Letter to CNS on Majs Equiv pension By Lt Cdr PS Nath

From: P Surendra Nath ps_nath@yahoo.com
Sent: 16 January 2010 19:00
To: kamboj_cs@yahoo.co.in
Cc: brigbalan@foghornin.yahoo.com ; UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR
Subject: REVIEW OF PENSION FOR MAJORS AND EQUIVALENT

Dear Brig CS Kamboj, VSM Sir,

I am a retd Lt Cdr who is effected by the low pension after the VI CPC Recommendation implementation. I am honoured to read through your mail the interest taken by Veteran Officers and specifically to Brig Subramanian's honest attempt to look after the forgotten Majors' pension for review through a SOC.
I have gone through the case and wish to humbly submit my understanding of the case as a write up to this mail as attachment. The earlier Lr written by self to CNS and the explanation on Anomaly for Fitment of Pay Scales are also attached.

I shall be grateful if the same is gone through and projected to right authorities, including to Gen Kadyan of IESM. I shall be more than willing to clarify if any issue is not understood or expressed incorrectly.

Thanking you and with warm and respectful regards,

Yours sincerely,
Lt Cdr(Retd) PS Nath
Hyderabad
09440044680

----------
BY REGD POST WITH ACK DUE
E-Mail I.D : ps_nath@yahoo.com
Lt Cdr (Retd) PS Nath, 40662-N
Flat 107, Jalvayu Vihar
Kukatpally, JNTU Post
Hyderabad 500 072

242/PSN 30 Dec’2009

The Chief of Naval Staff
Naval Headquarters
D Block, Sena Bhavan
New Delhi – 110 011

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PENSION -
LT CDR (Retd)PS Nath,40662-N AS RECOMMENDED BY FIFTH CPC

Sir,

1) I have the honour to submit that I was a commissioned Naval Officer with back ground of initial education in Sainik School, trained as cadet at NDA(50th Course) before commission and worked in E(GS) branch with Lt Cdr sea time on the front line ship- SNF and also did graduation at DSSC, Wellington (46th course). However I retired after 20 years and 10 months of commissioned service on pm 30 Apr’1998 with original PPO No. 09/97/A/S/88/1998 dated 15 May 1998 and Corrigendum PPO No. 09/97/A/000421/99 dated 22 Jul’1999.

2) I humbly submit the following with regard to fixation of Pay/Pension and issue of PPO subsequent to implementation of Fifth CPC Recommendations and request to amend the deficiencies at the earliest through appropriate authorities since it impacts the subsequent implementation of VI CPC recommendations. I had detailed how I incurred losses whilst in service and subsequently with lesser pension than those who put in lesser commissioned service than self vide my letter of even number dated 24 Sep’2009 to Principal Director, Directorate of Ex-Servicemen Affairs, (copy enclosed) but sadly it was not acknowledged by him while PCDA (Pension), Allahabad vide letter No. AT/PSB/IV/E-Mail/Secd/AP dated 15 Oct’2009 confirmed that Pension was settled with relevant Govt Orders and that it was only the concerned Department that could settle my grievances and so this earnest appeal.

3) Fixation of Initial Pay for Lt Cdrs in the Revised Scales. Special Navy Instructions 2/S/98 at paragraph 5 detailed the fixation of Initial Pay in the revised scales after award of V CPC but failed to take into account the subsequent removal of anomalies arising from the implementation consequent to V CPC recommendations. Government of India, vide MOD letter No. I(26)/97/II/D(Pay/Services) dated 29 Feb’2000 while removing such anomalies in the implementation of V CPC recommendations had fixed pay of Majors and equivalents in substantive rank at Rs 11,925/- in the pay scale of Rs 11,600-325-14,850, in addition to rank pay but made effective from date of issue of this letter. Making 29 Feb’2000 as effective date is erroneous in law and tantamount to discrimination within the same class of Officers since it was a result of removal of anomalies from the approved V CPC award! Since the Government approved the recommendations of V CPC with effect from 01 Jan’1996, the removal/rectification of Anomalies arising out of the V CPC should also be made effective from the same date so that the justice is equitable to all serving officers on 01 Jan’1996 and thereafter. How could one set of Officers benefit subsequent to issue of letter while the other Officers, while still serving as on date of award of V CPC and its implementation, be denied the benefit of anomalies rectification by Government?!

4) Grant of Time Scale Promotions. Government of India vide MOD letter No. 14(1)/98/D(AG) dated 14 Jan’2000 promulgated revised guidelines/conditions for promotions to Lt Col(TS) and equivalent based on implementation of V th Pay Commission Recommendations as at Para 147.21 of report. Naval Headquarters vide letter JO/78 dated 14 Jan’2000 while promulgating these guidelines made the effective date as the date of issue of that letter. Since the Revised Norms for grant of such Promotions were a sequel to award/Implementation of V CPC Recommendations (Para 147.21) it is natural to Principles of Justice that these were made effective from 01 Jan’1996, which is the basic date of Government approval for Implementation of V CPC so that all Officers who were in Service are treated at par. Else, how could one set of Officers benefit subsequent to issue of letter while the other Officers, while still serving as on date of award of V CPC and its implementation be denied?! I would have been promoted to Cdr(TS) on 01 Jul 1997 on completion of 20 years of Commissioned service had the date of effect of the letter been 01 Jan’1996. Substantiating the above, Constitution of Ajay Vikram Singh committee by GOI subsequent to V CPC further amended the conditions of Promotions of Officers to make just 13 years of commissioned service to make it to Cdr in Navy. Though the letter on the implementations on the above recommendations was issued by the Government vide GOI letter No. 4(1)/US(MP)/D(N-II)/2004 dated 11 Mar’2005 and IHQ, MoD(Navy) letter No. NA/3102/Policy dated 14 Mar’05 – but the date of effect was given as 16 Dec’2004 which was the date of approval by the Government! It is therefore emphasized that the date of approval by the Govt is sacrosanct and in accordance with principles of Natural Justice.

5) It is nevertheless a fact that an Officer who sacrifices his youth in defence of Nation, with differing periods of Retirement but with same conditions of service, are looked after discriminately in terms of pension!! I further appeal to you, sir, which as a result of wrong implementation/effective date as explained in both the cases as above, Officers who put in less commissioned service than self but with equal conditions of service at the time of Implementation of V CPC are drawing more pensions just by virtue of retirement after me! Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of DS Nakara & others vs Union of India (1983) stated that the retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification – such classification is held arbitrary and unprincipled which does not stand the test of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

6) In view of the foregoing, I earnestly appeal to you, sir, to seek amendments to the effective date for both the above letters and I be considered as promoted to Cdr(TS) on 01 Jul’1997 and such suitable instructions be issued to the concerned CDA (Navy) to issue Corrigendum to PPO with payment of arrears as per the V CPC Recommendations.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

(PS Nath)
Lt Cdr (Retd)
40662- N
Encl: Photocopy of PCDA Letter dated 15 Oct’09 as above