AFT: Pay military pensioners as per length of service

In a decision that will come as a major relief to military pensioners, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has ruled that the pension payable to such individuals should be calculated on the basis of actual length of service rendered by them, not as per the theoretical ‘maximum terms of engagement’ prescribed for their rank.

Allowing the petition of a 96-yrear-old IAF veteran, Master Warrant Officer Chander Bhan, the AFT’s Chandigarh Bench comprising Justice Virender Singh and Vice Admiral AG Thapliyal has ruled that the master policy of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), as approved by the Cabinet, is clear on the point that pension is now to be regulated as per the rank and length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement.

Bhan, who had joined the erstwhile Royal Indian Air Force in 1944 and was released from service in 1980, had contended that while he had served for 36 years, he was being paid the pension applicable to 28 years of service under the One Rank One Pension on the pretext that though he had served longer, the maximum terms of engagement mentioned in rules for his rank was only 28 years. Hence, in accordance with the implementation instructions issued by the MoD, pension was to be restricted as per maximum terms applicable for the rank held by a person at the time of retirement.

The Bench held that the implementation instructions could not pose any additional impediment since it would amount  to dividing pensioners based upon the maximum terms of engagement applicable at different dates of retirement. The Bench also observed that the earlier accepted recommendations of pay commissions had pegged pension to a maximum term of 33 years and the same could not be reduced through administrative instructions. It added that it was also arbitrary to pay pension for a lesser length of service when he was made to serve much longer.

Incidentally, this was the last judgment by Justice Virender Singh who retired this month after having served as the AFT chairperson. The AFT is currently functioning with only two judicial members against the sanctioned strength of 17. The remaining two members are scheduled to retire in December this year. Though the MoD has advertised vacancies, the appointments would be subject to the outcome of a case challenging AFT rules that is pending before the Supreme Court.

Courtesy: Tribune News Service, Chandigarh, October 30.

Today we mark the 48th anniversary of Vijay Diwas, the triumph of India over Pakistan in the 13-day war that culminated on 16th December 1971. The day commemorates not just India’s decisive military victory, unparalleled in modern military history anywhere in the world, but also the valour and courage of the Indian soldier. About 3,843 Indian soldiers died in this war that resulted in the unilateral surrender of the Pakistan Army and led to the creation of Bangladesh.

From the War emerged stories of extraordinary courage too – a total of 1,313 Indian soldiers from the Army, Navy and Air Force won gallantry awards – including four Param Vir Chakra’s The names and acts of bravery of Param Virs Lance Naik Albert Ekka, 2/Lt Arun Khetarpal, Fl Off Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon, and Major Hoshiar Singh (Later Brig) are legendary.

Among the soldiers who returned home triumphant were also 9,851 injured; many of them disabled. The Indian Army is observing this year, 2018, as the ‘Year of Disabled Soldiers in Line of Duty’ to honour soldiers who have been disabled while serving the nation and to celebrate the undying spirit of ‘Soldiering’. And so today, it is also for us to remember the incredible sacrifices of men like Maj Gen Ian Cardozo, AVSM SM (Retd), Major Sujeet Kumar Pancholy, Captain Bhagwan Singh Jodha and the hundreds of others who fought and suffered disability in 1971.

Maj Gen Cardozo’s remarkable military career saw him losing a leg when he stepped on a landmine in the 1971 war. He cut off his mangled leg with his own khukri and told his Gorkha batman to “go and bury it.” Determined not to let the disability affect his career as a soldier, he later became the first disabled officer in the Indian Army to command a battalion and then an infantry brigade.

I recently had the honour of meeting such heroes who have been disabled, but have never let their disability come in their way. Maj Gen Sunil Kumar Razdan, Kirti Chakra, VSM, is nothing short of an inspiration. A gun shot in an anti-terrorist operation in Jammu & Kashmir in 1994, left him paraplegic for life. Regardless, he has overcame all obstacles to become the first wheel-chair user General in the Indian Army.

