, by indianmilitaryveterans

Govt of India, MoD, Dept of Ex-servicemen Welfare Ltr bearing No.19(01)/2016-D(Pen/Pol) d/d 29.10.16 issued.

THIS ORDER IS ONE OF THE BEST ISSUED BY DESW And your new pension wef 01.01.2016 is - Your existing pension (OROP) as on 31.12.2015 to be multiplied by 2.57. i.e. OROP x 2.57 is NEW PENSION w.e.f. 1.1.2016.

Disability pension @ old rates as of now, pending recommendations of the committe.


All PDAs handling disbursement of pensions to the Defence Pensioners are hereby authorised to pay pension/family pension to existing pensioners/family pensioners at the revised rates in terms of Para 5.1 above without any further authorisation from the Pension Sanctioning Authorities. (PCDA(P) Allahabad).

16.2. It is considered desirable that the benefits of these orders should reach the pensioners as expediously as possible. To achieve this objective, it is directed that all Pension Disbursing Agencies should ensure that the revised pension and the arrears due to the pensioners in terms of Para 5.1 above is paid to the pensioners or credited to their account in one installment within two months from the date of issue of this letter. So, therefore, all good times ahead.

Arrears of DL-33, New Pension and DA in Nov 16. .

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2016 Pension instructions for pre-2016 retirees issued, based on 7th Pay Commission orders

The Ministry of Defence has issued the instructions for payment of pensions implementing the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission. The same can be downloaded and accessed by clicking here.

The rates of disability element have not been reduced for now and shall continue to be paid as per existing amounts under the existing percentage based formula till the issue is resolved by the Anomalies Committee.

The note under Paragraph of 12 of the new letter related to non-grant of additional quantum of pension to pensioners aged 80 years and above as far as their disability/war injury elements are concerned is incongruous and shall be taken up with the Government for rectification at the earliest.

The same is the strange result of an incoherent recommendation which was discussed earlier in the post of 30 September 2016 in the following terms: Enhancement of old age pension for disability and war injury pensioners: The strangest part of this entry is the fact that the Defence Services had indeed asked for this, and the commission actually rejected it and the Ministry of Defence has accepted that rejection. I say it is strange because the Government had already clarified way back in 2010 that additional old age pension very much applies to disability and war injury pensioners. Hence the Defence Services HQ had demanded and the 7th CPC and the Ministry of Defence rejected something that stood granted and clarified way back in 2010 by the Government which becomes clear from this letter issued in 2010 which can be accessed by clicking here. This single instance should be an indicator enough of the expertise and institutional memory available at various echelons of our systems.

Unfortunate, to say the least!

Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 7:56 PM


Post a Comment

Dipavali Greetings

, by indianmilitaryveterans

On the auspicious occasion of Diwali,
I extend warm greetings and best wishes to all Veterans of India.


Post a Comment

Cabinet approves 2 percent DA for Central government employees

, by indianmilitaryveterans

Cabinet approves release of an instalment of Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief to Pensioners due from 01.07.2016 The Union Cabinet under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given its approval to release an instalment of Dearness Allowance (DA) to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief (DR) to Pensioners w.e.f. 01.07.2016 representing an increase of 2% of the revised Basic Pay/Pension, to compensate for price rise. The increase is in accordance with the accepted formula, which is based on the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission. The combined impact on the exchequer on account of both Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief would be Rs. 5622.10 crore per annum and in the Financial Year 2016-17 for the period of 8 months (i.e. from July 2016 to February 2017), it would be Rs.3748.06 crore. About 50.68 lakh Government employees and 54.24 lakh pensioners will be benefitted. Source : Press Information Bureau


Post a Comment

7th CPC Arrears for Defence Personnel – 10% of Basic Pay plus DA 125% on ad-hoc basis

, by indianmilitaryveterans

Indian Military Veterans

Payment of arrears on ad-hoc basis of pay to Defence Forces Personnel pending issuance of Notification accepting 7th Central Pay Commission Award

Government of India
Ministry of Defence

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2016
The Chief of the Army Staff
The Chief of the Naval Staff
The Chief of the Air Staff

Subject: Payment of arrears on ad-hoc basis of pay to Defence Forces Personnel pending issuance of Notification accepting 7th Central Pay Commission Award.

