REPORT MY SIGNAL
20 Mar 2013.
Dear Veterans
An email from Gen Oberoi and another from Gen Satbir Singh, Vice Chairman IESM, are appended below.
In service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj
----------
From: VIJAY OBEROI [mailto:genoberoi@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 March 2013 19:33
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: PANEL DISCUSSION ON 16 MARCH 2013 ON THE ALLEGED CORRUPTION CASE OF PROCUREMENT OF HELICOPTERS FROM ITALY
Sent: 19 March 2013 19:33
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: PANEL DISCUSSION ON 16 MARCH 2013 ON THE ALLEGED CORRUPTION CASE OF PROCUREMENT OF HELICOPTERS FROM ITALY
Dear All,
I had participated in a panel discussion in the weekly programme Defence Line of Day& Night News channel based at Chandigarh on 16 March 2013. The subject was the current case of VVIP Helicopters, which our media has dubbed "Chopper Gate"; apparently all scandals for them are some kind of a 'gate' or other!
The participants were Air Marshal Ranjit Bedi (former DG DPS), Col Aggarwal (formery a JAG officer) and myself.
The link of the U Tube for watching the discussion is appended below, for those who want to watch it.
DefenceLine - Choppergate - 16 March 2013
Regards.
Vijay Oberoi
----------
From: Satbir [mailto:satbirsm@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 March 2013 11:24
To: Brig. CS Kamboj
Subject: Fwd: THE TRAVAILS OF BEING A SOLDIER IN INDIA
Sent: 19 March 2013 11:24
To: Brig. CS Kamboj
Subject: Fwd: THE TRAVAILS OF BEING A SOLDIER IN INDIA
THE TRAVAILS OF BEING A SOLDIER IN INDIA
Dear Veterans Dated : 19 Mar 2013
Letter to MPs, President of Political Parties and CM of States regarding “The Travails of Being a Soldier in India” is enclosed herwith for your information and widest circulation please.
With Regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Jai Hind
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-411057Email:satbirsm@yahoo.com, satbirsm@gmail.com
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-411057Email:satbirsm@yahoo.com, satbirsm@gmail.com
Dated: 04 Mar 2013
To
…………………
………………….
THE TRAVAILS OF BEING A SOLDIER IN INDIA
Dear ………………………
1. Our letter written to RM and three Chiefs titled “The Travails of being a Soldier in India” is enclosed for your persual, serious consideration and taking up the issues with the Govt for immeidate redressal please.
2. There is need to debate the issues in the Parliament by the members of both houses to arrive at a time bound plan and schedule to redress all the issues to ensure “Profession of Arms “attracts the most suitable youth. Amrican president spends considerable time to speak about veterans welfare and its defnece forces in his speeches, finds job for 1.25 lacs soldier in a year in private Sector; whereas the Indian Govt is fighting against its own soldiers by contesting every judgement of AFTs in favour of the soldiers. The fact that judgements in 90 percent cases own filed in AFTs have been in favour of defence personnel, reveal the magnitude of the injustive and illtreatment of military.
3. Members of Parliament may be aware that shortage of over 14000 officers in the Defence Forces are the main reason of lack of supervision and consequent problems in the military units. Suicides by over 100 Jawan, JCOs, Officers every year for the past ten years, reveal the extent of lack of discipline and lack of motivation and morale. Our 40 percent vacancies in IMA & OTA have not been filled from 2006 to 2009 as stated by the RM in parliament. The detail are as under :-
Officers Training Academies
4. We request our MPs to rise to the occasion and cutting across the party line, get all the issues concerning the Defence Forces redressed at the earliest. The Nation cannot afford to have weaknesses and deficiencies in Defence Forces.
“There are no runners up in War”
With Regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Jai Hind
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-411057Email:satbirsm@yahoo.com, satbirsm@gmail.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dated: 19 Mar 2013
To
…………………
…………………
THE TRAVAILS OF BEING A SOLDIER IN INDIA
Dear ……………………
1. Our letter written to RM and three Chiefs titled “The Travails of being a Soldier in India” is enclosed for your perusal, serious consideration and taking up the issues with the Govt for immediate redressal please.
2. There is need to debate the issues in the Parliament by the members of both houses to arrive at a time bound plan and schedule to redress all the issues to ensure “Profession of Arms “attracts the most suitable youth. American president spends considerable time to speak about veterans welfare and its defence forces in his speeches, finds job for 1.25 lacs soldiers in a year in private Sector; whereas the Indian Govt is fighting against its own soldiers by contesting every judgement of AFTs in favour of the soldiers. The fact that judgements in 90 percent cases own filed in AFTs have been in favour of defence personnel, reveal the magnitude of the injustice and ill-treatment of military.
