OUR DEMAND OF ONE RANK ONE PENSION

Dear Colleagues,

The MOD committee under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary met today (Jun 23) to discuss OROP. Details are not yet known.
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM

Background

The Supreme Commander of Armed Forces Mrs Pratibha Patil on 04 June 2009 announced that long pending demand of One Rank One Pension (OROP) of the Defence Forces will be reexamined and decision arrived at by 30 June 2009. The announcement has been widely welcomed by the Defence personnel specially the Ex-Servicemen who have been agitating for the past one year to press for their demands specially the One Rank One Pension. Deeply hurt and anguished at the apathy shown by the Govt in not accepting their main demand of OROP, they on four occasions deposited over 15000 gallantry and distinguished service medals with the President.

The Indian Ex-servicemen Movement (IESM,) an umbrella organization for all Ex Servicemen of India appeals to the Govt that the committee headed by Mr. Chandrasekhar must not dilute the Definition of OROP i.e. irrespective of the date of retirement, the Defence Personnel who have rendered same years of service and holding same rank must get same pension. Only the grant of Full Parity with the new pensioners will meet the ends of justice.

We appeal to the Govt to accept the concept of One Rank One Pension with full Parity and make it the policy for grant of pensions to the Defence Personnel. Any other thoughts/proposal of One Time increase/ modified parity/ near parity will not be in line with the “Just and Fair” solution to the emotive issue of OROP. We are hopeful that the Govt will give due consideration to this important aspect of Defence Forces.

Posted at Report my Signal Blog.

THE CALLOUS ATTITUDES OF BANKS IN DISBURSING DEFENCE PENSION

DISBURSEMENT OF DEFENCE PENSION

THE CALLOUS ATTITUDES OF THE BANKS.

Dear Veterans,

In a reminder dt. 23-06-2009 sent by Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh to Deptt. of Defence Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi , league has expressed its anguish over the delayed and faulty implementation of various orders and notifications regarding the pension benefits of veterans. They are being killed inch by inch by such bureaucratic muddles.

In a specific case of Pay fixation of Ex- NK Janak Singh of Vill. Chamaru Distt. Patiala , Pension disbursing authority (Punjab National Bank Ghanaur) is paying him minimum pension instead of Nk's pension for the last about 15 years. After the implementation of recommendation of Sixth Central Pay Commission, he is being paid Rs. 66/- less than his actual pension which he should get as per his rank. He has written many request letters to his Records Office and PCDA (Pension), Allahabad but these seem to be fallen on deaf ears.

This is not a solitary case. But as per the survey conducted by the league's block level office bearers, about 20% PBORs, drawing pension directly from the banks, are not being paid correct amount of pension due to them. Most of the old veterans among the PBORs, being illiterate can not check their correct pension. Efforts made by Indian Ex-Services League in two such cases, Sub. Sher Singh (Retd.) of Patiala State Forces was found to have been paid Sepoy's Pension since the Fifth Pay Commission. The league got him correct pension of Subedar along with an arrears of Rs. 2,65,000/- a year before his death in June 2006, where as in the other case, Smt. Surinder Kaur, the widow of a Subedar of Amloh, was being paid the pension of Sepoy's widow. League got her also the correct pension along with an arrears of Rs. 85,000/- that too about a year before his death in Dec. 2007. Both were drawing pension directly from the Branches of State Bank of Patiala in their respective place of residence and have been requesting the Pension Disbursing Authorities to pay them correct pension for so many years but in vain.

There are numerous such cases lying un-detected / un-solved and the authorities concerned are not taking any remedial measure to disburse the correct pension to the individuals. The Sixth Pay Commission has added more ambiguities to its recommendations and staff dealing with the disbursement of pension are not properly trained. In case of additional pension provisioned by the recommendation of Pay Commission, most of the veterans are not in a position to receive the correct pension since their Date of Birth is not mentioned in their PPOs. Their requests to the respective Records Offices to correct the entry of their Date of Birth are not being attended promptly as if the said Records Offices are waiting for the demise of old veterans so that they can close their cases.

We all have to take up such cases of delayed action on the part of PCDA (Pension), Allahabad and Record Offices sacredly to get the veterans their due amount.

(Sgt. Prabhjot Singh Chhatwal PLS, Retd.)

President.

Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh

Comment: Weldone Sgt.Prabhjot Singhji. Please conduct a Dharna in front of the Bank Branch with all your members and show it to the Press about the performance of these Banks with regard to Defence pension disbursement.

GRANT OF 2ND FAMILY PENSION TO THE WIDOWS OF RE-EMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN

GRANT OF FAMILY PENSION UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME, 1995 AND THE FAMILY PENSION SCHEME, 1971 IN ADDITIONTO FAMILY PENSION UNDER RULE 54 OF THE CCS (PENSION) RULES 1972.

The Rule54 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1972 permits only one family pension to the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen. This is done by taking an option either to accept Military family pension or her husband’s Civil service family pension.

Following a large number of representations on the subject, the Government had finally issued a notification No.1/19/96-P&PW(E) dated the 27th July 2001, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated the 27th July 2001, by which sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 was amended by insertion of the following proviso after the first proviso:-

“Provided further that family pension, admissible under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 shall however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rules”.

