UOI has filed application seeking extension of time limit by another 12 weeks in the Supreme Court giving ref of its order of 04/9/12. Main reasons given are:
1. Implementing the judgment involves three sucessive Pay Commissions (IV/V/6 CPC). Most of the data of prior period is not available and has to be compiled manually.
2. In respect of pre 1986 officers in addition to arrears, LPC, Lve encashment, Gratuity, and corr to PPO is required to be worked out which will again take some time.
3. Final financial implication can only be known once all calculations are complete in respect of every officer for which budgetary allocation is being made to MoF to arrange for funds of this extraordinary magnitude.
4. MoD is committed to the implementation of the order.However, because of the constraints ref above, the implementation may take another 12 weeks.
More will follow.
Secy RDOA
1. Implementing the judgment involves three sucessive Pay Commissions (IV/V/6 CPC). Most of the data of prior period is not available and has to be compiled manually.
2. In respect of pre 1986 officers in addition to arrears, LPC, Lve encashment, Gratuity, and corr to PPO is required to be worked out which will again take some time.
3. Final financial implication can only be known once all calculations are complete in respect of every officer for which budgetary allocation is being made to MoF to arrange for funds of this extraordinary magnitude.
4. MoD is committed to the implementation of the order.However, because of the constraints ref above, the implementation may take another 12 weeks.
More will follow.
Secy RDOA
87 comments:
Was it not expected. Now they have asked for 12 weeks. Why could they not utilise the past 12 weeks and paid as directed by the Supreme Court. I am sure we are waiting for the next financial year. besides what about the so called OROP implimetation?
Col Sharma and the Core Committee, I have full faith in you and the legal team headed by Shri Mahabir Singh, Sr Adv and the Advocates on Record.
Please fight this case to the fruition before taking up OROP or any other. Half a battle is won if the adversary knows who and what strengths he/it is facing.
Air Mshl (retd) S Y Savur
but has SCI accepted their 12 weeeeks??
doesn't this amount to contempt of court????
I being negative minded want to see one of these people being taught a lesson ,so that implement these orders in time???
who all are likely to get benefited??
as per CDAO/MoD only people who were Capt-Brig are likely to benefit??
you are requested to educate us accordingly.......
@Unknown, Rank Pay is applicable in Fourth and Fifth Pay Commission to those in the ranks of Capt to Brigadier true.There isn't Rank Pay in Sixth Pay Commission....but.......
It could benefit Maj Gens and Lt Gens too (please read the UoI vs. Maj Gen Vains case).
RDOA could consider seeking a delay report with specific reasons for non-implementation by due date.
RDOA,
if UOI has sought extension giving one of the reasons that 'Calculation of arrears spread over three pay commissions (IV/V/6 CPC). Work load heavy which has to be done for every officer'.Will RDOA clarify that it implies that every officer commissioned after 1986 also will be affected as the basic pay will need to be refixed taking into account the rank pay in iv, v pay commissions and thereafter in vi pay commission also based on the revised basic pay.
please clarify. though RDOA has brought it out many times but now in view of this new development, what is the understanding please?
Now the cat is out, I personally feel that RDOA can take up the contempt of court proceedings.
However, CAN RDOA plead the case for
1.first an "ad-hoc"amount depending on the rank as on 1-1-86, be distributed first, with in a further period of say 2-3 weeks.second, the balance amount to be distributed ,with in a set time frame by Ho,BLE SC. in any case it can not go beyoind ,say 6-8 weeks, TOTAL.
I suggest tyhe following payments:
capt:3 lakhs, MAJ:4, LT.COL:5 LAKHS, COL&BRIG:6LAKHS.
As a punishment or gesture of goodwill, the UOI can exempt this arrears from income tax completely.
tHIS MAY COMPENSATE SOMEHOW SOME ELEMENT OF CONFUSION IN THE GOI ORGS.
SC MUST give a complete unambiguous verdict about the
1.the arrears from 1986.2. this should be followed by refixing the pay/pension at all the subsequent PCs, 1996,2006.