Government of India have promulgated vide Resolution No.1(6)/2016/D(Pay/Services) dated 05 Sept 2016 and No.1(7)/2016/D (Pay/Services) dated 05th September, 2016 accepting the recommendations of 7th Central Pay Commission in so far as they relate to pay of Service Officers, MNS Officers, JCOs/ORs, NCs(E) including DSC Personnel. Since fixation of pay and consequent calculation of arrears may take some time, I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the payment of arrears on an ad-hoc basis, @ 10% of existing Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance @ 125%.

2. Payment of the above ad-hoc amounts will be made only to those personnel who were in service as on 01 Jan. 2016 and continue to be in service thereafter. The pay being drawn as on 01 Jan 16 would be reckoned for calculating the arrears. Pay for this purpose includes Pay in Pay Band, Grade Pay, Gp X Pay, MSP and NPA as applicable along with 125% DA thereon. Over-payment, if any, would be adjusted against the pay and allowances due. The amount so paid will be adjusted against the final computation of arrears on the revised pay scales.

3. Expenditure on account of payment of arrears on ad-hoc basis is debitable to the Major Head 2076 and Minor Head 101.A(C)1 of the Army and corresponding head of account of the Navy and Air Force.

4. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Division of this Ministry vide their Dy.No.400-PA dated 10.10.2016.

Your faithfully,
(Prashant Rastogi)
Under Secretary to the Government of India


Post a Comment

Disabled Generals and the Truth!

, by indianmilitaryveterans

The media reported a letter written by a former Director General of Armed Forces Medical Services on the subject of disability benefits to officers of the rank of Major General and above. Though the media reported the issue objectively without taking sides, the mere existence of such a letter causes concern and also paints an untrue picture of the entire military establishment besides causing fissures between various ranks. I have penned a detailed opinion piece on the subject which appears in Swarajya Magazine :


Navdeep Singh

It was bewildering to see the circulation of a letter purportedly written in 2014 by the then Director General Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) to the Defence Secretary insinuating that Generals of the Army were wrongly claiming disability benefits for personal gain. Of course it got wide coverage, and amongst others, the following points were raised in the said communication:

  • Generals present themselves with disabilities at the fag end of their careers and doctors working in hospitals under their command find themselves constrained to oblige “these officers”.
  • The provision of post-discharge claims is being misused for claiming benefits for disabilities such as corns, eczema and hearing loss.
  • That Generals should be examined at a central place and not in establishments under their command.
  • That disability pension claims should be decided two years prior to retirement and tax benefits should be abrogated.
  • Concept of a disability arising in a peace area or field should be done away with and any disability occurring in any area should be taken as connected with service and entitling a person to disability benefits. 

 One by one, let me attempt to clear this muddle:

Generals presenting themselves with disabilities at the fag end of their careers and doctors obliging them

The DGAFMS should have known that medical science is not mathematics wherein disabilities can be controlled or planned. Generals retire at the age of 58 onwards and the likelihood of incurring certain disabilities is higher at such an age profile and merely because a person attains a higher rank cannot be considered a disqualification from flow of benefits entitled under the rules. The rules do not discriminate between a Sepoy or a General and even this author is personally aware of many instances wherein senior officers developed diseases towards retirement, including Coronary Heart Disease, Ischemic Heart Disease necessitating angioplasty and even open heart surgery, and also back problems. So is the DGAFMS implying that a senior rank shields a person from disease? It should be absolutely clear that unless it is shown that a person has feigned a disability (used to happen in the times of yore when diagnostic tools were not advanced- with hearing loss and backache being the most commonly faked disabilities which could not be objectively discerned), there is no question of discriminating a person based on rank. Interestingly much water has flown from the date this letter was written by the DGAFMS and which factum has not been reported by any of the media houses and this very issue had been duly deliberated upon by a Committee of Experts constituted on the directions of theRaksha Mantri, of which this author too was Member and which recorded its conclusion on this subject in the following words:
“…The Committee notes that the rank of a claimant is immaterial for claiming disability pension if admissible under the rules, however cases of feigning disabilities where none exist should be dealt with strongly and medical boards should also be extra careful in examining cases where individuals have reported with a medical condition just before retirement.”