The said amendment has come into force from the date of publication of the said notification i.e. 27th July, 2001.

This Office Memorandum clearly states that the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen pensioners can draw two family pensions w.e.f. 27.7.2001. (One pension from the Defence and the other family pension from the re-employed department)

This amendment to the family pension rules has come into force w.e.f. 27.7.2001. Still so many applications from the re-employed ex-servicemen pensioners for endorsement of family pension are returned for obtaining a ‘non-sanction of family pension certificate from the re-employer’.

Indian Army, Navy and the Air Force are the first employers of these young men and shunted them out at the prime age without caring for the rehabilitation. The denial of 2nd family pension to the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen is an injustice. After a large number of representations, the government finally agreed to grant this 2nd family pension.

Since the Government order is linking many pension rules, some of the re-employers such as the State Bank of India, still refusing to grant SBI Family Pension to the widows of a number of ex-servicemen re-employed in SBI as Security Guards and Clerical cadre. (A reply letter, denying the 2nd Family Pension from SBI is enclosed)

It is the Record Offices of the Army, Navy and the Air Force should safe guard the interest of the ex-servicemen by writing a letter to all the Department/Banks /PSUs /Autonomous bodies stating the Government order that the widows are eligible for both the family pension.

A copy of the O.M. dated 19.7.2002 is included in this letter for your ready reference.

Kindly go through the OM and relevant rules and issue a letter to all concerned stating that there is no restriction on the family of the deceased ex-servicemen employee from receiving family pension from Defence even if the family is in receipt of family pension other sources. I am inserting a reply letter received from Canara Bank on the subject for your perusal.

A suitable reply from your office will help a large number of widows to get their 2nd family pension which they have been denied so far.


SBI DENIES 2ND FAMILY PENSION TO THE WIDOWS
RE-EMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN EMPLOYEES.

In a reply, to a letter written by a retired ex-servicemen employee of the SBI, regarding 2nd Family Pension, the Asst. General Manager (PPG) of SBI LHO Chennai had given as follows:-

State Bank of India,
PPG Department, Local Head Office,
“CIRCLETOP HOUSE”
16, College Lane, Chennai – 600 006.
Phone: 044-28214771 .

Sri U. Ramasamy,
16 Perumal Sannathi Street,
Alwarkurichi, PIN 627412.

Ref.No.PPG1129 Date:03.01.2009.

Dear Sir,

SBI FAMILY PENSION

We refer to your letter enclosing a copy of the letter from Air Force Record Office New Delhi for endorsement of Family Pension from Defence authorities.

2. In this connection we advise that you are governed under State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Rules. As per the extant provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, family pension admissible shall not be granted to a person who is already in receipt of family pension or is eligible for pension under any other rules of Central Government or State Government and /or Public Sector under taking / Autonomous Body /Local Fund under the Central Government or a State Government. The Rules quoted in the letter RO/3201/4/264859/P&W (EPF)(CF) from Air Force Record Office, New Delhi will have no applicability to a family of the re-employed ex-servicemen in our Bank who is governed by SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules.

3. In view of the above rules you have the option to receive either Defence Family Pension or SBI Family Pension. You are eligible for Family Pension from any one organization i.e., either from Defence or from State Bank of India.

4. This is for your information and wishing your very Happy New Year.

Yours faithfully,

Sd.
Assistant General Manager (PPG)


Read the Dept. of Pen. & P.W. O.M.No.4/10/2006-P&PW(D) dated 14.5.2007 order in this regard:

Grant of Family Pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995and family Pension Scheme, 1971 in addition to Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1971.

The undersigned is directed to invite the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture & Co-operation, etc., to this Department’s Notification No.1/19/96-P&PE(E), dated the 27th July, 2001 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), dated the 27th July, 2001 by which sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was amended by insertion of the following provisio after the first proviso:-

“Provided further that family pension admissible under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, shall however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rules”.

2. The said amendment has come into force from the date of publication of the said Notification, i.e. the 27th July, 2001. Prior to coming into force of the amended provision on 27.7.2001, the family pension was admissible from only one source. On seeking clarifications by some Ministries/Departments regarding the effective dates of applicability of amended provision in respect of pensioners who retired/expired before or after 27.7.2001, a clarificatory O.M. of even number, dated 19.7.2002 (should be 10.7.2002) was issued to all Ministries/Departments indicating the date from which the various categories of re-employed pensioners would have benefit of two family pensions.

3. Some Ministries have sought clarification whether the instructions contained in OM of even number, dated 19.7.2002 are also applicable in the case of Central Government pensioners who got permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies.

4. The matter has been examined in this Department in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and CAG. It is clarified that the instructions contained in this Departments OM of even number, dated 19.7.2002 are also applicable to the Central Government pensioners who got permanently absorbed in the PSU/Autonomous Body and were compulsorily governed by FPS, 1971/EPS, 1995.

5. The other conditions with regard to dates of applicability mentioned in O.M. No.1/19/96-P&PW(E), dated 19.7.2002 will remain unchanged.

Comment: The SBI had denied 2nd family pension even after the issue of the above Govt. orders and clarification in this regard. Readers may suggest for further action.