Interest can be @8%.
and any delay to invite interst from 1996 or1986
2ON NO ACCOUNT NO FURTHER EXTENSION OF TRIME LIMIT. Severe punitive action to all responsible.
this are only my personal suggestions. open for debate and discussion. with no personal comments plese.
v.sundaresan
It is RDOA's call whether or not to contest this request for an extension. However, where is the hitch in issue of the Govt. letter on the modalities and procedures for effecting the payment? If the Govt needs more time, then there should be total clarity on what that more time will be spent on. Perhaps, before agreeing to an extension, if an agreement on part of RDOA is required, an official clarification on the methodology and calculations could be asked for.
It is an opportune moment also to consider whether higher rates of interest could be asked for.
So...that is what it is coming to now. Most likely SC would grant more time to UoI as in Sahara's case. But RDOA may push for penal interest (Sahara investors are getting 15%) for the delayed period beyond initial 12 weeks or UoI be asked to make interim lumpsum payment to all affected officers till final dues are calculated and paid.
What RDOA may seek from the Court is clear cut directions from the SC enjoining UoI TO COMPLY WITH THE STEPS SPELT OUT IN ITS OWN AFFIDAVIT, in letter and spirit so that there is no wriggle room for any ambiguity for the UoI in deciding applicability of the Verdict.
Also UoI itself is admitting that arrears have to be calculated across three pay commissions so one wonders how was the figure of 1600 crore arrived at in first place. Now they are claiming financial implications can only be made known once all calculations are complete. BTW, if pay of all officers gets re-fixed after 4th, 5th and 6th CPC, the arrear figure would be MUCH HIGHER than 1600 crore, for sure.
@Harry:"..MUCH HIGHER than 1600 crore..": One never knows. If it falls short of that figure, maybe UOI could be asked to disburse the difference to all the Officers in proportion to their service. Well, it's a thought, anyway :-)
Rs 1623 crores was interest from 1.1.1986 as per the SC order of 8-3-2010. Since interest is only from 1.1.2006, this amount would be lesser.
The HPC's modalities to arrive at the figure would be known to UoI/MoD as the head of that Committee was the Defence Secretary, probably with guidance by Secy Def/Fin and Expenditure Secy.
As for other sanguine suggestions like exemption fro tax etc, well what is there to dream and dream big, real BIG!
In the meantime, keep your hopes close to your shirt fronts (in warm south) and pullovers (in colder north).
RDOA must have planned its fight in its wisdom. That wisdom won us the order of 8-3-2010 and had it upheld by the order of 4-9-2012.
Watch this space (like I wrote yesterday).
The rank pay case does not depend on the rank pay one was drawing on 1-1-86. It was one's basic pay from which an amount equal to the rank pay was deducted. As per the verdict it is the basic pay it is one's basic pay that will be revised upwards. Obviously everyone will be affected as captain onwards (rank pay started with that Rank to that of a brigadier) everyone's basic pay will be revised. This revision will be effective even after the rank pay was withdrawn as the effect was on the basic pay which increased nearly 100% with each pay revision.
I am sure the Supreme Court would accept the the request for time extension. The UoI has to explain what has been done in the 12weks available earlier. Issue of a vague letter just at last light was certainly a ploy to gain time.
Let us wait and see what the Apex Court says now!
GOI asking for extension is a way of showing that they want to help resolve the issue and they need time which is an acceptable term in the court of law. Very often the Judges these days look at whether the UOI was appearing concilliatory, if then Judges are likely to be more inclined to give UOI more time. We have heard of hardcore criminals / murderes seeking stay or extension of time for producing more evidence in hte name of Justice.
At the end of the day they are going to get the time they ask for but with arap on their knuckles. GOI is thick skinned and it wont hurt them.
RDOA is doing a fine job. Please leave it in their hands and take it to the logical conclusion.
When Justice by the law of land is denied, the law of Karma will take its course. A quote I came across that fits aptly.
This UOI step can be taken as a positive step towards the resolution of the entire pay fixation issue. Let us wait and see further updates by RDOA. Now piece meal actions by GOI will not be acceptable by RDOA as well as by three Services.
Hello RDOA - when they pleaded for 12 weeks extention in SC, we can ask for IR (INTERIM RELIEF) lets say Rs 10000 (Rupees Ten Thousand) per year of completed service wef 1.1.1986
Have the UOI given an official copy? Have the HSC acted on it? Has the RDOA sought the status/objected to/otherwise of the grant of extension?
@Abe:"..a way of showing that they want to help resolve the issue.."
That could be a dangerous and misleading point of view.
Even an uninformed bystander, with a little application of mind, can realize this delay in implementation, preceded by attempts to stall and delay during the course of the litigation, does not establish credentials, of those responsible for the delay, at a level even close to what is suggested in your comment.
Of course, it is RDOA's show. Your comment states the obvious in that regard. It is for them to decide on awarding merit points of trust and good faith to the set of functionaries with an uninterrupted record of derailing the whole process over decades.
A number of readers of this blog would need to evaluate the contents of your comment only 'under advisement'.
The draft govt letter on fixation of pay should have been approved and notified.For implementation modalities, orders should have issued to CDA(O),Naval Pay Office, AFCAO, PCDA(Pension) etc separately as required. For specific cases Service HQs would have intervened.This way the positive mind of the MoD would have been known to all concerned. W/o issuing the policy letter and asking for extension on imaginary grounds makes this move highly suspect.
Just a thought - Hon'ble Supreme Court has given Sahara 9 weeks over and above the 3 months to pay Rs 24000 crores to 3 crore investors, yes, Rs 24000 crores to 3 crore investors.
MoD wants 12 weeks over and above 12 weeks already wasted on about Rs 1623 crores (that is the High Powered Committee's estimate) to pay about 30000 yes, thirty thousand officers and NoK.
If only the shuffling file(s) between MoD, MoF, Min of Law & Justice, CGDA, Services HQ had not been not been at a geriatrics's pace!
RDOA filed the case in 2006 and has 2 orders of the Supreme Court + 6% interest p.a. to show for its hard and diligent work.
Let us watch this space for more from RDOA.
@chowpc, @Aerial View: +1. I couldn't have put it better.
the rank pay and the connected allowances were denied to the entitled officers while the babus enjoyed the fruits of three successive pay revisions .i suggest the arrears must be treated as recurring deposit with the defaulting government and the interest be worked out accordingly,why talk of only 6 percent from later date .
@HS Dogra: "..why talk of only 6 percent.."
Do you mean to say RDOA should file a review petition on the favourable judgement received after years of struggle?
You don't represent the interests of the opposing party in this matter by any chance, do you?
Why the PCDAPUNE has removed the Flash News on Hon SC judgment of 04 09 2012 which inter alia stated to the effect that Govt orders are awaited?....
@natrajan above,
PCDA(O) was proabably used as a tool to cover up delay in implementation of the hon'ble court judgement. what else one can think of ...
@corona8,vnatarajan, hsdogra, aaa et al'
A Review Petition can be filed within 30 days. More than 100 days are over.
PCDA (O) may have removed that because there was a RTI asking how records were destroyed when a case was pending as of 1996, when Maj Dhanapalan filed the OP.If the notice was still on, there would be more RTI applications.
We may suggest anything - recurring deposit, penal rate of interest etc - but the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clear - arrears from 1.1.1986 and interest @ 6% from 1.1.2006, or about the time RDOA filed the case on behalf of many of us.
Why not wait for RDOA to place the UoI request on the blog or the website and hold our fire till we see the "eyes of the adversary?"
E. Review Petition:
(Extract from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – Practice and Procedure: A Handbook of Information)
Article 137 of the Constitution of India, 1950, provides that subject to provisions of any law and rules made under Article 145, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Under Hon’ble Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a petition is to be filed within thirty days from the date of judgment or order and as far as practicable, it is to be circulated, without oral arguments, to the same Bench of Judges who delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
Statutory provisions
1. Article 137 deals with the powers of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to Review of judgments or orders.
2. In civil proceeding, an application for Review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. The said Rule contemplates the following grounds for Review of an order –
(i) The discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the petitioners’ knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made.
(ii) Some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
3. Here, an elaboration of the expression “error apparent on the face of the record” will be worthwhile.
4. In this context, “error ” means “error of law.”‘Law’ in this context includes a mixed question of fact and law. An ‘error of fact’ apparent on the face of the record may be a ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
5. Where an application for review has been made, and disposed of, no further application for review shall be entertained in the same matter.
6. A.R. Antulay’s case – A landmark judgment has laid down two important principles as regards review of judgments by Hon’ble Supreme Court. These principles are :
(i) Actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court should not prejudice anybody).
(ii) Directions given per incuriam in violation of constitutional safeguards, and in derogation of the principles of natural justice can always be remedied by the Court.
(iii) It was observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court could give proper directions and correct the error in earlier order if directions issued earlier are found to be violative of the limits of jurisdiction and that those directions has resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of citizen guaranteed by the Constitution. In this connection, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgmentsand concluded that citizens should not suffer on account of directions of the Court based upon error leading to conferment of jurisdiction. Review petition was allowed.
(IV) Where Review is possible
1. If the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court may review its judgment.
2. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice.
3. The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ in Order XLVII Rule 1of the C.P.C. has been given an expanded meaning, and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power.
4. So, above is in a nutshell the law we could trace on Review Petition.
1. If the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court may review its judgment.
2. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice.
3. The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ in Order XLVII Rule 1of the C.P.C. has been given an expanded meaning, and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power.
@Satyam Never Jayate: The past comment was not about a review petition but about the real meaning of some of the comments being made about the rate of interest etc.
Asking for revisions of what was in the judgement would be like filing some sort of a review petition, an act of shooting oneself in the foot.
As you have pointed out, such a course of action is not available, in any case. Thank God.
No chance of any review petition.
It is clear that the MOD had not made any provision for BUDGET so far for the "OTHERWISE PROJECTED FIGURES" of 1300 to 1600 Crs appeariung in various reports on the Rank Pay payments etc. Is it not so?
SO FINANCIAL PROVISION CAN COME THROUGH IN THE NEXT BUDGET ONLY AS I CAN MAKE OUT. I may be wrong!
BUT NOTHING PREVENTS THE GOVT FROM ISSUING THE EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTION (in the meantime) FOLLOWING THE "POLICY OUTLINE" ALREADY "SKETCHED" OUT ON 26 NOV 2012 TO AVOID CONTEMPT!.
The EPIC 26 yrs LONG SUFFERERS perhaps will have to bear with some more delay- if what Govt is explaining to the HSC fro seeking 12 weeks more time is AIMED AT FULFILLING THE ORDERS OF THE HON SC IN LETTER AND SPIRIT.
(MY VIEWS PL.)
"..AT FULFILLING THE ORDERS OF THE HON SC IN LETTER AND SPIRIT...";
The only way there can be some assurance of that is if an affidavit is filed by UOI describing the executive order in precise detail the "modalities and methodolgy" of effecting the payment.
If it is within the purview of RDOA, then the furnishing of the aforementioned undertaking as well as some additional compensation on account of the delay is perhaps what could be pleaded for at the Hon'ble Supreme Court before the extension is granted.
Why get into a froth whether UoI has made budgetary provisions or not?
MoD has surrendered annually thousands of crores of rupees every year because it delays/denies/doubts requirements of modernisation of the Armed Forces.
RDOA's legal team must have received a copy/notice about the UoI petition/prayer for 12 more weeks. The legal team and RDOA must have discussed the way to proceed to ensure that UoI now "walks the talk."
I would suggest we hold our doubts, opinions, and apprehensions in tight rein and wait for Monday when RDOA might bring us up to speed.
"..we hold our doubts, opinions, and apprehensions in tight rein.."
May not be such a good idea.
On an interactive web based forum, it's stray suggestions and opinions that can sometimes lead to breakthroughs.
In any case, comments on this blog are mere inputs. With the expertise available to RDOA, it should be an easy task to separate the wheat from the chaff.
So authoritarian suggestions of the "zip the lip" kind really can't facilitate a steady inflow of feedback.
@dhoop, with due consideration to your comment suggestion was not authoritarian (please check dictionary definition as "enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom".
Permit me the same freedom that you want to exercise, even if it is stupid or worse.
If asking others to hold opinions in tight rein cis not authoritarian, then I'm afraid the norm of applying dictionary meanings with a semblance of rational logic has still to be mastered.
In any case, one can merely suggest that the suggestion to put a lid on what others think may not contribute to constructive dialogue on this blog.
That, in no case, dictionary meanings or otherwise, impinges on any freedom to express. Even if the freedom is to express the notion others should not rein in their own freedoms to express.
But we digress. I, personally, look forward to all manner of views on this situation that affects all.
Certain genuine apprehensions need to be expressed to "arrive at the truth".
Sl no 2. " In respect of pre 1986 officers no data exists which has to be created all over again."
IS IT POSSIBLE? NOT EVEN FOR A SINGLE RETIREE? HAT ABOUT PERSONAL RECORDS AT THE ADJUTANT GENRALS OFFICE/ EX-SERVICEMEN'S CELL ETC?
