Soldiers Grievances Panel

By Vijay Mohan

In an unprecedented step, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has set up a committee of experts to look into grievances related to service matters and pensions of Armed Forces personnel so as to initiate measures to minimise litigation and disputes in courts.

The orders for setting up the committee were signed by Parrikar yesterday. Consisting of five members, the committee will report directly to the Defence Minister and is mandated to submit its findings and recommendations within 60 days. The committee’s terms of reference include recommending broad institutional changes to mechanisms for redressal of grievances and holistically examine resolution of issues that have led to massive pending litigation.

According to sources, over 10,000 cases pertaining to service matters such as pay fixation, promotions, policy interpretation, pensions and military justice are pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal, the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The committee members include Lt Gen Richard Khare, former Military Secretary; Lt Gen Mukesh Sabharwal, former Adjutant General; Chandigarh-based High Court lawyer Major Navdeep Singh; and Kargil war survivor and blade runner Major DP Singh.

Terming it a historic progressive decision to bring comfort to serving and retired defence personnel, Major Navdeep Singh said formulating the committee was a watershed moment devoid of any political hues and in line with the Prime Minister’s directives that the government should be able to focus on the core functioning of its ministries and disputes should be resolved in-house so that aggrieved employees were not forced to approach the courts.

Ex-servicemen’s organisations have for long been calling for reduction in litigation, especially appeals initiated by the MoD against disabled soldiers in the past few years.

Source : Tribune News Service, Chandigarh, July 17 2015

Fourth Sepoy Mutiny

 By Lt Col CR Sundar, psc MSc (Defence Studies)

 

20??

In the past the greatest changes in our country were wrought by Sepoy uprisings. Three such uprisings brought about immense transformations. All three of them came about as a culmination of discontent among the ranks of the armed forces caused by the callous attitude of the rulers of the day. They resulted in bloodshed and in their own way weakened the rulers and paved the way for their exit.

Vellore Sepoy Mutiny 1806.

This took place at Vellore Fort in July 1806. The reason was the long existing hated practice of flogging as a punishment which existed within Indian Regiments.

In its aftermath flogging as a punishment was abolished in India.

Indian Sepoy Mutiny 1857.

Whereas tallow and lard-greased cartridges were the trigger to the mutiny there existed long pending grievances over the issue of promotions based on seniority. Also they kept increasing the number of European officers in Indian battalions. This led to slow progress in promotions and very few Indians could rise to get a commission. Even those that did could reach commissioned rank only when they were too old to be effective.

The rebellion wiped out the East India Company and the last vestiges of the Moghul rule. It marked the beginning of a new rule.

Navy Ratings Mutiny 1946.

Leading Signalman MS Khan and Petty Officer Telegraphist Madan Singh took the lead and formed the Naval Central Strike Committee. The strike call given by them found immediate response in all the naval ports of India.

Though the loss of life was minimal the mutiny made the British colonial rulers aware that India has reached a ‘point of no return’ in her struggle for independence.

OROP Jawans Mutiny 20??.

The Government of India has not yet realized the Jawans, the Sepoys of today, know that for long they have been given a bad bargain under the pretext of keeping the age profile young.

Let us take the case of two lads aged about 20 years in 1975. One joins the Indian Army as a Sepoy and the other joins a civil government service. In 1990 at the age of 35 and a service of 15 years the sepoy would have been sent on a pension averaging about Rs. 3,000 per month. The government employee would retire in 2015 at the age of 60 years.

In the 25 years between 1990 and 2015 the military pensioner would have earned Rs. 9 lakhs as pension whereas the government servant would have earned close to Rs. 1.25 crores as salary and perks and would retire with a much larger pension.

Therefore the minimum that can be done is to accept OROP. “The principal of OROP implies that uniform pensions be paid to Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of the date of their date of retirement and any further enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioner”. It will help the retired ExServiceman get at least 30% of what his civilian counterpart gets.

Those jawans serving today know that they would be subject to the same misfortune suffered by their fathers. Retirees are struggling today for justice. It will not be long before serving soldiers rise in mutiny against this injustice. Though that would be a sad day it appears inevitable.

Conclusion

The government may consider the following questions deeply.

1.     Today we have enemies at our door steps. Can we afford a mutiny in the armed forces?

2.     During the British rule mutinies were crushed by ruthless summary justice. The same cannot happen today.

3.     Even if the mutiny is crushed OROP, or something better will have to be accepted. Why not accept it before we reach a ‘point of no return’?

Military Pension Concept

Military Pension is a concept devised by the bureaucracy with some intent. The concept must be viewed with caution by the leaders of the Veteran’s community presently engaged with the Government on the issue of OROP. 