Hence, instead of scandalizing the issue out of proportion, the DGAFMS could have simply written to all medical authorities to exercise due care. Moreover, if medical boards, in the opinion of the DGAFMS, were being pressurized by senior officers, then the fault lies with those medical boards which are under the overall command of the DGAFMS for being so fickle. Also, if the DGAFMS felt that officers were declaring themselves fit during the most part of their careers and disclosing their disabilities just before retirement, then it is again the fault of the annual and periodic medical boards for not being able to identify disabilities and lowering the medical categorization of officers at the correct time. It was an issue that could have been resolved in-house and the Defence Secretary had nothing to do with this malaise, if any. Also, it is none of the concerns of the DGAFMS about the relationship between career advancement of officers and their disabilities and the medical board cannot go beyond certifying the disability and its connection with service.

Post-discharge claims for corns, eczema and hearing loss

This is a surprising averment. Firstly, the rules provide for the system of post-discharge claims for both civilians as well as defence retirees. Secondly, merely submitting such a claim does not result in grant of benefits and a proper medical board is still held to confirm whether the disability was such that could have had a basis in service but fully manifested itself after retirement and whether it had a service-connection or not, and the said exercise is to be conducted by the office of the DGAFMS itself through a proper medical board. Floating a claim by a General does not mean the automatic grant of such a benefit. Moreover, medical documents of the disability under consideration initiated during the course of service are always required to be produced for any such claim to be accepted. Regarding eczema and corns, it seems that the two medical conditions have been mentioned in the letter just for effect, and I would be surprised if any person after retirement has been granted disability benefits for these two disabilities at all, and in case true, then the number would be negligible and if this hunch of mine is correct then the argument of the then DGAFMS self-destructs. However, to add, if such instances are true, I agree that disability benefits for such minor ailments giving rise to no functional problems should not be considered after retirement. On the point of hearing loss, I think that the then DGAFMS should have been in a better position to understand that noise above 85-90 decibels is harmful to the ear and even a single gunshot over 140 decibels can damage the ear. The 5.56 shot of the standard issue infantry weapon produces a sound of over 150 decibels and there is no system of using hearing protection devices in the Indian Army. All troops of all ranks undertake regular firing practices all throughout their careers and hence cases of hearing loss should not have been broad-brushed in such a manner by the highest medical authority of the Armed Forces casually unless there was diagnostic evidence to prove that a particular General had faked his disability. The office of the DGAFMS should restrict itself to commenting whether a disability exists or not and if a person is faking a disability, it should raise the red flag, nothing more, nothing less.

That Generals should be examined at a central place and not under hospitals under them

Wonderful idea that should be acceptable to all stakeholders since it would reflect objectivity in the entire process and offset any conflict of interest. The letter of the DGAFMS should have limited itself to this aspect instead of casting aspersions on senior ranks of the defence services. Going a step further, medical boards could be held at hospitals of other services. For example, if a Major General of the Army is being examined, the board could be held at an Air Force establishment, and vice versa.

That disability pension claims should be decided two years prior to retirement and tax benefits should be abrogated

A ridiculous suggestion, to say the least, which unfortunately also shows the lack of knowledge of basic disability law by the highest medical authority. As per law, disability benefits are determined on the basis of Release and Invalidation Medical Boards at the time of release from service and the medical condition persisting at the time of severance from service, and not earlier. Also, why should a General be held responsible only because a disability emerges at the later stages of his career? While calling for abrogation of tax benefits, the then DGAFMS has transgressed all limits of his jurisdiction. What is he? The Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes? The Finance Secretary?

