BANK OF INDIA TREATS SERVICE EDUCATION CERTIFICATE EQUVALANT TO DEGREE FOR RECRUITMENT TO CLERICAL CADRE & PROMOTION TO CLERICAL CADRE FROM SUB STAFF

DECEASED ARMY MAN'S WIFE FIGHT FOR HER FAMILY PENSION

Please endorse your family pension in your PPO,If you do not want your family to suffer like this

Purv Sainik Uthaan Samiti-Samalkha. Foundation stone laying cerimony

PRANAB MUKHERJEE REPORT

  Minister of External Affairs   

  India   

Pranab Mukherjee

No. 13787/EAM/2008                                                                                     19^th December 2008

            Sub: 6^th Central Pay Commission (CPC) Implementation:

                        Further benefits requested by the Armed Forces

            This has reference to the meeting taken by you on 27 November 2008 to discuss the report I had sent on 11 November 2008. While there was general agreement on the recommendations made, Finance Minister raised the issue regarding the horizontal relativities of Armed Forces vis-à-vis CPMFs and civilians. It was agreed that we should further examine the problems relating to Lt Col level officers on deputation to the Central Secretariat, Intelligence Agencies and CPMFs.

            As directed by you, I discussed the matter further with Shri A K Antony on 17 December. Since Shri P Chidambaram could not attend the meeting on 17 December, I sent him a note after my discussions with RM. I received his view this morning. The substantive portions of Shri Chidambaram’s view have been incorporated in the revised report which is enclosed. Following recommendations have been made in the revised report:  

(i)         The pensionary benefits to all PBORs may be given without disadvantage to any category and an Anomaly Committee may be set (up) immediately to address any such cases.

(ii)        Lt Cols, who are in their parent service in combat or ready-to-combat jobs, may be placed in Pay Band-4. Those Lt Col level officers who are on deputation would be entitled to PB-4 only when they return to parent service.

:: 2::

(iii)       The grade pay for Lt Cols who are in their parent service in combat or ready to combat jobs, may be fixed at Rs 8000/- against the grade pay of Rs 8700/- for Cols/Directors. Those Lt Col level Officers who are on deputation be entitled to the above grade pay when they return to parent service.   

(iv)       A High-Powered Committee may be set up to resolve the issues relating to command and control functions/status of armed forces vis-à-vis paramilitary forces and civilians.

(v)        The pay revision of the armed forces should be delinked from the civilian pay revisions. Separate Board or Commission should be set us to recommend the pay scales of the Armed Forces in future.

You may like to approve these recommendations for implementation. 

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-----------------

(Pranab Mukherjee)

Dr Manmohan Singh

Prime Minister of India

New Delhi

Copy to:

MSP CASE STATUS IN ORISSA HIGH COURT

W.P.(C) No. 13130 of 2017
21.07.2017
        Mr. S.S. Das, learned Sr. Counsel along with Ms. S. Das files memo of appearance of behalf of the petitioners in Court today, which is taken on record.
        Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel also file memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, which is taken on record.
        The name of Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel be indicated in the cause list.
        The petitioners, who were working under the Army, Navy and Air Force, have filed this application for pay parity as per Military Service Pay (MSP) paid to the Commissioned Officers and Personnel belonging to Military Nursing Service and further seek for a direction to the opposite parties to grant the consequential benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law.
        Preliminary objection was raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel raises objection and states that on constitution of Army Tribunal, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application.
        Mr. S.S. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners referring to Section 14 of the Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007 states that the jurisdiction of this Court has not excluded, rather it is inclusive under the said provision, wherein under Sub-clause-1, it has been clearly indicated that save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters. It is contended that exercising the power under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution has not been excluded in view of the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Armed Force Tribunal Act. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 and Union of India and others v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma  and another, (2015) 6 SCC 773.
        In view of such position, keeping the question of maintainability open for consideration, issue notice to the opposite parties.
        Three extra copies of the writ petition along with annexures be served on Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel within three days, who shall take instruction in the matter or file counter affidavit.
List it after four weeks.
                                                            .      JUDGE
                                                    (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                          

Rs 1 lakh SC fine for plea on settled soldier disability case

Expressing displeasure over the Ministry of Defence (MoD) getting into unnecessary litigation, the Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the government for filing an appeal in the case of a disabled soldier when similar appeals had already been dismissed earlier.

A former soldier, Naik Balbir Singh, who hails from Hoshiarpur district, had been granted relief by the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in 2016. The MoD, however, challenged the order.

“This is unnecessarily adding to the burden of the justice delivery systems for which the Union of India must take full responsibility,” a Division Bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta held recently.

It also asked the government to deposit the costs with the SC Legal Services Committee within four weeks for utilisation in juvenile justice issues. 

The case is expected to come up for hearing on April 23 for the government to file its compliance report.

A committee of experts on reduction of litigation had come down heavily upon the MoD and the services headquarters for generating unnecessary “ego-fuelled litigation” by perceiving litigants as persons “acting against the state”. 

The panel had noted that even SC decisions, sentiments expressed by the PM and Defence Minister and letters by A-G for reducing litigation had not had any effect.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ORDER
Courtesy:EX-Servicemen Welfare