CANARA BANK ISSUES NOC FOR PAYMENT OF
FAMILY PENSION TO THE WIDOWS OF RE-EMPLOYED
EX-SERVICEMEN.

In a reply to a letter written by a retired Canara Bank officer (ex-serviceman) to the Personnel Manager, Canara Bank, regarding 2nd Family Pension, the Bank had given the reply as follows:-
___________________________________________________________________
REF: CBEPF/mil.pen/2009 DATE: 15-05-2009

To

This is to certify that Sri V.Murugan (24594), Ex-Officer, is our pensioner, and pension is paid in terms of Canara Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995. The Scheme is managed by a Pension Trust approved by the Income Tax authorities and Pensionery benefits are paid from a separate Income Tax approved Fund created for the purpose.

Under the Canara Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 there is no prohibition on the family of the deceased ex-serviceman employee from receiving family pension from the bank even if the family is in receipt of family pension from other sources.

Bangalore Sd

15-05-2009 K.Vanamuthan
Manager.

To

Sri V.Murugan,
Ex-Officer.

Employees’ Pension Fund Email: hopenfund@canbank.co.in
Personnel Wing Phone: 080-25323801
Naveen complex EPABX-080-25584040
14 MG Road
Bangalore 560001. EXTN:223/265

Comment: A well written reply by the Manager, Personnel Wing of the Canara Bank, Bangalore. It clears all doubts and now all the widows of ex-servicemen who were re-employed in Canara Bank can apply for the family pension in addition to the defence family pension, if they are otherwise eligible.

This may also be noted that, the same will be applicable to other public sector banks also.
However, the State Bank of India gives a different reply. The reply received from PPG department SBI, LHO Chennai on the subject will be published tomorrow.



No. 1/19/96-P&PW(E)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions
Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare

3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan
Khan Market, New Delhi – 110003
Dated 19th July, 2002

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Grant of Family Pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 in addition to Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s Notification No. 1/19/96-P&PW (E), dated the 27th July, 2001 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated the 27th July, 2001, by which sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was amended by insertion of the following proviso after the first proviso;

“Provided further that family pension, admissible under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, shall however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rules.”
2. The said amendment has come into force from the date of publication of the said notification i.e., the 27th July, 2001. Clarification has, however, been sought by some Ministries/ Departments as to (i) whether the said Notification is applicable only in respect of those persons who retired on or after 27.7.2001; (ii) whether the Notification would also apply in cases of family pensions which arose prior to 27.7.2001, i.e. where retirement/ death of a re-employed pensioner occurred before 27.7.2001; and (iii) in the event of the benefit being admissible in cases where retirement/ death of a re-employed pensioner occurred before 27.7.2001, whether the benefit is to be given w.e.f. 27.7.2001 only, i.e., the date from which the said Notification came into force.

3. It is clarified that the benefit of family pension under Family Pension Scheme, 1971 Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, in addition to the Family Pension under Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, will be admissible in those cases also where retirement/ death of a re-employed Pensioner, who was covered by the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 or the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, took place prior to 27.7.2001, besides covering those cases where retirement/ death of such a re-employed pensioner took place on or after 27.7.2001. The benefit of second family pension in cases of retirement/ death prior to 27.7.2001 of the re-employed pensioner covered by the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, will, however, be admissible only w.e.f. 27.7.2001, i.e., the date from which the said Notification came into force.

Sd/-
(Sujit Datta)
Director

To

All Ministries/ Departments of the Government of India

Note: This representation has been sent to all concerned for issue of necessary instructions
in this regard. Affected family pensioners & re-employed ex-servicemen pensioners
are requested to approach for sanction of 2nd family pension. We request the IESM
Chairman to take up the matter with MOD & Integrated HQ Army, Navy & Air Force.

A LETTER FOR UNITY

A Letter for Unity, Thanks for the complements though I, personally, do not deserve the same. It is my organisation which has given me a chance to contribute a bit towards the welfare of my brethren. As for as the unity is concerned, we are open for unity on merit (R) merit with any oganisation working for the same goal. Root cause of dis-unity among the Veterans is none else than rank -consciousness and if we remove that every thing will be smooth. I am proud of my body, Indian Ex- Services League, Punjab and Chandigarh, which has emerged as First body of Veterans to shed the rank-consciousness. As a result ,I am here in front of you working as President of the body in which a no. of Brigadiers are adoring the organisation as common members. Most of our Distt.Presidents are doing the Rank of Col.and Lt.Col. I joined this body as a common member about 34 years ago and on 21st December,2008 my body has honoured me by electing me as 4th President, unanimously, for a term of Five years. Late Maj.Gen Mohinder Singh (Retd) headed this body from April, 1978 to March,1984 as 1st President when Late Lt.Gen Gurbachan Singh 'Buch' (Retd) became its 2nd President and lead the body till July,1998 when he was ordained by the almighty to leave this world. Lt Col.Chanan Singh Dhillon (Retd) became 3rd President of this democratic body of Veterans and worked as such upto 21st December,2008 when I was elected to shoulder the responsibility of leading this body of Veterans. Our organisation has, already, submitted a couple of communiques regarding the demands of Veterans to High Powered Commmittee headed by Mr S.M. Acharya Secy. Defence Welfare, on its own, since IESM could not entertain any thing other than OROP. I had a long talk with Gen.Kadian and Brig. Kamboj about three months ago. But I must say, earnestly, that every right- thinking Veteran or a body of Veterans is contributing its might towards the welfare of Veterans. God bless all. Sgt. Prabhjot Singh Chhatwal PLs Retd. President,Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh. Mob.98554-09128 Tel-Fax 0175-5000896.

