From: Christopher D'Silva firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: 02 April 2010 03:55
To: CS Kamboj
Subject: CALLOUSNESS TOWARDS BRAVE JAWANS - THE SUPREME COURT
Herewith, is a link from The Hindu, apropos the subject matter. You may like to place it on 'Report My Signal' for the information of all concerned.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/02/stories/2010040256650100.htm - The Hindu Online, April 02, 2010 - Supreme Court: Why this callousness towards brave jawans?
The IESM should leverage this and get it debated in the Parliament when it reconvenes and concurrently make a push for OROP, the resolution of all anomalies (Past and VI Pay Commissions) and the implementation of all Supreme Court/AFT Judgements without any further delay or litigation, in the first instance.
(Capt Christopher Lucian Newman D'Silva, IN, Watertown, USA)
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 02, 2010
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Supreme Court: why this callousness towards brave jawans?
New Delhi:The Supreme Court has expressed anguish over the shabby treatment meted out to retired army officers, particularly disabled personnel, who are given a pittance as pension.
In its order, a Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and A.K. Patnaik said: “We regret to say that army officers and army men in our country are being treated in a shabby manner by the government.”
Pointing out that in the present appeal by C.S. Sidhu, who was posted in a high altitude field area and who met with an accident in the discharge of his duties, was granted a meagre pension of Rs.1,000 per month plus dearness allowance, the Bench said: “If this is the manner in which the army personnel are treated, it can only be said that it is extremely unfortunate. The army personnel are bravely defending the country, even at the cost of their lives and we feel thatthey should be treated in a better and more humane manner by governmental authorities, particularly, in respect of their emoluments, pension and other benefits.”
In the instant case, the respondent officer was given a Short Service Commission in June 1968. In November 1970, while on duty he met with the accident and his right arm had to be amputated and he also suffered a compound fracture in the thigh and jaw.
After he was discharged from service in 1978, the Army did not take into account the full Pay Commissioned Service, but considered only the period June 1968-November 1970 for pension. On a petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered calculation of the disability pension for the full period. The Union of India filed an appeal against this judgment.
The Bench, dismissing the appeal, said, “We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High court.” It directed payment of arrears to the respondent with eight per cent interest per annum within three months.