Yet, there are many cases of our disabled soldiers being made to run from pillar to post for their rightful dues. The recent case of Ex-Rect Vasa Veera Bhadrudu, a disabled soldier of the Madras Engineer Group invalided out with disability pension in 1976. While his pension payment order was issued, he was never informed of the same. His unstable mental condition meant he did not get his benefits until he was informed in 2012. However, since then, he was harassed and denied his dues with hyper-technical objections by Accounts Officers of the Defence Accounts Department. It was only when his plight was highlighted on social media that the Defence Minister Smt Nirmala Sitharaman directed concerned authorities to take action.

This bureaucratic apathy towards the disabled soldiers is not new. In 2011, I wrote to the then Defence Minister Shri AK Antony to adopt a compassionate approach towards veterans on the issue of litigations regarding disability and pension benefits to disabled soldiers. The Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) had issued a memo stating that the veterans who took the MoD to court for disability and pension benefits would have to fight their cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. It expressed callousness on the part of the UPA Government since it involved thousands of veterans who had lost their limbs and/or eyesight and/or sustained grievous harm in the service of our nation.

In February 2014, I again wrote to Mr. A.K Antony to withdraw the DESW order which required its legal officers to appeal automatically to the Supreme Court in all cases decided by lower courts against the MoD in matters relating to ex-servicemen disability and pension benefits. The order was withdrawn after my intervention. The current government conceded to my request of keeping the litigations/appeals to the minimum and ensured that there is no denial of disability benefits by incorrectly branding in-service disabilities as “neither attributable, nor aggravated by service”.

Seeing the extent of automatic appeals being filed against soldiers’ disability pension/benefits, former Defence minister Shri Manohar Parikkar constituted the Raksha Mantri’s Expert Committee to suggest measures for reducing Litigation & Public Grievances in July 2015. The report made several important recommendations to bring down frivolous appeals against soldiers. While many recommendations have been agreed to for implementation, no further action has been taken for their implementation or for withdrawal of all pending appeals has been taken. The flip flop of contradictory instructions on filing and not filing appeals has sadly continued.

The Supreme Court too has more than once given scathing observations on these frivolous appeals. Most recently, the SC has again passed strictures in April this year deprecating MoD’s tendency to continue with appeals in settled matters.

That our men and women in uniform and their families suffer insensitivity, apathy and painful battles to fight for their disability pension/benefits is a matter of deep concern and I have taken up the matter strongly with successive governments as well as in Parliament.

In November, the Official handle of Defence Spokesperson tweeted that the Ministry has been pursuing the issue of litigations against disabled veterans, and acknowledges the efforts by stakeholders in reducing them, and aims to find ways to withdraw the remaining cases. I hope that this time, the Ministry will make good its assurance to the soldiers.

Our men and women in uniform bravely defend the country, even at the cost of their lives and limbs. The least we can do is to show them the respect and honour they deserve and to assure them that the Nation is indebted to their service and sacrifices.

By Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP (Rajya Sabha)

Published in Times of India

Controversial order concerning military status withdrawn

The controversial order downgrading the status of military ranks vis-a-vis appointments held by officers of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQCS) issued on 18 October 2016, has been withdrawn on the directions of the Defence Minister.

Many have asked about the correction of status equation of ranks other than commissioned officers. To put you at ease, the said letter did not affect the status equation at lower ranks and the said ranks continue to enjoy their status vis-a-vis other services as before.

There used to be some confusion of relativities at the PBOR level between the military and the police, but thankfully this has been cleared by the 6th CPC. Following is the order of ranks (with Grade Pay) as recommended by the 6th CPC and accepted by the Government.

(The amount in brackets is the Grade Pay)

AC & LAC = Constable of Police (2000)

Corporal = Head Constable of Police (2400)

Sergeant = Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (2800)

JWO = Sub Inspector of Police (4200)

WO = Inspector of Police (4600)

MWO = Assistant Commissioner of Police (4800)

Assistant Commissioner of Police after 4 years of service (5400)

Confusion between Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) and Military Service Pay (MSP) and the need to ignore unnecessary rumours and false hopes

There are certain messages floating on social and other media that the Supreme Court of India has passed directions to pay ‘Military Service Pay’ with effect from January 2006 rather than from 2008 as was granted by the Government.