Concept of disability arising in a peace area or field should be done away with and any disability occurring in any area should be taken as connected with service entitling a person to disability benefits

Very pertinent suggestion and to support the DGAFMS I would forcefully state that this is already provided under the rules which prescribe that incurring of a disability in a peace or field area has no implication on disability benefits. However, there is a twist to this. Despite this rule and various High Courts and the Supreme Court adversely commenting upon the peace/field distinction perpetrated by military medical boards, it is the same office of the DGAFMS which has illegally, and in contravention of rules, issued personal and Demi Official letters to medical establishments asking them not to consider cases of certain disabilities arising in peace areas. The same office of the DGAFMS has also illegally omitted to reproduce the beneficial disability rules to the said effect while compiling its “Guide to Medical Officers, Military Pensions”. It is therefore ironic that after issuing illegal communications to its lower formations and also issuing guidelines contrary to rules, the senior most authority of the said office makes a somersault and talks of something that his own office is responsible for. In fact, this suggestion, though very much relevant and correct, is contrary to the first part of the DGAFMS’s communication to the Defence Secretary. The DGAFMS therefore is suggesting that though all disabilities incurred in service should (rightly) qualify for disability benefits, if the disabled officer happens to shoulder a heavier brass, he or she should be disentitled. It would have been in the fitness of things if all of us had rather been deeply concerned about the fact that defence personnel of all ranks are dying earlier than their civilian counterparts due to a deteriorating health profile and increase in stress and strain of service. In any case, the issue has been decided in detail by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and any aberration suggested would not just be unethical but also contemptuous. The entire length and breadth of the matter has also been deliberated upon in much detail in Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ibid Committee of Experts which thrashed out the subject from all corners.  

To conclude, I would only say that the issue of disability benefits to our soldiers of all ranks is much too sensitive to be discussed without due background or with little knowledge and such matters which involve precious rights of our troops concerning their health, irrespective of their rank, cannot be held hostage to a short three page note which turns the entire law and practical realities upside down. Also, assuming that there had been a few undeserving cases or rotten apples, which could anyway be counted on our fingertips where disabilities were supposedly faked, though not quite an agreeable proposition, the responsibility of letting such disabilities pass rests squarely on the multiple medical boards which allowed the same to happen and then the medical authorities who approved them- all of whom function under the office of the DGAFMS.

The letter therefore clearly appears to have been written with a background, and dare I say it, with a foreground. It is yet another matter of concern that the subject that should have been addressed to the three Chiefs of the Defence Services was endorsed to the then Defence Secretary who had no role in the subject thereby providing a leverage to many elements within the system to inject further chaos in the matter.

Source :


Post a Comment


, by indianmilitaryveterans

Indian Military Veterans

(Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare)
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2016

No. 17(1)/2014/D(Pension/Policy).—The Terms of Reference of the Seventh Central Pay Commission as contained in Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) Resolution No.1/1/2013-E.III (A) dated 28.2.2014, as amended vide Resolution, dated 8.9.2015, inter- alia, included the following:-

“To examine, review, evolve, and recommend changes that are desirable and feasible regarding the principles that should govern the emoluments structure, concessions and facilities/benefits, in cash or kind as well as the retirement benefits of the personnel belonging to the Defence Forces, having regard to the historical and traditional parities, with due emphasis on the aspects unique to these personnel”.

2. The Commission submitted its report to the Government on 19th November, 2015. Government has considered the recommendations of the Commission on pensionary benefits to the personnel belonging to the Defence Force contained in Chapter 10.2 of the Report of the Commission and have decided that the recommendations shall be broadly accepted subject to certain modifications.

3. Detailed recommendations of the Commission relating to pensionary benefits and the decisions taken thereon by the Government are listed in the statement annexed to this Resolution.

