Injustice to the ranks of Jawans and JCOs in the Indian Army

Indian Military Veterans

Injustice to the ranks of Jawans and JCOs in the Indian Army 

In the Indian Armed Forces, soldiers are the backbone of the nation's security and strength. Soldiers are typically deployed in harsh environments, and many sacrifice their lives for their nation every day. The job description and standard of living offered to them in the Indian Army is very different from that of officers.

 When discussing inequality and discrimination with  soldiers of the Indian Army, there is no need to discuss it here as it is endless and  well known to all soldiers and officers. There was also a movement for equality in MSP and inequality in OROP. Only officers are guaranteed 3 promotions within 13 years of service, with  pay increases of around 50,000 yen, while jawans are given MACP  every 8 years. There are hundreds of conditions and the average salary increase is 1500 rupees. Discrimination takes hundreds of forms. This article discusses gross violations of the constitutional provisions of India and the fundamental rights of  citizens belonging to the category of soldier jawans/JCOs.

 Yes, this is all about the existing salary fixation policy applicable to rehired commissioned officers and JCO/ORs. Both soldiers in this category  retire from the Indian Army after  several years of good military service. 

The Indian military has been retired from service at  a young age and needs to be brought back. The average retirement age  for junior executives is 40. Pensions alone are not enough for families to survive, and they must somehow support themselves. We then discuss the existing pay fixation policy applicable to re-enlisted officers and other ranks (hereinafter referred to as officers).

 As per his CCS  Reemployed Pensioners (RP) Salary Fixation Rules, 1986, the salary of every reemployed pensioner is fixed at the starting salary level of the reemployed post. However, there are some conditions. H. The salary of a person whose salary is determined without considering pensions will be the re-employment minimum wage. On the other hand, those whose salary is determined by ignoring only part of their pension can have their salary set at the same level as the last salary they received.

 Political decision-makers have cleverly designed the framework so that discrimination is not easily recognized at a glance with open eyes.   Conditions for the junior officer category

The main condition now is that those belonging to groups below Gp A or below junior officers must ignore full pension in order to achieve salary fixation on re-employment. 

As a result, their pay will be set at the minimum wage for the filled position. In this case, the last wage received will not be taken into account when determining wages.  

Rank requirements for NCOs - On the other hand, the salaries of NCOs and her GP-A officers are fixed at the same level as their final salary before  retirement (currently her 1 million (Rupees). 15,000). /-) The purpose of fixing wages. Conditions for ex-combatant clerks Combatant  clerks  are a lower category than officers and are therefore also discriminated against. 

According to the 1986 Salary Fixation Regulations, ex-combatants appointed to civilian positions at civil service level have their salaries fixed at advance salary increments based on their years of service in the military, but without pensions. It is deducted from my salary so I was ignored after paying only 15 rupees. The negligible part was amended in 1986 and then some orders were issued to change the negligible part for non-commissioned officers and now for non-commissioned officers he is  15,000/- but for  clerks Still he is 15/-. This is an example of significant discrimination and inequality in the ordinal categories listed below. 

You  have a choice as to whether the PBOR is willing to deduct her pension from the salary so determined if the PBOR has allowed her to fix her wage at the last wage drawn. You must have noticed that there isn't one. They suffer heavy losses and are paid much less, despite her 15-30 years of  experience in the Indian Army. On the other hand, contract civil servants receive a pension that is 7 times the PBOR, and if they return to work, their pension  is fixed at the last salary they received! If it is not inequality, then the meaning of the word ``disparity'' in the dictionary should be changed.   Analyzing this issue from the perspective of practical implications, it was found that this discriminatory salary fixation policy resulted in civil servants receiving significant benefits ranging from 60,000 to 80,000 (+80,000) per month. On the other hand, PBOR has suffered huge losses and on average she receives 20,000-30,000 less per month than she is actually entitled to. 

The issue has been  brought to the notice of  DOPT, MoD, MoF, DoP&PW, DESW, DGR and other stakeholders. Finally, DOP&T, the central agency that determines how salaries are determined for federal employees,  agreed to allegations of discrimination and inequality that have been ongoing since 1986. They have developed (drafted) a uniform wage fixation policy that is  approved by all stakeholders without any discrimination, but that extending such a wage fixation policy to PBOR would give an unfair advantage. It was ultimately rejected by the Ministry of Finance on the grounds that To them.

 What a great comment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs!