THE NASTY GAME PLAYED BY DEPARTMENT EX-SERVICEMEN FAREWEL

LIVE VIDEOS FROM JANTAR MANTAR

AN UNFORGIVABLE INJUSTICE TO VETERANS BY DESW WITH A HIDDEN AGENDA

The 6th CPC has introduced an X GP Pay of Rs 1400 being the difference between the grade of Technical Assistants in civil (=Sgt-2800) & grade pay of their next higher scale in civil (=JWO-4200).

Same Method was followed by 7th CPC too.

The X Group Pay of 1400 was revised to 6200 being the difference between the entry-level Pay of

level 5 (29200) & level 6 (35400).

The Air HQ Had notified all the existing technical trades drawing an X gp Pay Rs 1400 as eligible for XGP Pay of Rs. 6200.

Air HQ is the competent authority which decides about the competency of its trades & its equivalency as per eligibility criteria mentioned in cabinet resolution dated 05/09/2016 with respect to Airforce trades. The Air HQ has considered the lower X GP Pay of Rs.3600 as mentioned in the above cabinet resolution only for one of its Non-Technical trade Namely Garuda & all other Technical trades were equalised with in the eligibility norms as mentioned in the cabinet resolution vide Para 1 of Air HQ Circular AirHQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated 8th May 2017. In compliance of this letter Air force Record office revised the X GP pay of all its existing technical trades to Rs. 6200 by issuing new PPO showing this revision & arrears were paid w.e.f. 01/01/2016 aspercircular No.17(01)/2017/(02)ID(Pension/Policy) dated 05/09/2017.

Now how this can be denied to Pre-2016 Air force technical veterans who are already drawing the same from 01/01/2016 as per their PPO by the issue of table 7 of circular666. This is a clear violation of the modalities mentioned in Para 3 of HSC approved OROP notification dated 07/11/215 & the principles laid down by the HSC in Para 49 (i) & (ii) of the Judgement in WP( C ) 419/2016.

The DESW is now feeling the heat &started showing new reason for the denial of X GP Pay to pre 2016 veterans on the ground that the revised Amount opf Rs.6200 is a new benefit from. 01/01/2016.

This shows that silently  are accepting the fact that there was a violation of HSC laid down principles contained in Para 48 (ii) of Judgement in WP(C) 419/2016.

There is no takers for their another cntension that Notional fixation of pay in 7th CPC which is main nerve of it & OROP are two different things can not be mixed, this principle also applicable to desw that they also can not mix bifurcation of X gp in 7th CPC & OROP revision since both are different things.

REPLY TO DEMAND FOR EQUAL MSP FOR JCO/OR

PCDA SPEAKING ORDER FOR SPARSH PROBLEMS

MOD TRYING TO UDERMINE THE DIRECTION OF HSC IN OROP REVISION

 The MOD letter vide ID No.1(1)/2019/d(P/P) dated 08/04/2022 issued to implementing agency after Judgement in WP(C) 419/2016, directing them to Prepare OROP chart by dividing the existing X Group trades of Indian Air force into Pre & Post 2016 for the Purpose calculation of their 7^th CPC revised X gp pay as Rs. 6200 from 01/01/2016 is a clear violation of the principle laid down by the HSC for the revision of OROP from 01/07/2019 vide Para 48 (ii) of the above judgement dated 16/03 2022.

The Argument put forward by the Policy making body of the Mod is not backed by any document either approved by the executive or contained in the in the cabinet approved resolution of 7^th CPC dated 05/09/2016. The Air Head Quarters has issued the list of all existing technical trades with eligibility for X GP pay of Rs 6200 & a new Non tech X gp trade with eligibility for Rs. 3600 as X gp Pay on the implementation of the above cabinet resolution dated 05/09/2016 vide Annexure to Para 1 of letter Air HQ/99141/1/AFPCC dated 08^th May 2017 & this is the final authority  by which all the existing X gp trades of Indian Airforce are entitled for an X gp pay of Rs.6200 & it is also a fact that a new Non tech X gp trade namely Garuda also includes in the Annexure with an X gp Pay of Rs 3600.

Further the Air force Record office have revised the X GP pay of all existing technical of trades contained in the above Annexure  issued by Air HQ to Rs 6200 by issuing a new PPO regardless of Pre & post 2016.

 It is with in the Authority of the Service Arms to decide about their technical trades eligible under cabinet resolution for the purpose of X gp of Rs. 6200 & 3600.

The fact being so the action of the Mod in diluting the principles laid down by HSC for the revision of OROP from 01/07/2019 by issuing the above letter directing the implementing agency to divide the veterans between Pre & Post 2016 with the malafide intension to deprive them of their legitimate due is violative of HSC judgement & is an attempt to undermine the authority of the Highest judiciary of our country.

DIVISION OF 6th CPC X GROUP VETERANS DRAWING X GP PAY AS AN EXISTING BENEFIT IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR RANK BASED ON A CUT OF DATE WILL NOT WITHSTAND JUDUCIAL SCRUTINY.

 The 7^th CPC has revised the existing basic pay, military service pay, and XGP pay of veterans drawing the same under the 6^th CPC. It is not a newly introduced benefit under the 7^th CPC. Except for Hon. Officers, all technical PBOR Ranks of X GP were drawing the same amount of MSP and X GP Pay forms a homogeneous class. This is protected under HSC's laid-down principles governing pensions and cut-off dates contained in Paragraph 48 (ii) of WP (C) 419/2016, which reads as follows:

 "(ii) The benefit of a new element in a pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied. However, the scheme cannot bifurcate a homogenous group based on a cut-off date.

Nonetheless, 7th CPC introduced a new X GP non-technical trade, namely Garuda, with a lower X GP Pay of Rs. 3600 as a new element of benefit, which only is governed by above paragraph 48 (ii).

Hence, the 7^th CPC has created one more X GP of non-technical personnel with a lower X GP pay w.e.f. January 1, 2016, in addition to the already existing technical personnel with a higher GP pay who were a homogeneous class irrespective of rank and length of service in the 6^th CPC.

This homogeneous class of already existing X-GP veterans cannot be further divided based on the cut-off date of January 1, 2016, because the latter is protected under the preceding paragraph 48(ii).