Wednesday, 30 December 2020
Tuesday, 29 December 2020
Monday, 28 December 2020
Thursday, 24 December 2020
Wednesday, 23 December 2020
Military not responsible for pension burden
Recommendations of the parliamentary committee and various pay commissions regarding the absorption of armed forces personnel after their military service into various government organisations where their unique skills, training and discipline can be optimally used have been mostly ignored by successive governments, mainly on account of bureaucratic hurdles and sustained obstructions in the ministries.
Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan (retd)
Former South Western Army Commander
Defence pension is once again in the media glare. A false narrative is being created that it has grown astronomically in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as compared to other ministries. This narrative, different from the ground reality, is causing great concern to serving soldiers and the veteran fraternity.
Pensionary benefits for the armed forces personnel are far less than other government employees as soldiers retire at the prime of their youth, resulting in shorter spans of service for pension. Their counterparts, in contrast, have much longer lengths of service for pension. This is also attributed to the special privilege of non-functional grade and assured career progression, resulting in much higher pension than soldiers. The fact is that the military receives the lowest per capita pension amongst all government functionaries.
The total number of pensioners was 51.96 lakh as on January 1, 2014, as per the data from the Seventh Pay Commission report — 33.36 lakh civil pensioners and 18.6 lakh defence ones. The real concern is the pension of other government employees and not the armed forces. Civil servants serve up to 60 years and comparatively attain higher positions than most soldiers and more attractive pay package. The narrative about soldiers emptying the coffers needs to be challenged with facts and figures, not hearsay.
Another revealing fact is that more than a third of the defence pension allocated in the MoD caters to over half a million civil defence employees. The remaining two-thirds is for the military.
This raises another pertinent issue of a compelling need to have half a million other government employees in the MoD to maintain 1.3 million military personnel. The subject of teeth to tail ratio only focuses on the reduction of uniformed personnel and there is never a discussion on cutting down this flab in the MoD. Whenever this issue is raised, it is overlooked because of obstacles and protests by the unions concerned.
The government is faced with an increased pension burden for the retired defence forces personnel who are still in their prime of youth and have always exhibited a will to sacrifice their youth for the motherland and have no platform to voice their concerns. Rehabilitating these trained young personnel who are too young to take total retirement from all work is the responsibility of the government to keep them motivated. Keeping the armed forces young is essential for national security and defence services have an important role to play in this but it is not the sole responsibility of the armed forces to maintain a young profile as also to keep the pension budget under control.
It is important to remember that recommendations of the parliamentary committee and various pay commissions regarding the absorption of armed forces personnel after their military service into various government organisations where their unique skills, training and discipline can be optimally used, have been mostly ignored by successive governments, mainly on account of bureaucratic hurdles and sustained obstructions in the ministries.
The straight response for the reduction in pension expenditure is to implement recommendations of the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions, AV Singh Committee and Koshyari Committee for the lateral shift of young, trained and disciplined manpower proceeding on pension from our defence forces to other organisations and expand the concept of short service commission by making it more attractive, another viable proposal pending with the government for a long time.
Outside the borders of India, armed forces personnel, after their military engagement, are absorbed in civil government organisations, including the police in many countries. These include China and other advanced economies like South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Switzerland, and the United States. The Sixth Pay Commission has also recommended that there is adequate potential to allow lateral shift of nearly all defence forces personnel to the CAPFs and various cadres of defence civilians.
There is need to find ingenious and practical ways of addressing the issue of defence pension at a national level rather than aiming for resolution at departmental levels by the defence services within their own means.
Since increasing defence pension is a cause of concern, armed forces have been contemplating ways to optimise engagement of its personnel by increasing the number of years they serve. Measures like the feasibility of increasing the retirement age of soldiers are under consideration. A change in the age or manpower profile, though definitely possible to some extent, will have a direct impact on national security. Therefore, there is need for a resolution of this challenge at the national level for a long-term solution rather than only the three services addressing this challenge at the departmental level.
Over a period of time, the Defence Budget has gradually reduced in terms of percentage of GDP despite facing two hostile nuclear neighbours with whom we have unsettled border issues and they are always endeavouring to create new challenges for us. It has sunk to just about two per cent which is lowest amongst contemporary countries. This low allocation results in an unrealistic allocation for capital expenses. This has resulted in resorting to emergency purchases in times of crisis for our essential weapon and equipment whenever there has been a major terror attack or border clash. Keeping in view the threat perception and security challenges, recommended expenditure of a minimum three per cent of GDP on defence is essential and with that allocation, apparently things fall in place.