AN APPEAL TO THE CHAIRMAN IESM

Views by Air force veteran Sunil

Dear Lt. Gen Raj Kadyan Sir,

In response to the SITREP issued by you in REPORT MY SIGNAL dt 08/06/09, We wish to place before you few points for consideration, along with devising a common strategy in enhancing the cause of OROP,during the meeting to be held on 11th June 2009, as we from Mysore would not be able to participate.

1) Now since a new government is in power, they could be pressurized through a collective representation at all levels of IESM, throughout the country. HQ, IESM can draft a common memorandum and circulate to all levels of IESM, a date could be fixed throughout the country, media could be apprised of the event and then the memorandum along with local issues if any, could be handed over to the Deputy commissioners or the local heads of all districts, and most importantly, the elected MP of the constituency BY HAND. Places where IESM is yet to be formed, a copy of the draft could be sent to all District HQ'S and all the 542 MP's by name from HQ,IESM. All MP's, irrespective of political parties, they are affiliated to, would then be accountable to this noble cause.

2) Sainik Boards at all levels are to be revamped and made accountable throughout the country.

Veterans of all ranks are totally disgusted at the bureaucratic way of functioning, and the same lame excuses of blaming the higher formations in not responding to any positive suggestions or complaints.

Suggestions:- HQ,IESM could play a major role with the central Government, highlight the present system and revamp the whole structure and organization of the sainik board, which has now become defunct, w.r.t pursuing the policies laid down. They have to make more accountable at all levels of their organization. IESM running the organization could also be thought of as a future vision, on a partnership basis. The root of the problem visible to me is that Veterans are being appointed as sainik board officials, and feel very sorry to say that these same people are trained during service years to only think inside the box and never give any thought to change their attitude of looking outside the box, after coming out of defense services.

As a paradigm shift, maybe the services of educated wives of veterans could possibly be the right answer to this vexed problem.

3) Whether it is true or not, some associations of veterans are taking credit for voicing the grassroots problems of veterans. It would be apt to mention at this point of time, that it has even affected the membership drive of IESM here locally, and volunteers as officer and PBOR veterans feel they are left holding a begging bowl, trying to convince veterans to become members of IESM.At this juncture, we are at a loss for words in convincing that “IESM is Different”, and a time has come when some members are openly questioning the need of having meetings even once a month, when there are no directives or points issued by HQ, IESM, with respect to the participation or solving any local problems, except OROP.

Suggestion:- Directives with regard to local issues, common to all regions may please be issued from HQ, IESM, so that all IESM Members throughout the country speak in one voice.

Hope these points with suggestions could be an eye opener in pursuit of IESM being more effective.

We would appreciate if this mail is viewed in REPORT MY SIGNAL, with your kind reply after the meeting.

Warm Regards,

Veteran Sunil Rao.M.R
Convener-IESM, Mysore
#61, “AKSHAYA”, 3rd Block,
Jayalaxmipuram, Mysore-570012
Karnataka State.

CALL FOR UNITY

IESM: Open Letter- Call for Unity

Dear all,

We need to get all the ESM organisations together if the demand for "Pension Parity" for lakhs of PBORs is to succeed. We need to exert pressure on the Cabinet Committee to recommend OROP or APIP, whatever we call so that all pre 2006 ESM get justice. One Time Increase or bridging the gap is only a ploy by Government to hoodwink the ESM organisations into accepting a modified plan wrought with more anomalies. We need to guard against such machinations!

For all of those currently caught in the debate that is taking place within progressive ESM organizations; the common denominator amongst us is that we are all Ex Servicemen, all other considerations set aside. As such, we have quality of life issues that affect each and everyone of us, as well as that of our families, and increasingly that of our neighbors. We also have a responsibility to ensure that today's Jawans/ Soldiers are properly cared for. This, regardless of personal political ideology.

There must be unity of purpose amongst us, in order to bring national focus on those issues, and create momentum for change or reform. Pragmatic solutions will not be forthcoming, not without our setting aside our political and ideological differences, and agreeing to work together on achievable common focus issues.

By pooling our talents and our resources at the grass-roots, we can bring about change, at the national level.

The model for this as a workable strategy is exemplified by open letter to all the ESM community, from Raj Kadyan, Indian Ex Servicemen Movement, President. It is based on striving for unity as spoken by Vijay Oberoi, SK Bahri, and ever so many other Veterans; they have already put the plan into action which is slowly but surely bearing fruits. Unity of purpose, and clearly defined achievable goals...it works!

With regards and best wishes.

Lt. Col. James Kanagaraj (Retd.)

Report My Signal Blog Team.

WHY THE 6TH CPC DID NOT SATISFY THE VETERANS ? WHOM TO BLAME ?

Dear Veterans……Why the Sixth Central Pay Commission did not make a justified recommendation in case of Veterans? Whom to blame for this?