This is incorrect and there are no such directions. People are probably confusing the recent judgment on Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) with the concept of Military Service Pay (MSP). Even otherwise, de hors the absence of any such decision, no parallel can be drawn between the two issues.

As explained in the post of 17^th December 2017, the Sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended the implementation of the ‘Modified Assured Career Progression’ Scheme (MACP) providing for the grant of three financial upgradations of pay at the gap of 8, 16 and 24 years of service in case of stagnation, for the defence services.

The Special Army Instructions (SAI) on the subject had also been issued with effect from 01^st January 2006 and which contained therein the stipulation of MACP. However later, despite the existence of the said SAI, another fresh letter was issued by the Government stating that MACP will be prospectively implemented from 01^st September 2008.

Hence ultimately, unlike other pay related modalities which were implemented with effect from 01^st January 2006, MACP was implemented with effect from 01^st September 2008, thereby not including in its scope the personnel who were released from service between the two dates. The Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), however, ruled that the pay commission had granted all pay and pension related benefits from January 2006 and the prospective implementation was only effectuated for ‘allowances’ and hence MACP was also to be implemented from January 2006 since it pertained to upgradation of pay. While ordering so, the AFT had followed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had earlier ruled upon the implementation of improved pay-scales of defence personnel from 1996 rather than 1997 in an anomaly emanating out of the Fifth Pay Commission. The decision of the AFT was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court but the Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India thereby upholding the grant of MACP from 01 January 2006 rather than 01^st September 2008.

The aspect to be noted however in the above is that in case of MSP, the pay commission had itself noted that it shall be applied prospectively without any arrears (Para 2.3.12 of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report). Further, when the SAI 1/S/2008 was issued, while it applied benefits of all modalities from 2006 (including MACP), it had specifically stated in Paragraph 5 (d) that arrears of MSP shall only be paid with effect from 01^st September 2008. There was no such negative stipulation for MACP. Further MACP was a replacement for the earlier ACP while MSP was completely a new element.

Hence, as the above would show, while the MACP was applied from 2006 but later tacitly retrospectively withdrawn and made applicable from 2008, an action was at the heart of the debate in Courts, there was no such controversy with regard to MSP which was always meant to be paid prospectively from September 2008.

Though, at the surface, both issues might appear to be similar to the untrained eye, there is actually absolutely no parallel between the concepts of MACP and MSP, and hence it is in the interest of sanity to ignore messages being circulated that MSP arrears will be paid to all personnel with effect from 01 January 2006. One should avoid forwarding such messages since it may promote unnecessary litigation and propel false hopes.

Important decision for ranks other than Commissioned Officers who retired between 01-01-2006 and 30-08-2008

The Sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended the implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) providing for the grant of three financial upgradations of pay at the gap of 8, 16 and 24 years of service in case of stagnation.

Unlike other pay related modalities which were implemented with effect from 01 January 2006, the MACP was implemented with effect from 01 September 2008, thereby not including in its scope the personnel who were released from service between the two dates.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had however ruled that the pay commission had granted all pay and pension related benefits from January 2006 and the prospective implementation was only effectuated for ‘allowances’ and hence the MACP was also to be implemented from January 2006 since it pertained to upgradation of pay. While ordering so, the AFT had followed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had earlier ruled upon the implementation of improved pay-scales of defence personnel from 1996 rather than 1997 in an anomaly emanating out of the Fifth Pay Commission.

The decision of the AFT was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court but the Apex Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India thereby upholding the grant of MACP from 01 January 2006 rather than 01 September 2009. This will affect the pay and pensionary benefits of those personnel who retired during 01-01-2006 and 30-08-2008.