WHEN UNDER RTI MY FRIENDS QUERIED THE DOE/ DOPPE FOR THE "FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS" GRADE-WISE FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS, AFTER 7 MONTHS OR SO, THE MAIN FILE OF DOPPW CONTAINING THOUSANDS OF APPEALS/ REPRESENTATIONS OF SUCH AGGRIEVED PENSIONS AND OTHER NOTINGS/ DECISIONS PERTAININF TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCPC REVISED PENSION ETC, WAS "REPORTED LOST IN THE DOE". SHOULD I BELIEVE IT? E WENT FOR APPEAL TO THE IC AND BASED ON MY SUGGESTION issue verdict TO "REBUILD THE FILE"- BUT ALAS THE BABUDOM NEVER CARED FOR THE VERDICT. WHEN WE WENT FOR APEALS FOR OTHER RELATED ITEMS - IT IS NOW UNDERSTOOD THAT THE "CONCERNED RTI QUERY" FILE ITSELF IS MISPLACED!!!!!
SO NO WONDER THT MILITARY "ALL EXISTING DATA OF PRE 1986 PENSIONERS MIGHT HAVE MYSTERIOUSLY VANISHED"! SEARCHING RTI QUERY IS REQUIRED TO FIND THE TRUTH!!
SL NO "3. Final financial implication can only be known once all calculations are complete in respect of every officer for which budgetary allocation is being done"
THIS IS AN EXCUSE - WHICH IS VAGUE AND EVEASIVE. WHEN A "CBINET DECISION IS TAKEN OR WHEN THE SG HAS GIVEN THE ASSURANCE ON BEHALF OF THE CABINET/ GOI AS TO ASSURED IMPLEMENTATION RELATED PAYMENTS IN 12 WEEKS", IT IS WELL REALISED THE BUDGET ALLOCATION IS IMPLICIT.
FOR EG: WHERE WAS THE "BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS TO IMPLEMENT SCPC RECOS"? THE WHOLE PACKAGE WAS APPROVED BY THE CABINET AND THE RESOLUTION WAS GAZETTED ON 29 O8 2008.
A "CABINET APPROVAL/ A CABINET DECSION" IMPLICITS INCLUDES THE COMMITMENT OF HON MIN OF FINANCE/ HIS MINSTRY' AND HENCE NO SEPARATE FINANCILA SANCTION IS REQUIRED. WE HAVE RTI REPLY ON THIS TYPE OF LAME EXCUSE WRT A FIFTH CPC "MOD. PARITY" ISSUE, WHERE THE DOPPW SOUGHT FINANCIAL SANCTION ON A CABINET APPROVED DECSION AND THE ADDL SECY FINANCE HAD REPLUED THAT WHEN A CAB DECISION IS ACCORDED, THERE IS NO NEED TO APPROACH FOR A SEPARATE SANCTION. PERHAPS IT IS ONLY TO INFORM "THE EXPENDITURE PART" THAT MAY HAVE TO BE INTIMATED.
However, this hoodwinking technology is to be researched buy concerned experts before "accepting the reasons' as "real-time excuses".
HOW ONE COULD REASON OUT 1300 CRS OR 1600 CRS FOR THE VERY RANK PAY ARREAR PAYMENTS/ IMPLEMENTATION ETc (say Hon Pal Com Estimates????).... so on ... my views pl.....
pcdaopune.gov.in has DELETED ALL FILES CONTAINED IN "NEWS FLASH ARCHIVES"
@Natarajan V;@Red Indian Cowboy; Your comments indicate you are angry to the point of being enraged:-)
Dear Administrator/ Owner of the blogsite/RDOA,
Now that those interested might have seen the contents of all my posts dated 9th Dec 2012, I request the same may be deleted to avoid any emrassment to the RDOA/ the objective in hand.I WITHDRAW THOSE POSTS DATED 9 dEC 2012.
I shall continue posts as usual.
VNatarajan
@Natarajan V: If you so wish, you can log in and delete your own comments.
Dear Friends,
This is the clear message to all of us by the .... that we are born to sacrifice n they are here to cause injustice even behaving being above law of the land. who in UOI is accountable? it is some intrest group in govt. working against the law as there is no provision to punish a person who act against law as a part or for on behalf of govt action taken by him.
so what we got and what we are getting:-
1) become non effective retiring at 54 in real life without second job.