Sixth Central Pay Commission was set up by Govt. of India on 5-10-2006 for revising the salaries and pensions of Central Government employees to fulfill its commitment in persuasion of advisory note given by the Fifth Central Pay Commission (CPC) in which the CPC drew a guideline for the Central Government to make permanent provision to appoint CPC after a gap of every 10 years.

The commission was comprised of following members:-

1. Chairman ………….Justices Sh. B. N. Sri Krishna

2. Member…………….Prof. Ravindra Dholakia

3. Member ………........Mr. J.S. Mathur

4. Member –Secretary...Smt. Sushma Nath

(Sh. J.S. Mathur passed away in February, 2008 before the submission of the report to the Govt. by the Commission)

Immediately after the formation, 6 CPC circulated a questionnaire on its official Website, india.gov.in/govt/paycommission.php and invited all interested persons, including members of the public, peoples' representatives, consumers association, staff associations, State/UT governments, ministries/departments to send their views on the subject by 31^st December 2006. Questionnaire had been prepared to facilitate response from Individuals/Groups on the items of specific interest to the Commission with facility for online response.

Consequent to an addition in the terms of reference, Unions/Associations of officers and employees of the Supreme Court of India were requested to submit memorandums to the Commission before 31^st August 2007.

Unions and Associations of civilian officers and employees flooded the Commission with memorandums without waiting for a day whereas We, Gentlemen (Veterans) went on asking for an addition of member out of Veterans in the Pay Commission to which the Govt. did not accede.

As per the record available on the website, a total of 412 (R) 412 memorandums were submitted to the Sixth CPC (R) CPC.

Out of this total, 403 (R) 403 related to civilians (employees and pensioners) whereas only 9 (R) 9 memorandums related to serving Soldiers and Veterans which were submitted by the following NGOs and Govt. offices.

1. Air Force Association, Jodhpur

2. Air Force Association (Western Zone), Pune

3. Army War College, MP

4. Defence Services Officers' Institute, Kerala

5. Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh

(Then headed by Lt. Col. Chanan Singh Dhillon Retd. with present President, Sgt. Prabhjot Singh Chhatwal PLS Retd. then working as General Secretary)

6. National Ex-Servicemen Coordination Committee, Delhi

7. 6^th Pay Commission Cell (Army), New Delhi .

8. Tirunelveli District Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association Chennai.

9. Zila Sainik Welfare Office Shillong Meghalaya.

As evident from the above list, One and only One memorandum was submitted (By Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh) from Punjab in respect of serving Soldiers and the Veterans. Should we not think that, to same extant, we, the Veterans, are to be blamed for this un-justified recommendation by the Pay Commission in our case.

The Commission had meetings with officers, unions and associations in 22 cities, such as Mumbai, Kolkata, Port Blair, Chennai, Puducherry, Guwahati, Gujarat, Banglore, Jummu & Kashmir, Hyderabad, Mussoorie, Ambarnath and a few other cities (from where the Commission received bunch of memorandums) apart from its New Delhi office.

The Commission did not come to Punjab for meeting with the NGOS. Since there was only one (R) one memorandum from Punjab, the Commission did not give a chance of hearing to Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh, which has been regularly interacting with the previous Pay Commissions i.e. Fourth and Fifth CPCs.

In spite of denial of meeting with the Pay Commission, the following demands, which were projected only by Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh, in un-mincing words, in its memorandum, No. IESL/ Pay Commission/2006, dated 24 December, 2006 were acceded to and recommended, with certain changes, by the Pay Commission to the Govt.

1. The league demanded a pay scale of Rs. 12000-24000 (minimum) for the serving soldiers and a minimum Pension of Rs. 6000/- for the Veterans.

However, the Pay Commission took a lenient view for serving

soldiers but crushed the Veterans up to the Rank of Havildars.

2. League demanded the right of family pension for un-married daughters above the age of 25 years in its memorandum. But this was agreed to by the Central Govt. as a result of sustained efforts being made by the League on the administrative channels before the Commission submitted its recommendations to the Govt.

However, the Commission did take notice of it and affirmed that the Central Govt. has already agreed to this and issued the required instructions.

3. The league demanded an increase in basic pension above the age of 65 and 75 years quoting the example of Punjab Govt. which gave an increase of 5% in pension at the age of 65 years and an other increase of 5% at 75 years.

However, the Commission gave an increase of 20% at the age of 80 years, 30% at 85 years, 40% at 90 years, 50% at 95 years and 100% at 100 years of age. Now it is up to the Veterans to see how long they can live to enjoy these increases in Pension.

4. The league demanded that Constant Attendant allowance be increased an made equal to the salary of class 'D' employee and DA also should be paid on this amount. The rate of this allowance was Rs. 600/-PM at that time.

However, the Commission increased this amount to Rs. 3000/-PM and also recommended that their should be an increase of 25% in this amount when the DA increase by 50%. It may be noted that only this (R) this allowance has been increased five times where as all other allowances have been doubled only.

5. The league demanded two pensions for the widow of an Ex- Serviceman who drew two pensions during his life time.

However, the Commission made a mention of this demand by the league but gave no comments regarding this.

6. The league demanded that Disability Pension (100%) should be at least two times than the normal pension and be reduced proportionately for lesser percentage of disability.