As it seems, the nomenclature of the proposal suggests that the Government is likely to lay down a Pension Band like the present Pay Band. The point that is likely to be missed out is, equating the pension of the Veterans of the past with the pensions of soldiers retiring from service today with equivalent rank and service. As a result the Pension Band is likely to be much below the Pension applicable to personnel of the same rank and length of service retiring today.  The implication would be, even if the pension band, say for a Brigadier retiring with 25 years of service is Rs 2000 per month with an increase of Rs 25 for every 6 months increase in service, it would fit in with the definition of OROP. In other words, the Pension Bands may be delinked from Last Pay Drawn. 

The bureaucracy may be banking on cashing on this interpretation to circumvent OROP. Once announced the Government will go whole hog to mislead the general public to claim that the Veteran’s demands have been fully met as the pension from then on would be same for persons of the same rank with same service irrespective of their date of retirement.

It appears to me that instigated claims of CAPFs demanding OROP, the JCOs and OR getting less increase due to OROP etc. are being generated to create friction amongst ranks and files of the army as well as the Veteran’s community. It would also enable the Government to create a belief amongst the civil population that OROP indeed is a complicated process. On this very pretext of allegedly being able to examine the issue of OROP comprehensively to include CAPF and other Police Forces, the issue may be palmed off to 7^th CPC. The larger aims and approach of the Government (read bureaucracy) explains the delay in implementing OROP. 

If you study this carefully, it may be a sinister plan something similar to the 3^rd CPC. This will reduce the pension of the present retirees delinked from their Last Pay Drawn. In the long run, the pensions of the Defence Community will be hit very hard. 

The purpose of writing this blog is to caution those handling the issue including the Service HQ of the likely pit falls. Even after the Government makes the announcements, the experts from the Veteran’s community and the Service Headquarters need to study the letter carefully before claiming success or expressing happiness over the issue. We should remember how the Rank Pay was skirted even after the Government letter was issued. 

Incidentally, along with OROP, we need to insist that a rep from each service and the Veteran’s community need to be included in the committee working out the details of the scheme. It is time the Service HQ and the Veteran’s community also insists that similar representation is accepted in the 7th CPC before it is too late to mend things.

I sincerely hope and pray that my assessment is totally wrong and misconceived. I would be happy if the Government proves me wrong by implementing OROP, the way it was perceived.  

Regards,

Brigadier V Mahalingam (Retd.)

OROP : Important Development

Three Cheers to Major Navdeep Singh

1.       I wanted to share an important development with you.

2.       The Prime Minister and the Raksha Mantri have been concerned about massive litigation and grievances in service and pensioners matters involving the Ministry of Defence. It was also felt that Ministries and Departments should be concentrating on core issues of governance rather than being overwhelmed by such litigation. Excessive court cases and grievances on various policies vitiate the environment, something which is highly avoidable and not in national interest. The discontentment in the last few years on this subject is well known.

3.       In order to ensure holistic resolution and a permanent solution of the issue and to recommend practical ways and means of having an effective mechanism in place so that genuine grievances are resolved in an environment of mutual trust and faith at the lowest possible level, and keeping in view the PM’s vision and directions, for the first time in history the Raksha Mantri has directed the constitution of a Short-term Commission / Committee of Experts who shall examine all related matters to find workable solution(s) to such issues.

4.       It gives me contentment in also informing you that I and Maj DP Singh (https://www.facebook.com/MajorDPSingh) have been tasked by the Raksha Mantri to be Members of this body consisting of a total of Five persons.

5.       I assure everyone that we shall undertake this task objectively, transparently, without fear or favour; neutrally with all sensitivity, and most importantly, swiftly and in all probability within a period of two months.

6.       We thank the PM and the RM for taking this progressive and landmark step and reassure them that we would not let them down.

7.       Just to clarify, this body has no link whatsoever with OROP.

Thanks.

Jai Hind.

Maj Navdeep Singh.

The Politics of Subsidy

 

NEWS AND VIEWS : SAINIK SAMAJ PARTY (NWCR)

 

1. Media is agog with the news of subsidy in Parliament Canteen. I first had my lunch in either Dec1977 or Jan 78. We were told that it is very cheap. Indeed it was cheap. Subsidy in this canteen probably existed even prior to independence. Someone needs to dig out the history.

 

2. Should there be subsidy in parliament Canteen? The party don't think so. It must go. But more important than parliamentary Canteen is the subsidy given to Media Houses for running their print media or electronic TV channels. This subsidy is given is given to these Media eateries /companies an individuals in terms of News Print paper rolls, and all equipment required for running the channels including cameras broadcasting equipment and every bit of it.

 

3. Sainik Samaj Party demands that this subsidy to all media enterprises should be stopped forthwith since it is erroneously called fourth pillar and given huge subsidy.

4. Please share the post if you agree with the idea of withdrawing the subsidy to Media Houses since they have lost their trustworthiness and Social Media in any case has taken the role of public informer and educating agent.

 

Balbir Singh Parmar

Sainik Samaj Party