2) acquired hypertension, gulfing wrong doing by .... time and again.
3) become elder brother for newly borns and younger brothers for growing ones.
4) price is paid mayfold and paying.
May god bless all those working against the meeks.
For retention and destruction of documents please see http://darpg.nic.in/darpgwebsite_cms/Document/file/RRS_WC.pdf
This is applicable to all Ministries.
With due apologies to every commentator, opinion maker and above all fellow-travellers in the pursuit to ensure justice is delivered, what exactly are we all expressing - our frustrations, our despair, our dwindling hopes for speedy deposit of arrears in respective banks accounts?
We are officers or the Armed Forces - retired may be, but with morale always high.
Any of the sputniks (to borrow Secy RDOA's term) think to see the chinese torture inflicting damage but we must have the last laugh.
Cheer up
Let us just be firm in our resolve to ensure we receive what is due to us - nothing less.
what has happened to NFFU and Grade pay issues which had already been approved by the government? it seems that in the garb of implementation of rank pay case, even the case of NFFU etc has been buried ??? These were to be announced as back as 15 August this year as per the news reports> no one seems to be talking about these..very surprising.. why cannot these be announced?/ How it is related to rank pay case?? Irrespectiveof implementaion of rank pay case,NFFU can still be announced. very surprising that everyone seems to have forgotten about them??
Please see www.cengokerala.org/_documents/contempt_petition.pdf to know how much work is involved.
Cheers
In the context of recent pronouncements from the political classes on benefits for the armed forces, some of the pre-history to the entire rank pay case needs to be re-visited.
The earliest reference that I could dig up was on a meeting RDOA had with Hon'ble RM in Dec 2006 after the judgement on Maj Dhanapalan's case was delivered.
It would be really interesting to know who took the decision to legally contest the claim of all the others affected and why.
Most importantly, at what level was the decison to litigate taken.
@Dhoop
Please see https://sites.google.com/site/rdoaindia/Home/aims-objects
@Satyam Never Jayate: The aims and objects page has nothing to do with that critical phase of the matter.
It is not RDOA who contested the claim. It was the UOI.
Dear Friends,
RDOA can approach Hon.SC that for implementation of their order dated 03 Sep, 2012, the MOD issued the letter only on 27 Nov, 2012, why so much of delay and people responsible for this should be taken for task.In the mean time Adhoc payment rank wise as suggested in the post should be made. The payment should be released side by side for people whose details are ready, instead of releasing payments together for all the three services.
It should be exempted from tax.
Regards & love & Good Health to all
Sqn.Ldr.L.D.Sharma ( Rtd )
Dear Friends,
RDOA can approach Hon.SC that for implementation of their order dated 03 Sep, 2012, the MOD issued the letter only on 27 Nov, 2012, why so much of delay and people responsible for this should be taken for task.In the mean time Adhoc payment rank wise as suggested in the post should be made. The payment should be released side by side for people whose details are ready, instead of releasing payments together for all the three services.
It should be exempted from tax.
Regards & love & Good Health to all
Sqn.Ldr.L.D.Sharma ( Rtd )
Well, now it's been 14 weeks (and counting) since the judgement. I think some sort of an update on the extension matter should be available this week.
@corona8 & all bloggers
Udti chidiya ne bola - petition of UoI for extension filed; RDOA has filed/will file rejoinder; hearing will be after winter vacation of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Already 2 weeks have elapsed and 4 more will elapse when Hon'ble Supreme Court convenes in January 2013.
Now that matter is again sub-judice, I zip my keyboard.
Greetings for a Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year and hopefully more cheer than the brandy in the punch, rum in the cake and "allied spirits" can give.
@Satyam Never Jayate: Tweeting birds are never to be relied upon. Calendar of The Hon'ble Supreme Court shows the winter break is from 16 Dec 12 to 01 Jan 13.
So the 4 weeks winter break info itself is in need of review.
Hai Friends! I agree with Lokesh. I feel that RDOA, as and when they decide to approach Hon’ble SC for the contempt, should also consider to include a plea for pin pointing the persons responsible for the delay and the interest accruing after 26 Nov 2012 should be asked to be paid by all those found to be degrading and insulting the highest court of the country. Is Secretary RDOA hearing?