4. The revised provisions regarding pensionary benefits will be effective from 01.01.2016.


Statement showing the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission relating to principles which should govern the structure of pension and other terminal benefits contained in Chapter 10.2 of the Report and the decisions of Government thereon.

Item No.

1      Recommendation for past Defence Forces personnel 
Revision of Pension of pre 7th CPC retirees.: The Commission recommends the following pension formulation for Defence Forces Personnel who have retired before 01.01.2016 :-

(i) All the Defence Forces who retired prior to 01.01.2016 (expected date of implementation of the Seventh CPC recommendations ) shall first be fixed in the Pay Matrix being recommended by this Commission, on the basis of the Pay Band and Grade Pay at which they retired, at the minimum of the corresponding level in the matrix. This amount shall be raised, to arrive at the notional pay of the retiree, by adding the number of increments he / she had earned in that level while in service, at the rate of three percent. Military Service Pay shall be added to the amount which is arrived at after notionally fitting him in the 7th CPC matrix. Fifty percent of the total amount so arrived at shall be the revised pension. 

(ii) The second calculation to be carried out is as follows. The pension, as had been fixed at the time of implementation of· the VI CPC recommendations, shall be multiplied by 2.57 to arrive at an alternate value for the revised pension.

(iii) Pensioners shall be entitled to the higher of the two. It is recognized that the fixation of the pension as per formulation 

(i) above may take a little time since the records of each pensioner will have to be checked to ascertain the number of increments earned in the retiring level. It is, therefore, recommended that in the first instance the pension, may be fixed in terms of formulation 

(ii) above, till final fixation of the pension under the Seventh CPC matrix is undertaken.
(Para 10.2.87 & 10.2.88 of the Report)

Decision of Government : Both the options recommended by the 7th Central Pay Commission as regards pension revision be accepted subject to feasibility of the implementation. Revision of pension using the second option based on fitment factor of 2.57 be implemented by multiplying the pension drawn on 31.12.2015 immediately. 

The first option may be made applicable if its implementation is found feasible after examination by the committee comprising Secretary (Pension) as Chairman and Member (Staff) Railway Board Member (Staff) D/o Post, Additional Secretary & FA M/ o Home Affairs and Controller General of Accounts
as Members.
2. Rates of Pension, Family Pension & Special Family Pension

The Commission does not recommend any further increase in the rate of Pension for JCOs/ORs. (Para 10.2.22)

No change is being recommended by the Commission for either civilian or defence pensioners in Enhanced Ordinary Family Pension.(Para 10.2.33)

No further increase in the existing rate of Special Family Pension is recommended by the Commission.(Para 10.2.35)

Decision of Government : Accepted.
3.  Additional Pension and Family Pension to the older pensioners.

No further increase in the existing rate of additional pension and additional family pension with advancing age is recommended by the Commission.(Para 10.2.24)

No further increase in the existing rate of additional pension and additional family pension with advancing age is recommended by the Commission.(Para 10.2.37)

Decision of Government : Accepted.
4.  Pre-2006 Honorary Naib Subedar

This Commission does not find any merit in re-opening an issue that has been clearly settled. Therefore no change is being recommended in this regard. (Para 10.2.26 )

Decision of Government : Accepted.
5.  Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel.

The Commission does not recommend reduction in the qualifying service for entitlement of second pension to Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel from 15 to 10 years.(Para 10.2.28)

Decision of Government : Accepted.
6.  Depression in Pension for Qualifying Service

The Commission observes that pension formulation is appropriate and finds no justification for a review of the existing arrangements with regard to pension of Territorial Army personnel.(Para 10.2.30)

Decision of Government : Accepted.
7 Inclusion of War Injury Element/Disability Element in Computation of
Family Pension

The Commission has not recommended any further change in the existing provisions with regard to inclusion of war injury element/disability element in the computation of family pension. (Para 10.2.39)

Decision of Government : Accepted.
8 Enhancement in rate of disability pension.