The figures about budgetary allocation for pension which are in the public domain indicate that the growth for both defence personnel and other government employees have shown an almost similar growth in the last decade. Therefore, the need for concern should not be restricted to military pension.
Pension for the military will reduce considerably if recommendations of the pay commissions and other committees about the lateral shift of soldiers retiring in their prime youth to other organisations and making the short service commission more attractive are implemented.
Monday, 21 December 2020
FILE PHOTOS FROM JOVA AGM MEETING HELD ON 20/12/2020
Senior Veteran & VOPian JWO Dr.P Murugesan Adressing the AGM
Sunday, 20 December 2020
EX-SERVICEMEN CONTRIBUTORY HEALTH SCHEME IS RETROGRADE AND DISCRIMINATORY DISCONTENTMENT AMONG EX-SERVICEMEN BREWS
The retired armed forces soldiers up to the rank of Havildars in the Army, Petty officers in the Navy,? and Sergeants in the Air Force, are openly expressing their resentment, & perhaps with good reason,? as they feel they have been discriminated against under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS).
As per the ECHS policy functioning under the Ministry of Defence, retired Non Commissioned Officers (NCO) and ex-servicemen belonging to Other Ranks & their equivalent ranks in the other two forces and their spouses / widows are only eligible for being admitted and treated exclusively in general wards in ECHS empanelled private hospitals. However, by some reasonable progressive logic, a similar health scheme run by the Central Govt., as Central Govt Health Scheme (CGHS), D Group employees such as Chowkidars & Mess Waiters et al are eligible for admission and treatment in Semi Special wards.
The issue has been raised by Mandetira N Subramani, President of Mysore based Vekare Ex-Servicemen Trust (VKET), who himself is a retired senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO) of the Indian Air Force, and an Advocate. He questions whether the status of Ex-NCOs & ORs of the three forces is far below the status of Group-D Civilians of Central Govt. who are eligible for admission and treatment in Semi Special Wards, as per the policy of the Central Govt. Health Scheme (CGHS).
Ex-Sgt Subramani also reiterated that the present day ex-servicemen belonging to the rank of Havildar & below and their spouse who are members of ECHS are educated and well informed, who constitute well over 70% of the total ECHS membership, have started debating amongst themselves regarding the retrograde and discriminatory policy of ECHS, which is degrading the status of NCOs and ORs in the public eye, by the authorities of the ECHS organization which comes under the Ministry of Defence.
However, the term Group-D employees of Central Govt. has been abolished and they are elevated and now referred to as Multi Task Staff (MTS) who come under Pay Band-1 with the basic salary 5200-20200, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per 6th Central Pay Commission according to Subramani.
Ex-Sgt Subramani claim that, his Trust has been constrained to take up the issue with Ministry of Defence and the Chiefs of the three forces & Managing Director of ECHS Organization, since VKET is flooded with innumerable representations from ECHS members who are Ex-havildars / Ex-Petty Officers / Ex-Sergeants, other ranks and their widows.
“It is surely incomprehensible why ex-servicemen up to the rank of Ex-Havildars and their equivalent in the IAF and the Navy are treated as second class citizens insofar as hospital admissions are concerned, as they are entitled only to the general wards on admission for treatment in ECHS empanelled private hospitals. The disparity with Group-D civilians of Central Govt. who are eligible for admission and treatment in Semi Special Ward under CGHS is lamentable.
Subramani who is a retired Senior Non Commissioned Officer of Indian Air Force opined that, it is surely sickening when one considers the trials & tribulations that the ordinary soldier faces during his service, & then again on his retirement a similar fate befalls him, as he is yet again prejudiced. The ECHS organization surely shouldnt grudge if its medical reimbursement bill to the desolate ex-servicemen creeps up to any extent, as the ex-servicemen community under NCOs ranks is not that very humongous that the ECHS Budget cannot absorb them by plugging the loopholes which may exist in health scheme itself!
The discriminatory eligibility policy:
According to Subramani, under CGHS policy, the eligibility for admission and treatment in private hospital is based on Basic Pay?last drawn by the Central Govt. employees. Any employee who has drawn basic pay more than Rs. 13,960/- pm are eligible for admission & treatment in Semi Special Ward in private hospitals empanelled under CGHS. Most of the Multi Task Staffs (Formerly termed as Group-D employees) draw more than Rs. 13960/- prior to their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation under Pay Bank-1 as per 6th Central Pay Commission Report.