-- Lt Col K K Choudhary (retd)
@kush:"..should also consider to include a plea for pin pointing the persons..";
I doubt if RDOA can give practical legal shape to everyone's ideas of this nature though it is understandable most of us feel that some explanation from the agents of delay should be forth coming.
I am sure RDOA's legal team would have examined the feasibility of obtaing just such an explanation as I had suggested previously.
An update on the next stage is now awaited by most of us.
@corona8, some birds tweet, some birds chirp, others go caw-caw, and the rare one bolta hain. Samaj gaye naa?
Two weeks before a date is given from 4/12/2012 + two weeks vacation = 4 weeks + hearing date (maye be 2 weeks later).
Sorry, the keyboard wouldn't zip till i punched out this one!
And you forgot my greetings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Satyam Never jayate: And you forgot my greetings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
That is another calendar that needs looking into; there's still 11 days to go to X'mas. Let's not zip any keyboards so much in advance :-)
Let's wait to hear the details from the horse's mouth, no matter how reliable the chirruping sparrows.
Hi All,
As per an article in the Frontline 15-28 Dec-2012,the contempt notice has already been filed.Visit this link,
http://www.frontline.in/stories/20121228292511600.htm
There has ,however, been no update on RDOA blog on this issue.
Lt Col S.S.Bhatia,(Retd)
@SANTOKH
Thanks for the surprising piece of information. RDOA knows better, if and when to confirm on the contempt petition for the information of others. One would definitely like to have some information from the actual implementation order of CDA (Army)in case of Major Dhanapalan to understand the pay fixation methodology as adopted in 1998. Delay in implementation within 12 weeks of SC order is most likely due to lack of intention on the part of MOD to follow the earlier adopted methodology of pay fixation. They are most likely busy in shifting the goal post now and fabricate justifications accordingly, as was done for Grade Pay of Rs 8000/- for Lt Cols.
@SANTOKH: "..contempt notice has already been filed..";
The Frontline write up does say,"..Lack of action from the government forced the Retired Defence Officers’ Asscociation to file a contempt notice..";
But the statement ascribed to Gen Secy reads,'“We are left with no option but to file a contempt notice because except for issuing a letter that the Supreme Court order will be complied with the government has done nothing,” Col. (Retd) Satwant Singh, general secretary of the association, told Frontline.'
It may be best to wait for an update from RDOA in this regard. Periodicals are not the most reliable sources when it comes to issues conncted with the armed forces.
Let's not forget how some media channels and periodicals had grandly announced in the past that OROP had been granted.
where have the org gp A services reached and where are we??? we are still 26 yrs behind and still fighting for justice!!! http://gconnect.gnaukri.in/download/macp/14017_30_2011-Estt.RR-10122012.pdf
@manu69, pl check the link again
@ in the dark. The link is correct. NFFU to the rank & GP of Maj Gen for the org GP A services is achieved in 20/22 yrs!!!. And we can can keep harping for equivalence and benefits till the cows come home!!!! Don't lose heart and keep fighting for justice for another 26 yrs while we are in heaven/hell!!!
manu69 and others, RDOA's battle (my impression) is for obtaining rank pay arrears as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court orders and MoD's additional affidavit solemnly swearing that it will have to put in much effort to revise pay, pension and DA, as well as gratuity and leave encashment for officers in service in the ranks of Capt to Brig on 1.1.86, 1.1.96 and again 1.1.2006.
RDOA is an association of retired defence officers. Its locus standii to represent officers who have are affected after NFFU became effective would probably have to be considered before it wades into battle.
@AERIAL VIEW. offrs who retired wef 1/1/2006 are eligible for NFFU. Para 6 reads "In case of any delay in the issue of orders, financial benefits under these orders will be given from the due date."
Please see letter on NFFU http://irsme.nic.in/files/6cpc/AB-14017_64_2008-Estt.(RR).pdf
Dear all, now AFCAO has asked all ,retired after 1-1-86, to submit forms and details.
now another delay tactics. how come AFCAO waited so long for asking the details? what were they doing when ARMY was asking for the same?
Probably tactical delay tactics. ask for details one by one and not all together; so that blame can be equally distributed for not giving the dues in time.
v.sundaresan
@WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD):But they haven't delayed anything. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is on the their winter break till 01 January 2013. Only after that date can we hope to learn what sort of time frame would be permitted for making the payment.