3. You may be aware that shortage of over 14000 officers in the Defence Forces is the main reason of lack of supervision and consequent problems in the military units. Suicides by over 100 Jawan, JCOs, Officers every year for the past ten years, reveal the extent of indiscipline and lack of motivation and morale. Our 40 percent vacancies in IMA & OTA have not been filled from 2006 to 2009 as stated by the RM in parliament. The detail are as under :-
Officers Training Academies
4. May we request you to take up the issues of Defence Forces with the Centre Govt. The nation cannot afford to have weaknesses and deficiencies in Defence Forces.
“There are no runners up in War”
With Regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Jai Hind
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-411057Email:satbirsm@yahoo.com, satbirsm@gmail.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dated: 02 Mar 2013
To
Shri A. K. Antony,
Defence Minister,
104, South Block,
13, Parliament House,
New Delhi – 110001
THE TRAVAILS OF BEING A SOLDIER IN INDIA
Dear Shri A K Antony,
1. An important write-up titled “The travails of being a soldier in India!” by Major Navdeep Singh a senior Advocate is forwarded for your, consideration and immediate measures to address grave injustice being done to the soldiers for whom you have been the Defence Minister for the past nine years. The fact that 90 percent of cases filed in AFTs have been decided in favour of defence personnel indicates the magnitude of injustice being done through bureaucratic manipulations. The worse is that MoD has asked the service HQs to contest every judgement of the AFTs in the Supreme Court. It seems, India is the only country which is fighting against its own soldiers. MoD has directed service HQs to withdraw the factually correct affidavits filed by them in the SC. MoD also gave an incorrect affidavit in SC in the case of Nb Sub to deprive Hony Nb Sub to get their dues of Hony rank. Your directions that every case is to be analyzed on merit and then action taken to file SLP in SC are being flouted with impunity.
2. There is an immediate need to correct the above trend. Integration of service HQ with MoD, an important recommendation of Kargil Committee Report, awaits implementation. The DESW, in the MoD, established for the welfare of Defence Veterans in fact are perpetuating injustice on them by refusing to accept their genuine demands. The DESW needs to be headed by a serving or retired Defence Person and also manned by serving/retired officers at the decision making levels. The ESM organizations, specially we at the IESM have been requesting for reviewing the staffing policy of DESW for the past three years without any positive outcome. .
3. The following requests made to yourself through various letters have neither been acted upon nor even replied:-
(a) Rajya Sabha Petition Committee Report strongly recommending grant of One Rank One Pension (OROP) and presented to Rajya Sabha on 19 Dec 2011 has not been acted upon. The decision of the Govt is awaited. It is notBridging of the gap but removal of the gap which is the just and fair demand of OROP, unjustifiably being denied by the Govt.
..
(b) The rules of governance forbid one department to adjudicate on another department. Then why committees of secretaries have been time and again constituted to decide on issue of Defence Services when there is a clear clash of interests. How, were the three ranks of officers ie 2/Lt, Lt and Capt equated with the initial grade of IAS is unthinkable? How is Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) denied to the Defence Officers while granting the same to all other Gp A services IAS, IPS and IFS? How is it that the 3rd carrier progression is not yet been granted to a Sepoy who is compulsorily retired after 15-17 years of service while all civilian employees get three promotion? All these anomalies and disparities need to be removed at the earliest.
(c) SC judgement in the rank pay case has not been implemented correctly. Please refer to our letter dated 01 Jan 2013 for action please. The deprived rank pay with effect from 01-01-86 is to be applied to 4th, 5th and 6th CPCs, pay scales and grade pays revised and made applicable to all serving, retired and family pensioners.
(d) The enhancement of pensions, family pensions, dual family pensions through letters dated 17th Jan 2013 need to be made effective with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 24th Sep 2012, since these relate to 6th CPC. In the case of Addl Secretaries, Secretaries and Lt Gens, when HAG & HAG + were created by accepting the recommendations of a committee of secretaries headed by the Cabinet Secretary in Jun 2009, was made effective with effect from 01.01.2006. Why then this enhancement which also is removal of an anomaly of 6th CPC has been made effective with effect from 24thSep 2012?