The learned policy makers in ECHS organisation while formulating the policy on ECHS deliberately brought in the concept of Grade Pay?and the?Rank Structure. It is needless to mention that, Grade Pay is only an element of remuneration depending up on the rank structure in the Armed Forces which was not in existence prior to 31.12.1995 as per 4th Central Pay Commission.
Why the concept of Basic Pay?is not considered as the bench mark for eligibility of different wards in the hospital under ECHS as it is considered under CGHS since, Basic Pay alone taken into account as bench mark for all purposes, such as for calculation of Dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowances, City Compensatory Allowances etc is a question that begs an answer, Subramani said and further added “there was nothing called ‘Grade Pay’ paid to those retired armed forces personnel prior to 31.12.1995” irrespective of any rank i.e. from Sepoy to General officers while they were in forces.
The ill-conceived dual concept, Grade Pay for initial contribution w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which was again revised upward w.e.f. 01.09.2009 to become a member of ECHS and the Rank Structure for eligibility of different wards in ECHS empanelled private hospitals as the bench marks, has subtly been included to deny the eligibility of admission and treatment in the Semi Special Ward for non commissioned officers and their spouses / widows and family members who constitute well over 70% of the total strength of ECHS membership Ex-Sgt Subramani said, and reiterated that this dual concept of Grade Pay and rank structure concept is not only discriminatory but also aimed at belittling the NCOs & the combatant soldiers below Havildars rank, who are forced to retire at a very young age, i.e.,? between the age group of 33 to 38 years and to fend for themselves with their meager pension.
Are retired soldiers, up to the rank of Ex-Havildars in the Army, Ex-Petty Officers in the Navy and Ex-Sergeants in the IAF, lower in grade to the status of Group-D retired civilian employees?questions Mr. Subramani, whose organization has already raked up the issue with the Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Headquarters and Managing Director of ECHS organization, New Delhi.
He also opined and in agreement that no ECHS member should / would have any grouse if Sepoys / NCOs are admitted and treated in general wards, JCOs in Semi Special wards & Officers in Private or Deluxe Wards, as per their rank structure, on their admission in any Military Hospital, so as to maintain the services protocol. Subramani also added that regimentation is all very fine while in active service to maintain discipline and decorum in the forces, but to extend the same rationale after retirement is fallacious, and quipped as the term ex-servicemen includes from the rank of Ex-Sepoy to retired General officers for all purposes including ECHS except for pension.
Subramani also cites another area of contention in the ECHS policy, wherein retired Generals to Sepoys, who retired prior to 01.01.1996, are totally exempted from the initial ECHS contribution and forgo the monthly Fixed Medical Allowances?of Rs. 300/- per month from their pension, on becoming members of ECHS. This again defies logic, as under the principles of natural justice every ex-servicemen should be treated on par, & especially more so when the scheme in itself is contributory in nature.?
He also opined that since the scheme is contributory in nature, any ex-servicemen who wishes to enroll himself as a member of ECHS, should be given an option, wherein on payment of a initial pre-designated contribution / fee w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at the time of becoming the ECHS member, he can gain admission into the special ward or private ward or general ward of an empanelled hospital, irrespective of the retired rank in the Armed Forces and grade pay. Needless to mention that, the initial contribution to become a member of ECHS has been exempted as per ECHS policy for all those ex-servicemen who retired prior to 31.12.1995 and their widows.
The sooner this contemptible policy is discarded the faster will the beleaguered ex-servicemen find relief & cheer. Surely the Indian armed forces owe it to the humble sepoy who sacrificed the prime of his life towards the service of the motherland in odd service conditions, whose grievance deserves to be treated with empathy. Will the Armed Forces settle this issue with alacrity? Subramani questioned and asserted as “Our Trust shall impress upon all the powers that be, to end this bias
Jai Jawan – Jai Kisan
Tuesday, 15 December 2020
Wednesday, 9 December 2020
Saturday, 5 December 2020
Friday, 4 December 2020
Tuesday, 1 December 2020
Sunday, 29 November 2020
Saturday, 28 November 2020
Friday, 27 November 2020
Wednesday, 25 November 2020
Tuesday, 24 November 2020
Monday, 23 November 2020
Sunday, 22 November 2020
Friday, 20 November 2020
Wednesday, 18 November 2020
Tuesday, 17 November 2020
Sunday, 15 November 2020
Friday, 13 November 2020
Monday, 9 November 2020
Saturday, 7 November 2020
Thursday, 5 November 2020
MOVE TO RAISE RETIREMENT AGE IN FORCES SPARKS RAW
NEW DELHI: A twin-pronged proposal by the defence ministry to increase
the retirement age of officers and slash pensions of those seeking
premature retirement has triggered yet another major controversy in the
15-lakh strong armed forces.