For all we know, the Air Force, Naval and CDA authorities may be asking for this information only to make doubly sure the bank details etc are up to date.
The rank pay arrears as and when through will be paid through PDA in case of vaterns. the details asked for may be the pay revisions with dates at various stages of the vatern s career . meanwhile the OROP might come through .happy guessing ?
@HS Dogra: Perhaps only the pension arrears would be paid by PDA's and the rank pay arrears by CDA, AFCAO, Naval Pay Cell. Who knows!
PCDA Pune invites again details - flah news in their website:
https://pcdaopune.gov.in/Login.aspx
I am surprised to see RDOA keeping quite on the UOI not honoring the hon. SC order to pay within 12 wks of judgment. further the CDA (O) pune had asked for details only from those officers who were capt to Brig as on 1-1-86. but whare as SAI/1/S/87 had defect of keeping minimum basic pay of Rs 2800/- and rank pay Rs 200/- for a substantive capt of 5yrs and so on for Maj to Brig. which is arrived after deducting rs 200/- out of BP. i.e. all those who attain 5 yrs service b/w 1-1-86 to 31-12-95 and promoted to capt were fixed at rs 2800/- where as it will be fixed at rs 3000/- for similarly placed seniours at 5yrs who were capt as on 1-1-86 with 5yrs service. RDOA needs clarification that if all pre and post 1-1-86 cases of capt. to brig. is given the corrected basic pay then only the anomoly is corrected in totality as pay fixation was done as per SAI/1/s/86 which had defect of rs 200 to 1200 less element in basic pay for capt. to brig.
please clarify and oblige.
Thee is no way out. Apex Court would certainly grant extension of time to UoI as asked for.
My personal thought; May be I am wrong..
If time extension is granted, the arrears paid should be exempt from IT as the Govt has already gained 20 years of interest @6% on this amount, whatever it be and whenever paid!!
The Govt would still be a gainer but at least it would grant some semblance of justice to the affected Veterans.
V Sundereshan's comment on AFCAO is not correct. The data asked for is to facilitate direct credit of the dues into the bank a/c of the veterans & the affected family pensioners, as and when, if so authorized by the awaited govt orders.All other info is already available with AFCAO. So no delay tactics is involved here. CDA(O)Pune apparently does not have even the basic data of all the affected veterans,so they moved early.
chowpc. Arent the details of the bank account of vetereans already available. The pensions of the veterans are credited in those bank accounts.
@chowpc, arun etc, I am told by authoritative sources that AFCAO under new management, has asked for details to cross-check if the data already prepared is correct. Incorrect data might be problematic in finally crediting the amounts into bank accounts.
I had a problem in 2009 when instructions to credit the arrears of the SCPC were sent by DCDA (AF)to the wrong bank even though I had informed DCDA (AF), DPP &R, and AFCAO of change in bank and account number in Dec 2006. The last two had changed the address but DCDA had not. It resulted in issue of a Revision PPO in Apr 2009 to the wrong bank and then a Corr PPO in Jun 2009 to the correct bank.
Air Mshl (retd) S Y Savur
Gentlemen, it is learnt that UoI/MoD's appeal for more time may only be listed after the winter vacation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
That and subsequent hearing could be anywhere in mid Jan or later. So 6 weeks would have elapsed and crediting of arrears would be depending on the plea of UoI/MoD and orders of the Supreme Court.
Till then breathe deeply and relax in "shavasan." Good for the heart, if not the mind!!!
Has the Supreme Court agreed to the aappeal by UOI to grant 12 weeks time to pay the arears of the Rank Pay Judgementy?. What action has been teken by the RDOA?
Sqn Ldr C S Gandhi
Chandigarh
1308. I dont entirely agree with you. If that was the problem then this could have been done earlier. I stongly feel that we do not have any funds to give. Even postings have been held back for want of funds. Let us not live in a fools paradise. We wold not be getting our arrears till the next financial year. Till then there would be delaying tactics that would be conducted.
What finally happened to this affidavit filed by UOI seeking 12 more weeks' time?
Dear All,
The OP of 1996 and subsequent appeals of the Uoi went against them,therefore SAI of 1987 stands expunged. Knowing this, what made the UOI make the same mistake in SAI of 1997 and persist with it till now knowing fully well that it was contemptuous,and a deliberate fraud?
I know RDOA will have their sights dead right on the case. Well done Sir!
Post a Comment