(e) Pensions of widows of Sepoy have not been enhanced. Minimum family pension of Rs 3500/-pm has not been revised for more than 10 years and is less than half of the minimum wage of unskilled labour in Delhi and over Rs 1500 less than minimum wages anywhere in the country. There is a strong case to enhance the minimum family pension to at least Rs 7000/- per month to assist the most needy segment of defence fraternity
4. Another issue which needs your immediate consideration is the constitution of Separate Pay Commission for Defence Forces. The Govt in 2008 had accepted constitution of separate Pay Commission for the Defence Forces. All the injustices heaped on the Defence Forces are due to their amalgamation with the other civilian services by the 3rd CPC. Even the Rajya Sabha Petition Committee on OROP has opined that clubbing the Defence Services with other Govt services in 1973 was an unwise decision. 39 serious anomalies and many more, need to be redressed and corrected. It is only possible if Defence Forces have their separate Pay Commission to be headed by a serving/retired senior Defence Officer and manned by serving and retired experienced and eminent defence officers in addition to retired judges/eminent citizens ie retd CVCs/VCs of Universities IIMs/IITs etc. It is being rumoured that attempts are being made to again scuttle the constitution of separate pay commission for the Defence Forces by spreading wrong information that Defence Forces will stand to loose with separate Pay Commission, since the bureaucrats will finally approve the recommendations. Such ploys are harmful for the soldier and the nation. It is reiterated that the rules of governance require the recommendations to be approved by the Government ie Cabinet and not the bureaucrats. This aspect needs to be addressed immediately and process to establish Separate Pay Commission for Defence Forces need to be set in motion. The pensions and other benefits to the Defence Veterans and family pensioners are the direct result of what the serving defence fraternity gets. Therefore, the concerns of defence veterans need to be duly considered.
5. May we request you to kindly spare some time and accept our request already made to meet a delegation of IESM if possible in the 2nd week of Mar 2013 to enable us to brief you on all the above issues so that these could be addressed in a reasonable time schedule.
…
With Regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Jai Hind
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-411057Email:satbirsm@yahoo.com, satbirsm@gmail.com
Vice Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Mobile: 9312404269, 0124-411057Email:satbirsm@yahoo.com, satbirsm@gmail.com
Copy to:-
General Bikram Singh, PVSM, UYSM,
AVSM, SM, VSM, ADC Chief of the Army Staff. Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Army) South Block, New Delhi-110011. |
The serving fraternity needs to rise to the occasion to undo the injustice to Defence Forces.
|
Admiral Devendra Kumar Joshi, PVSM, AVSM,
YSM, NM, VSM, ADC Chief of the Naval Staff Integrated HQs of Armed Forces (Navy) South Block, New Delhi-110011. |
-do-
|
.Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne,
PVSM, AVSM, VM. Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of the Air Staff. Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi 110011. |
-do-
|
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
The travails of being a soldier in India!
If the soldier must thank an entity, in the first order the gratitude must move towards not our society but our Constitutional Courts, especially the Delhi and the Punjab & Haryana High Courts, for historically upholding what is due to the soldier and for fiercely standing behind the rights of the ones who guard our borders.
What does one gain by becoming a soldier in this country today? Endless rounds of litigation? Red-tape? Continually fighting against the system, including against the ones tasked with protecting his or her rights?
Hear the story of Maj Arvind Suhag, an officer who had to fight the odds to get what should have logically and effortlessly flown towards him. And none came to his rescue, except our Constitutional Courts.
Maj Suhag is a 100% disabled officer who while undertaking a proper operational move in an operational area (general area Kargil) in a notified operation suffered a disability when his vehicle fell down a gorge. The disability not only resulted in loss of memory and brain damage but also resulted in the officer being rendered bedridden for a very long period. The disability was correctly notified as ‘Battle Casualty’ as per existing rules by the Army.
Litigation with Haryana Government: The Haryana Government provides an ex-gratia amount from the State for disabilities suffered in operational areas which have been declared ‘battle casualties’. The said ex-gratia was refused to him on the pretext that his disability was a result of a ‘vehicle accident’ only. A simplistic and sadistic view to say the least. The officer had to approach the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which in 2010, ruled in favour of the officer and with the following remarks:-
“…Ex-gratia payment is not always, paradoxically, an act of charity….The act of heroism which the statement claims that the petitioner's act did not evoke, is in some sense a wrongly exaggerated expression. I do not see from the terms of the policy that the person must have been there actually placing his fingers on the trigger of a gun or hurling a bomb in military action to be entitled to the promised payment. A person, who is in the place of action at the Army and who suffers an injury in the manner contemplated in the policy, which includes an accident in an operational area that is not due to negligence of the person, could well make a successful claim. If we must give the expression battle casualty any meaning, I would understand it to mean to a situation where a person while actively involved in the military service in an area, which is a battle zone suffers an injury, then it shall be a battle casualty. If there is, therefore, a certificate that the petitioner has suffered a battle casualty (see para 1 above), to take a different view and stonewall the claim of the petitioner from obtaining a benefit of the policy will make meaningless the beneficient and lofty objective which the policy proffers. A State cannot drive a person, who claims a benefit under the policy for a full-fledged adjudication in a Civil Court to ascertain the nature of injury, so long as the policy statement itself does not require any specific mode of proof…”
The amount was paid to the officer by the Haryana Government but the interest awarded by the High Court was not. Thereafter the interest was partially paid when the officer was forced to file a contempt petition in a second round of litigation. The officer still awaits full implementation of the interest part of the judgement rendered by the High Court.