The defence ministry’s move comes in
the backdrop of the urgent need for cadre restructuring in the Army,
Navy and IAF amidst the ballooning pension bill adversely impacting military modernization. “The aim is also to retain trained manpower for longer tenures,” said an official.
But
it has also led to widespread criticism in the 65,000-strong officer
cadre on the ground that it will undermine the measures taken over the
years to keep the armed forces “young and fighting fit’. It will also be
a “strong disincentive” for superseded officers to seek a second career
in the “civvy street”, they said.
As per the October 29 letter issued by the department of military affairs (DMA) headed by chief of defence staff General Bipin Rawat,
the retirement age for ranks up to Colonels in the Army and equivalents
in Navy and IAF will be raised to 57 years from the existing 54.
The retirement age for jawans and JCOs (junior commissioned officers) in non-combat arms like logistics, technical and medical branches will also be raised to 57 years.
As for retirement benefits, officers will get only 50% of their entitled pension if they take premature retirement (PMR) after 20-25 years of service, 60% after 26-30 years and 75% after 31-35 years. At present, military officers as well as their civilian counterparts become eligible for pension (half of the last salary drawn) after completing 20 years of service.
“The draft GSL (government sanction letter) should be processed for the perusal of secretary DMA (Gen Rawat) by November 10,” says the letter, accessed by TOI.
After the implementation of most of the provisions of the one rank, one pension (OROP) scheme for ex-servicemen in 2015, the pension bill has hugely expanded. The defence pension bill for retired military and civilian personnel for this fiscal, for instance, is a staggering Rs 1.33 lakh crore.
But the fresh move to slash pensions of those taking PMR, which comes after several controversies ranging from taxing of disability pensions and “monetization” of defence land to restrictions on CSD purchases and ex-servicemen contributory health scheme (ECHS), has led to an uproar among many serving and retired military officers.
They contended the DMA has “no jurisdiction” to alter pension formulae. “Salaries and pensions are approved by the Cabinet after being decided by pay commissions and expert committees. Any such move will be challenged in court,” said a senior officer.
Moreover, the proposals go against the measures taken to reduce the “greying profile” of the armed forces. “The bulk of officers are superseded in the steeply-pyramidal promotional structure of the armed forces. Many of them take PMR for a second career after becoming eligible for pension after 20 years. If these measures are implemented, they will be forced to serve till retirement to get full pension,” said another officer.
Unlike civilian government employees, military personnel retire by rank at comparatively younger ages. All jawans retire in their mid-30s and JCOs in mid-40s, while most officers retire in their early-50s, with the aim being to ensure the military remains young and fighting fit.
Sunday, 1 November 2020
Saturday, 31 October 2020
Wednesday, 28 October 2020
OROP CASE HEARING UPDATE AS ON 28/10/2020
OROP case was listed at S. no 25 in court no 6 of Justice Dr YV Chandrachud and justice Indira Banergee for virtual hearing today 28 Oct 2020.
UOI was represented by
Attorney General of India Mr N Venkatraman
Lawyer M/s Priyanka
Lawyer Mr Arvind Kumar
OROP was represented by
SR lawyer Mr Hujefa Ahmadi
AOR Mr Balaji Srinivasan
Lawyer Arunava Mukherjee
Lawyer Garima Jain
In attendance
MAJ Gen Satbir Singh SM Chairman IESM
Gp Capt VK Gandhi Vice Chairman. IESM.
Our turn came At 1350 and Justice Chandrachud advised that this case arguments and counter arguments will need three to four hrs and we do not have that much time today. He suggested that we fix next date after Deepawali.
Our lawyer Mr Balaji Srinivasan insisted that last time also same plea was given. Balaji insisted that we are prepared for final arguments today. Judge gave next date on 18 Nov 2020 Wednesday. Justice Chandrachud recorded that it will be for final disposal on 18 Nov.
Our lawyer Mr Balaji Srinivasan requested that case may be listed on top of chart so that we will have sufficient time for arguments and counter arguments.
This request was acceded by court.
Next date of hearing for OROP case 18 Nov 2020 for final disposal.
IESM expresses gratitude to our team of lawyers who are representing IESM PRO BONO meaning without any fees.