The Commission is of the considered view that the regime implemented post VI CPC needs to be discontinued, and recommended a return to the slab based system. The slab rates for disability element for 100 percent disability would be as follows:
Rank                                       Levels                         Rate per month(INR)

Service Officers                       10 and above                    27000

Hony Commissioned Officers     6 to 9                              17000
Subedar Major /Equivalents 
Subedar /Equivalent
Naib Subedar /Equivalents

Havildar/Equivalents                 5 and below                     12000

(Para 10.2.55)
Decision of Government : Accepted.
9.  Enhancing the Cover of Disability.

The Commission recommends broad-banding of disability for all personnel retiring with disability, including premature cases/ voluntary retirement cases for disability greater than 20 percent.(Para 10.2.57)

Decision of Government : Accepted.
10. Additional old age Pension should be Applicable for Disability/ War Injury Pension.

No further enhancement by inclusion of elements of disability/ war injury pension has been recommended by the Commission.(Para 10.2.59)

Decision of Government : Accepted.
11. Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated (NANA) cases, be awardedDisability Pension

The Commission recommends that while the existing regulations involving disability Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated (NANA) by service may continue, it is for the authorities to establish, in each case, through a reasoned order that disability was Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated (NANA) by military service. (Para 10.2.61)

Decision of Government : Accepted.
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

(Source- copied from E-gazette of India)


Post a Comment

Personal Computer Advance up to Rs.50,000

, by indianmilitaryveterans

Indian Military Veterans
 No. 12(1)/E.II(A)/2016
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
New Delhi, the 7th October,2016
Subject: Grant of advances- Seventh Pay Commission recommendations- Amendment to Rules 21(5) of Compendium of Rules on Advances to Government Servants.
The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of the decision taken by the Government on the Seventh Pay Commission’s recommendations relating to advances, the existing provisions of Compendium of Rules on Advances – 21(5) relating to Personal Computer Advance are amended as per the amendments attached.
2. These orders will take effect from the date of issue of this O.M. The cases where the advances have already been sanctioned need not be reopened.
3. The other interest bearing advances relating to Motor Car Advance and Motorcycle/Scooter/Moped Advance will stand discontinued.
4. In so far as persons serving in Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
5. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the amendments to the notice of all its attached and subordinate offices for their information.
Hindi version of this O.M is enclosed.
(Pankaj Hazarika)
Director, E.II (A)
Rule 21(5)
AdvanceQuantumEligibility criteria
Personal Computer AdvanceRs.50,000 or actual price of PC, whichever is lower.All government employees


Post a Comment

IN HOT PURSUIT OF PROMISES : A REALITY CHECK (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?)

, by indianmilitaryveterans

Indian Military Veterans

           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 :-
Description of Posts
Classification of posts
A Central Civil post carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than Rs. 13,500
Group A
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

(Source-Aerial view)


Post a Comment

7th CPC details

, by indianmilitaryveterans

Dear Veterans,

Govt of India, Ministry of Defence have issued a resolution dated 30 Sep 2016 notifying pensions of Armed Forces Pensioners w.e.f Jan 2016. The same is attached. From the approval of Govt of India mentioned at Ser No 1 of Annexure to ibid Resolution the pensions are enhanced to 2.57 times pension as on Dec 2015.

Common sense and military knowledge will force you to come to this conclusion. All OROP beneficiaries are drawing pension w.e.f Jul 2014 as in Dec 2015.

Hence the pension w.e.f. Jan 2016 is 2.57 x OROP pension which I have been arguing since the time OROP has been announced on 05 Sep 2016 by hon'ble Raksha Mantri.

We have made the calculations of latest pension with DR @ 0% and arrears thereof w.e.f. Jan 2016 for JCOs /OR.