Litigation with Union of India: As would be known to most, operational disabilities in notified operations are eligible for grant of ‘war-injury’ pension rather than regular ‘disability pension’. Though the officer’s case squarely fell within policy and even the Army had declared the disability as ‘battle casualty’, the admissible war injury pension was not released to him forcing him to knock the doors of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The Principal Bench of the AFT however dismissed his petition agreeing with the government. Challenging the orders of the AFT, the officer approached the Delhi High Court which has not only granted him the applicable war injury pension but has awarded him 12% interest on the same alongwith costs of Rs 50,000. The following observations of the High Court merit reproduction:-
“…such a narrow interpretation of what is otherwise a widely phrased condition, is unwarranted. This would necessarily imply that those who are on the way – like the petitioner, in an operation-notified area and are intrinsically connected with the success of such operations cannot ever receive war-injury pension even though their aid and assistance is essential and perhaps crucial for its success. The classification of the residual head, i.e. “operations specially notified by the government from time to time” has to be read along with the broad objective of the policy, i.e. - those who imperil themselves – either directly or indirectly – and are in the line of fire during the operations, would be covered if the injuries occur in that area or in the notified area of operation. This is also apparent from the situations covered in Clause (g) and (h) which nowhere deal with battle or war. In fact, clause (h) even covers injuries and death which occurs while personnel are “employed” in the aid of civil power in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators” This means that if someone is travelling in the thick of such unrest and the accident results in death or injury, his next of kin would be entitled to war-pension whereas those who actually suffer similar injuries in an area where operations are notified, would not be entitled to such war injury pension…It seems that the military bureaucracy in this case or someone within it felt that since injuries were described more specifically as “accidents” while travelling on duty in government vehicles” – in category (C) of the letter/policy dated 31.01.2011, the petitioner was disentitled to war injury pension. The Tribunal’s bland acceptance of these decisions has regrettably resulted in denial of justice to the petitioner. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The petitioner’s claim for grant of war injury pension in terms of Clause 4.1(E)(i) has to succeed…In parting, this Court cannot resist observing that when individuals place their lives on peril in the line of duty, the sacrifices that they are called upon to make cannot ever be lost sight of through a process of abstract rationalisation as appears to have prevailed with the respondents and with the Tribunal…He, like any other personnel, operated under extremely trying circumstances unimaginable to those not acquainted with such situations. The cavalier manner in which his claim for war injury pension was rejected by the respondents, who failed to give any explanation except adopt a textual interpretation of Clauses (C) and (E), is deplorable. In these circumstances, the petitioner deserves to succeed…”
Four rounds of litigation and the officer succeeded, would a jawan or his family afford such litigation? Isn't it ironical that the State or the organizations which are to care and comfort our men and women in uniform assume an adversarial role by embracing literal interpretation and sticking to the letter and not to the spirit of beneficial provisions? It is yet another matter that the Supreme Court in UOI Vs Harjinder Singh’s case has already upheld that even natural illnesses in operational areas would entitle a person to ‘war injury pension’, but then the textual interpretations of the officialdom seem to have more sanctity than judicial pronouncements in our country.
Who shall cry for the Indian soldier?
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 9:20 AM
I am Gp Capt(TS)veteran of IAF.we were being retired at the age of 54 years, same as that of wg cdr.totally ignoring the rec of AVSC report. There are about 250 AF officers and same no of Naval officers affected. I took up the case in Armed forces tribunal which totally ruled in my favour.The AFT refused permission to IAF to go to Supreme Court.Yet IAF has gone to SC.Pl help by taking up the case with Hon Raksha Mantri as the action of IAF is absolutely against the directions of Hon RM.
ReplyDelete