Gp CAPT VK Gandhi
Vice Chairman IESM
28 Oct 2020.
Tuesday, 27 October 2020
Thursday, 22 October 2020
USE THIS SPECIAL DRIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR JOINT NOTIFICATION OF FAMILY PENSION IN YOUR PPO TO AVOID DELAY IN SANCTION OF FAMILY PENSION TO YOUR SPOUSE
Saturday, 17 October 2020
Wednesday, 14 October 2020
Tuesday, 13 October 2020
Tuesday, 6 October 2020
UPDATES OF HEARING OF OUR OROP CASE IN SUPREME COURT ON 01/10/2010
OROP case in HSC was listed at S no 26 in virtual court 4 in SC in the court of
1. Justice Dr YV Chandrachud
2. Justice Indrani Bannerjee
Our side was represented by
1. Mr Hujefa Ahmadi SR lawyer
2. Mr Balaji Srinivasan AOR
3. Mr Arunava Mukherjee lawyer
4. M/s Garima Jain lawyer
5. MAJ Gen Satbir Singh IESM
6. GP Capt VK Gandhi. IESM
GOI was represented by
1. Mr N Venkatraman ASG
2. Mr Narasiman. ASG
2. M/s Priyanka lawyer
Our turn came at 1330h, ASG Mr N Venkatraman requested the court that this is a very important case and Govt has submitted a consolidated Affidavit as per direction of the court. He further requested that Attorney General of India would like to argue this case but he is not available today and hence a date may be given by the HSC.
Justice YV Chandrachud accepted the request of ASG and gave a short date of 28 Oct 2020 Wednesday. He further stated that we will have final arguments on next date and decide this issue.
ASG Mr Narasimhan put across the point that 75% of defence budget is earmarked for pay and pensions. He further stated that comparison charts given by petitioners are not correct.
Mr Hujefa our lawyer strongly put across that the consolidated affidavit submitted by GOI confirms that Govt has given one rank many pensions (ORMP) in place of OROP. Mr Hujefa confirmed that charts submitted by petitioners are correct and we will prove it in next hearing. Mr Hujefa further stated that a great injustice is being done by Govt to veterans by not fulfilling OROP in its true spirit.
Mr Balaji Srinivasan requested that petitioners may be permitted to file a reply to consolidated affidavit of GOI. Justice Dr Chandrachud accepted this request and ordered that reply may be filed by 21 Oct.
Next date for hearing in HSC is 28 Oct 2020 Wednesday.
GP CAPT VK Gandhi
Vice Chairman IESM.
1 Oct 2020.
Sunday, 27 September 2020
Saturday, 26 September 2020
LATEST NEWS ON THE STATUS OF OROP FIRST REVISION
File No. 1(1)/2019/D(Pen/Pol)
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
D (Pension/Policy)
FR – CGDA letter dated 31.07.2019 regarding fixation of pension under OROP
With the approval pf Hon’ble Raksha Mantri vide note on page 17/ante, a Committee under the Chairmanship of CGDA was constituted to work out the modalities & methodology of implementation of next revision of pension under OROP, vide MoD order dated 14.6.2019 (page 24/cor).
2. In the above context, CGDA vide letter dated 31.7.2019 had stated that various Ex-Servicemen Associations and individuals are approaching CGDA office with issues and suggestions related to revision of pension under OROP. CGDA has further mentioned that as per terms & conditions laid down in MoD order dated 14.6.2019. it is observed that the Committee has not been mandated to invite or examine suggestions from the public. Further the time period of one month to submit the report is not adequate for the committee to examine these representations. Therefore, CGDA has submitted that present representations and others to be received would be examined separately by the Department if these would be part of deliberations of the committee.
3. It is submitted that as per MoD order dated 14.6.2019, the above mentioned Committee to submit its report to this Ministry within a month. The Committee has haled two meetings on 25.6.2019 and 10.7.2019. However, in their letter dated 24.7.2019, CGDA has requested this Ministry to grant additional time of at least three months for submission of the report. However, in our reply vide letter dated 31.7.2019 we have requested CGDA to make efforts to conclude the deliberations in the next meeting of the committee and submit the report within the shortest time without seeking extension/additional time. It is also submitted that the deliberations with Ex-Servicemen Associations and individuals are not part of terms & conditions of the committee.
4. With regard to current reference dated 31.7.2019 of CGDA, file is submitted for kind perusal/further orders please.
Sd/-------13.8.19
DS (P/P) Sd/------- 13/8/19
JS (ESW) Sd/------ 13/8/19
Courtesy:Aerial View
Friday, 25 September 2020
Thursday, 24 September 2020
Wednesday, 23 September 2020
Monday, 21 September 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)