The pension for the period Jan to Jun 2016 be enhanced once DR for the period Jul to Dec 2016 is announced by the Govt of India before Diwali.

warm regards,


Post a Comment

Revision of Enhanced Rate of Ordinary Family Pension in respect of Pre-2006 Armed Forces Pensioners

, by indianmilitaryveterans

Indian Military Veterans
Office of the Principal CDA(Pensions)
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad- 211014
Circular No. 567
Dated: 16.09.2016
1. The Chief Accountant, RBI, Deptt. Of Govt. Bank Accounts, Central office C-7, Second Floor, Bandre- Kurla Complex, P B No. 8143, Bandre East Mumbai- 400051
2. All CMDs, Public Sector Banks including IDBI Bank
3. Nodal Officers, ICICI/ HDFC/ AXIS/ IDBI Banks
4. Managers, All CPPCs
5. Military and Air Attache, Indian Embassy, Kathmandu, Nepal 6. The PCDA (WC), Chandigarh
7. The CDA (PD), Meerut
8. The CDA, Chennai
9. The Director of Treasuries, All States…
10. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Delhi Administration, RK puram and Tis Hazari, New Delhi 11. The Pay and Accounts Office, Govt of Maharashtra, Mumbai
12. The Post Master Kathua (J&K)
13. The Pr. Pay and Accounts Officer, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair
Subject: Revision of Enhanced Rate of Ordinary Family Pension in respect of Pre-2006 Armed Forces Pensioners.
Reference: This office Circular No. 494 dated 19.03.2013 and Circular No. 397 dated
A copy of GOI, MOD letter No. 1(14)/2012-D(Pen/Pol) dated 14th June, 2016 on the above subject is forwarded herewith for information and necessary action which is self explanatory.
2. As per above GOI, MOD letter Dated 14th June, 2016, the minimum guaranteed enhanced Rate of Ordinary Family Pension in respect of eligible family of Pre-2006 Armed Forces Pensioners shall be revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on the basis of the minimum of fitment table for the rank in the revised pay band as indicated under fitment tables annexed with SAI 1/S/2008, SAI 2/S/2008 & SAI 4/S/2008 as amended and equivalent instructions for Navy and Air Force. The revised consolidated enhanced rate of Ordinary Family Pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (consolidated as per Para-4 of GOI, MOD letter No. 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) dated 11.11.2008) in respect of Pre-2006 Armed Forces Family Pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the fitment table for the rank in the revised pay band. In case, where full revised pension is otherwise not authorized to a retired employee in terms of 6th CPC orders, the enhanced rate of Ordinary Family Pension shall also be restricted to that amount. The amount of revised enhanced rate of Ordinary Family Pension in no case shall be less than thirty percent of the minimum of the fitment table for the Rank or thirty percent of the minimum of fitment table in case of HAG and above.
3. However, in case of consolidated enhanced rate of Ordinary Family Pension calculated as per Para- 4.1 of GOI, MOD letter No. 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) dated 11.11.2008 is higher than the family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the higher rate shall be continued.
4. Table showing minimum of the fitment table for the rank in the revised pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale, from which the pensioner/ deceased Government servant had retired/ died, is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘A’ to ‘F’ to facilitate the Pension Disbursing Agencies for payment of revised Enhanced Ordinary Family Pension in terms of GOI, MOD letter dated 14th June, 2016.
5. In all cases, where fixation of enhanced rate of family pension in terms of above GOI, MOD letter is more beneficial, the Pension Disbursing Agencies are hereby advised to pay revised rate of enhanced Ordinary Family Pension accordingly. All other terms and condition shall remain unchanged. However, if the Pension Disbursing Agencies are in any doubt about the fixation of enhanced rate of family pension, such cases may be referred to concerned Pension Sanctioning Authorities with full details.
6. The provisions of this letter shall take effect from 01.01.2006 and arrears, if any, shall be allowed from 01.01.2006 up to 23.09.2012.
7. This circular has been uploaded on this office website for dissemination to all alongwith Defence pensioners and Pension Disbursing Agencies.
Revised Pay structure – Junior Commissioned Officers (including Honorary Commissioned Officers), Non-Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks of Regular Army, DSC and TA


Post a Comment


  • CSD-Price-List-for-Volkswagen-Cars---Post-GST-Rates