However, the Commission has shown much favour to serving soldiers than the Veterans in the case of disability pension.

Barring this, all other demands projected by Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh found not much favour in the hands of Pay Commission since the league did not get a chance to be heard or discuss the demands with the Pay Commission. Had the league been heard by the Pay Commission, the Veterans could have got a little more to be satisfied.

While making recommendation for serving soldiers, the pay commission depended mainly on the note submitted by the Integrated Hqs. of Armed Forces and the suggestions made by the civilian staff of the Pay Commission where as in case of Veterans, the Pay Commission based its recommendation more on the suggestive brief prepared by its civilian staff than the demand projected by the NGOs of Veterans. When the civilian staff working in the Pay Commission found that there was a special allowance i.e. Constant Attendant Allowance which was, hitherto, being paid to Veterans only and it was increased five times, the lobby prevailed upon the Chairman and the members of the Pay Commission resulting in to grant of this allowance to the civilian disabled persons also.

The Veterans must note it clearly that the cause of delay for One Rank One Pension not being granted to Veterans in spite of several promises by different Govts. is the bureaucratic pull and push which creates the hurdle.

Sgt. Prabhjot Singh Chhatwal PLS Retd.

President.

Indian Ex-Services League,

Punjab & Chandigarh.

OUR CORRUPT BABUS

Our corrupt babus

June 8th, 2009
A Hong Kong-based political and economic risk consultancy, which conducted a survey of 12 Asian economies recently, says that Singapore’s civil servants are the most efficient among their Asian peer, though they tend to clam up unhelpfully when things go wrong.

The survey ranked India’s “suffocating bureaucracy” as the least-efficient. The appraisal said that working with Indian civil servants was a “slow and painful” process. That the bureaucrats are a power-centre in their own right, at both the national and state levels, and are extremely resistant to reforms that affect them or the way they go about their duties. The survey’s ranking in descending order of efficiency was: Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam, China, Philippines, Indonesia and India.

This is in conformity with the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2008, prepared by Transparency International, which ranked India as the 74th most corrupt country among the 180 countries of the world.

The government is by far the biggest culprit and contributes a large part to the staggering backlog of civil suits, over 10 million at last count, clogging the courts. The Centre, states and public sector companies determinedly appeal every adverse verdict despite winning only a small minority.

The extent of government involvement in litigation was acknowledged by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at a conference of chief ministers and Chief Justices in 2004. He revealed that a sample survey conducted in Karnataka found that in 65 per cent of civil cases, the government was a litigant, sometimes on both sides, and that “government litigation crowds out the private citizen from the court system”.

The Prime Minister, in the same speech, also confirmed that the Karnataka survey found that most of the government’s litigation was in the form of appeals and that 95 per cent of government appeals fail. He observed: “In a way, they are appeals that shouldn’t have been made in the first place”.

There is little reason to assume that things have changed since then. In fact, the Chief Justices of India themselves have drawn attention to government litigiousness on numerous occasions.

Incidentally, the Law Commission also observed nearly three decades ago that there was much avoidable litigation by the state. It exposed many instances where the judges found that citizens were compelled to litigate because of the “utter indifference” of the government, where government pursued litigation on “frivolous” grounds, as a “matter of prestige” or with an attitude of “vengeance” or “callousness bordering on vendetta”, displaying “arrogance and a superiority complex”. About the officials responsible for avoidable litigation, the Law Commission said that “the lack of accountability of the officer in whom the power vests to initiate litigation or perpetuate the same by preferring appeal, is largely responsible for mounting litigation ...cases are not unknown where corrupt motives may be at the root of the tendency to continue litigation so as to exhaust the other side in the fond hope that he/she may, out of exasperation, be willing to grease palms”. There is a third independent cause generating this tendency to initiate or perpetuate litigation and that is to avoid taking decisions.

But, regrettably, even after such an incisive report, there does not seem to be any change in the profligacy of government litigation. India has seen major transformations in many areas during these years. But few of these changes have been in the government itself, and the colonial mindset that set the bureaucracy apart from and above the ordinary citizen still continues.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, headed by Union minister for law and justice M. Veerappa Moily, observed that bureaucracy in India is generally perceived to be “unresponsive, insensitive and corrupt” and a common complaint against it pertains to excessive red-tapeism.

It’s not that there is a lack of data or inputs as to how to make the bureaucracy more effective and responsive. It is because there is so much over-protection in the law that we seem to have reached a dead-end. It is not that the government does not know how to deal with the deadwood. It is just that it won’t. The government has the absolute power to sack anybody. But there is not a single case where an inefficient or a corrupt official has been shown the door. Everybody wants a government job, as it gives lifelong job security, whether you work or not. At the end, you get pension for life.

This is apart from the corruption which a vast majority of bureaucrats indulge in. As per the statistics, 24,130 cases, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, were pending trial in Indian courts at the end of 2007. A large number of them range between 15-20 years.

Incidentally, 153 of the newly-elected MPs have criminal cases pending against them. Rajiv Gandhi once said, “Only Re 1 out of Rs 10 allocated to the poor is reaching them”. His son Rahul Gandhi, just before the 2009 elections, had said, “Only 10 paisa out of Rs 10 allocated to the poor is reaching them”. No amount of tall talk or big schemes is going to ameliorate the lot of the poor if all this money is to end with middlemen, bureaucrats, in a nexus with corrupt politicians.

