts in a case for X Group pension for all? Will there be lesser effect in the Navy and Air Force, which has a larger number in X Group? 

4. If service in the rank is to be the criteria for OROP, then wouldn't we need different tables for each Service, each Arm/Service/Branch/Trade? As service records are destroyed after a certain number of years, who and how would this data be provided? Because not every one is provided with or keeps copies of Casualty Reports (and equivalents in the Navy and Air Force)! And how will the clerk in the Banks calculate pension at every subsequent change for at the moment he has tables (in Circular 500 and 501) and where the X axis (rank) intersects with the Y axis (years of service) is where he/she obtains the pension due amount!!!

5. A figure of Rs 14000 crores would probably arise if CGDA (or PCDA (P)) decided that maximum years of service in the X axis and Rank in Y axis in Circulars 500 and 501 multiplied by the number of Lt Cols  Rs 26265), Cols (Rs 27795) and Havildars (Rs 9145) and equivalents (the largest strength)with 28years of service or more. Wouldn't it be prudent to take some real data say over the past 3-5 years to determine the actual years of service, which would definitely be less than the highest amount taken for calculations.

6. There are an increasing number of cases where Brigs, Cols, even some Lt Cols & equivalents, drawing Pay in the pay band + Grade Pay + MSP higher than Vice Chiefs and Army Cdrs and equivalents. Is there a case of OROP for the Maj Gens, Lt Gens and Apex scale?        

 7. Do the following tables (in circulation elsewhere) meet the points above? 

QS
LT
CAPT
MAJ
LT COL
COL
BRIG
MAJ GEN
LT GEN
LT GEN (HAG+)
VCOAS
COAS
10
16715
17560
22546
23246
23596
23696
11
17130
18000
23133
23833
24183
24283
12
17555
18450
23737
24437
24787
24887
13
17995
18915
24359
25700
26050
26150
14
18445
19395
25000
26385
26735
26835
15
18910
19890
25660
27815
27815
27915
16
19390
20400
27115
27815
28920
29020
17
19885
20925
27860
28560
28560
28660
18
20395
21465
29400
30100
30495
30595
19
20920
22020
30095
30795
31980
32080
20
21460
22595
31790
32490
32850
32950
21
22015
23185
31790
32490
33770
33870
22
22590
23795
32515
33215
34520
34620
23
23180
24420
32515
33215
34535
34785
24
23790
25065
32525
33225
34535
35555
25
24415
25600
32525
33225
34560
35605
26
25060
25600
32525
33225
35275
36420
27
25060
25600
33295
33995
36080
37255
28
25060
25600
33295
33995
36095
37255
29
25060
25600
33295
33995
36930
37275
30
25060
25600
33295
34765
36940
37280
31
X
X
X
34765
36950
37975
32
X
X
X
34765
36975
39020
33
X
X
X
X
38865
39025
34
X
X
X
X
38865
39025
35
X
X
X
X
38865
39035
36
X
X
X
X
X
39035
37
X
X
X
X
X
39035
38
X
X
X
X
X
39035
39
X
X
X
X
X
X
41500
42500
43000
44000
48000
Ord Fam Pension
15036
15360
19977
20859
23319
23421
24900
25500
25800
26400
28800
Disability element for 100% disability
15036
15380
19977
20859
23319
23421
24900
25500
25800
26400
28800
Note:
1.                Table has been made using real date available and best across three Services.
2.                For Majors, pension has been fixed based on the pension  of higher rank
3.         For Lts and Capts, pension is based on VI CPC pay fixation.
4.         MSP has been granted notionally to Major Generals and above to grant higher pension vis-à-vis Brigadiers.
5.         The Enhanced Ordinary Family Pension will be equivalent of the re-fixed retiring pension, Special Family Pension will be 120% of the re-fixed retiring pension and Liberalised Family Pension will be 200% of re-fixed retiring pension.
6.         For lower disability (less than 100%) the above figures will be reduced as applicable.
Revised Pension with effect from 01 Apr 14: ORs/JCOs/Hony Ranks
QS
Ranks
Sepoy
Naik
Havildar
Nb Sub
Sub
Sub Maj
H Lt
H Capt
15
8365
8760
9390
11635
12355
12800
16
8365
8760
9390
11635
12355
12800
17
8365
8840
9685
11635
12355
12800
18
8810
8845
9685
11635
12355
12800
19
8815
9015
9685
11635
12420
12885
20
9350
9550
9750
11635
12775
12885
21
9410
9610
9810
11635
12935
13705
22
9410
9610
9810
11635
13445
13935
23
X
9730
9930
11635
13450
14165
24
9730
9930
11635
13885
14405
25
X
9930
11635
13885
14405
26
9930
11635
14575
15075
15075
27
X
11735
14575
15075
15075
28
11735
14575
15310
15425
29
11865
15015
15545
15545
30
12030
15015
15790
31
12195
15015
16020
32
12360
15015
16020
33
12685
15015
16020
34
12845
15015
16020
35
12845
15015
16020
36
12845
15015
16020
16160
37
12845
15015
16020
17130
17905
38
12845
15015
16020
17130
17905
39
12845
15015
16020
17130
17905
Ord Family Pension
5646
5838
5958
7707
9009
9612
10278
10743
Disability element for 100% disability
5646
5838
5958
7707
9009
9612
10278
10743
Note: -
1.         Table has been made using real data available and best across three Services.
2.         Stepping up has been done in cases where the pension for greater length of service in a rank is lower than the lesser length of service in the same rank.
3.         Stepping up has also been done in cases where the pension in senior rank is lower than a junior rank for the same length of service.
4.         In cases where real data is not available, the data of next rank for same length of service has been used reducing the pension by half the difference in grade pays.
5.         The Enhanced Ordinary Family Pension will be equivalent of the re-fixed retiring pension, Special Family Pension will be 120% of the re-fixed retiring pension and Liberalised Family Pension will be 200% of re-fixed retiring pension.
6.         For lower disability (less than 100%) the above figures will be reduced as applicable.
 
Credit: www.sharad10525.blogspot.com  The Blog is named: Aerial View
Thanks to Air Marshal S.Y.Savur for his valuable analysis on OROP.

1396