The present laws have failed to either deter or prevent corruption and make India’s bureaucracy effective in its delivery system. The leaders should govern well and the lethargy and corruption should be weeded out by it, instead of waiting for the court judgments to come.

The government should put its own house in order before it can put the country in order. It should end the reign of clerk-o-cracy and substitute it with develop-o-cracy.
By Joginder Singh
* Joginder Singh is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation
Our corrupt babus

Comment: Many Pension Parity cases won in courts by Military personnel- but corrupt babus prolong the cases for decades. Joginder Singh has rightly inferred that 75% court cases are litigation perpetuated perpetually by the the State on its citizens. Prudently the courts should be safeguarding the citizens from corrupt babus and satatistics should be reversed ideally.

Posted by Report my Signal-Blog.

SBI DENIES 2ND FAMILY PENSION

SBI DENIES 2^ND FAMILY PENSION TO THE WIDOWS

RE-EMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN EMPLOYEES.

In a reply, to a letter written by a retired ex-servicemen employee of the SBI, regarding 2^nd Family Pension, the Asst. General Manager (PPG) of SBI LHO Chennai had given as follows:-

State Bank of India,

PPG Department, Local Head Office,

“CIRCLETOP HOUSE”

16, College Lane, Chennai – 600 006.

Phone: 044-28214771 .

Sri U. Ramasamy,

16 Perumal Sannathi Street,

Alwarkurichi, PIN 627412.

Ref.No.PPG1129 Date:03.01.2009.

Dear Sir,

SBI FAMILY PENSION

We refer to your letter enclosing a copy of the letter from Air Force Record Office New Delhi for endorsement of Family Pension from Defence authorities.

2. In this connection we advise that you are governed under State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Rules. As per the extant provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, family pension admissible shall not be granted to a person who is already in receipt of family pension or is eligible for pension under any other rules of Central Government or State Government and /or Public Sector under taking / Autonomous Body /Local Fund under the Central Government or a State Government. The Rules quoted in the letter RO/3201/4/264859/P&W (EPF)(CF) from Air Force Record Office, New Delhi will have no applicability to a family of the re-employed ex-servicemen in our Bank who is governed by SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules.

3. In view of the above rules you have the option to receive either Defence Family Pension or SBI Family Pension. You are eligible for Family Pension from any one organization i.e., either from Defence or from State Bank of India.

4. This is for your information and wishing your very Happy New Year.

Yours faithfully,

Sd.

Assistant General Manager (PPG)

Read the Dept. of Pen. & P.W. O.M.No.4/10/2006-P&PW(D) dated 14.5.2007 order in this regard:

Grant of Family Pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995and family Pension Scheme, 1971 in addition to Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1971.

The undersigned is directed to invite the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture & Co-operation, etc., to this Department’s Notification No.1/19/96-P&PE(E), dated the 27^th July, 2001 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), dated the 27^th July, 2001 by which sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was amended by insertion of the following provisio after the first proviso:-

“Provided further that family pension admissible under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, shall however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rules”.

2. The said amendment has come into force from the date of publication of the said Notification, i.e. the 27^th July, 2001. Prior to coming into force of the amended provision on 27.7.2001, the family pension was admissible from only one source. On seeking clarifications by some Ministries/Departments regarding the effective dates of applicability of amended provision in respect of pensioners who retired/expired before or after 27.7.2001, a clarificatory O.M. of even number, dated 19.7.2002 (should be 10.7.2002) was issued to all Ministries/Departments indicating the date from which the various categories of re-employed pensioners would have benefit of two family pensions.

3. Some Ministries have sought clarification whether the instructions contained in OM of even number, dated 19.7.2002 are also applicable in the case of Central Government pensioners who got permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies.

4. The matter has been examined in this Department in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and CAG. It is clarified that the instructions contained in this Departments OM of even number, dated 19.7.2002 are also applicable to the Central Government pensioners who got permanently absorbed in the PSU/Autonomous Body and were compulsorily governed by FPS, 1971/EPS, 1995.

5. The other conditions with regard to dates of applicability mentioned in O.M. No.1/19/96-P&PW(E), dated 19.7.2002 will remain unchanged.

Comment: The SBI had denied 2^nd family pension even after the issue of the above Govt. orders and clarification in this regard. Readers may suggest for further action. SBI's reply is vogue. They should refer the latest relevant Govt. orders before giving reply to a retired SBI Employee. Will they clarify now?

Courtesy: Swamy's News July 2007 & Pensioners' Advocate July 2007.

A WELCOME STEP BY ECHS

Welcome Step : ECHS to issue medicines for 90 days for chronic ailments.

The ECHS Central Organisation has decided to issue directions for release of medicines for a period of three months to patients suffering from chronic ailments since issuance of medication for shorter periods was causing hardship to patients who had to visit ECHS establishments time and again to get the same re-issued.

These instructions have been circulated vide Letter No B/49762/AG/ECHS dated 13 May 2009 and have been disseminated to all Commands (including IN & IAF).

DEAR VETERANS - DO YOU KNOW IT ?

Dear Veterans- Do you know it?

The first two Central Pay Commissions (First -May 1946 and Second- Aug. 1957) did not consider the pay scales, allowances and other service conditions of Defence Forces personnel. At that time, the structure of emoluments of the Defence Forces personnel was looked into by the Departmental Committees which included the representatives of the three services.

1. Post-war Pay Committee (1949):

After the First Pay Commission, a Post -War Pay Committee was constituted for the Defence Forces personnel. The Committee simplified the pay structure of the Defence Forces personnel considerably and abolished a number of allowances which had either relevance only to war conditions or which could be merged with the pay. The Committee established a broad relativity of officers of Defence Forces with the officers of Class-I Central Services and the Indian Police Service (IPS). In Personnel Below Officer Ranks (PBORs), the fully trained infantry solider with 3 years service was equated with a semi-skilled worker. Pension related issues of the Defence Forces were considered by the Defence Forces Pension Revision Committee constituted in 1949 which gave its report in 1950.

2. Raghuramaiya Committee (1960):

Subsequent to the report of the Second Pay Commission, the consequential changes for Defence Forces Personnel were effected as per the recommendations made by the Raghuramaiah Committee that gave its report in 1960. The Committee did not modify any of the principles followed by the Post War Pay Committee. The Raghuramaiya Committee specifically mentioned that the accepted parallel between defence service officers and Class-I services of the Central Government, particularly the Indian Police Service should be continued.

3. Third Pay Commission (April 1970 – March, 1973):

The Third Pay Commission was the first Commission whose terms of reference included examination of the structure of emoluments, the retirement benefits and terms and conditions of the Defence Forces personnel. The Commission noted that the relativity of the officers in Defence Forces vis-à-vis IPS was only a working method of devising scales of pay for the service officers which did not mean that the functional role of the two services were similar. The Commission, specifically, noted that the pay structure of the Indian Administrative Service with its long pay scales was particularly unsuitable for service officers.

4. Fourth Central Pay Commission (June 1983 - Dec. 1986):

The Fourth Pay Commission recommended an integrated pay scale of Rs. 2300-100-5100 for all officers up to the rank of Brigadier & equivalent in three services and Major Generals was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700.

It was, in fact, Fourth Central Pay Commission which gave a regular increase in pension to the old pensioners (Veterans). Minimum Pension of Rs. 375/- (Sepoy) and Maximum Pension of Rs. 4500/- (Gen.) was fixed for the old Pensioners.

Fourth Central Pay Commission met a number of Pensioner's organizations in various parts of the country other than its New Delhi office In North Zone, the Pay Commission held a meeting with the ex-servicemen at Sub. Area Hq. at Ambala Cantt. on 6-12-1984 Meeting was arranged by Brig. Irwin David. Mr. Justice Shyngl was the Chairman of the Fourth Central Pay Commission.

A deputation of ex-servicemen headed by late Lt. Gen. Gurbachan Singh 'Buch' (Retd.) which included Sgt. Prabhjot Singh Chhatwal (Retd.), the present President of Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh (IESL P&C) Lt. Col. Mohinder Singh Sandhu (Retd.), the present Senior Vice President of (IESL P&C), late Hony. Capt. B.R. Soin (Retd.) and late Hony. Capt. Haqiqat Singh (Retd.), all from Patiala , met the Pay Commission for discussion of demands of ex-servicemen included in the memorandum submitted, earlier, by the Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh to the Pay Commission.

Sgt. Prabhjot Singh discussed the pension case of Reservist Dalip Singh of Vill. Khanian in Tehsil. Nabha, Distt. Patiala who has been drawing Rs. 3/- P.M. as pension since 1939. The case, which was earlier highlighted in various news papers which attracted the attention of Govt. of India for a suitable disposal and hectic correspondence was made between the Govt. and the Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh. The correspondence about the said case was presented to the Pay Commission which took no time to make recommendation to grant a regular increase in pension for old pensioners (Veterans) who were so far being given, some or other types of ad-hoc increases to which re-employed ex-servicemen were not entitled. Commission immediately declared that here after minimum pension will be paid to re-employed ex-servicemen. Thus, there was a regular increase in pension for the veterans as a result of sustained efforts made by Indian Ex-Services League, Punjab & Chandigarh.

5. Fifth Central Pay Commission (April, 1994 – January, 1997):

The Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended the abolition of Rank of 2^nd Lieutenant. Commission also recommended abolition of integrated pay scales. For old pensioners (Veterans), Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended Rs. 1275/- P.M. as minimum pension and Rs. 15000/- P.M. as maximum pension.

6. Sixth Central Pay Commission (Oct, 2006 – March, 2008):

What the Sixth Central Pay Commission has granted to the Soldiers and the Veterans, is known to all of you and needs no description here. It has given a minimum pension of Rs. 3500/-P.M. (which covers PBORs up to rank of Hav.) and maximum pension of Rs. 45000/-P.M. (General)

Mark the difference between the minimum and the maximum pension among the Soldiers. This difference will, certainly, increase to the range of Rs. 1,30,000/- P.M. if no remedial steps are taken by the concerned quarters at the earliest.

( L.Tel. S.C. Sharma CTO Retd.)

General Secretary.

Indian Ex-Service League, Punjab & Chandigarh.