From: RP Mishra [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 14 September 2010 00:30
To: Brig CS Kamboj
Dear Brigadier Kamboj,
Please refer to your remarks –
"(It is high time that IESM create a cell for ‘RTI’ and ‘Starred Questions’.
These two are very powerful tools of democracy.
Number of times this suggestion has come up, but IESM has not acted on it.
The forthcoming meeting of the IESM Core Group should discuss this issue and finalise the arrangements.
It is not necessary that all tasks must be performed by the Executive Committee of the IESM.
Kindly consider co-opting other ESM and form this Cell. - Chander Kamboj)"
I have already asked following information through my application under RTI Act with reference to Report of Committee of Secretaries on One Rank One Pension and Related issues –
1. Para 6.9 of the Report. Since financial effects must have been worked out based on number of pensioners, number of Lt Generals and equivalent in the other two services, Additional Secretaries, Chief Commissioners(Income Tax and Customs), Additional DGs of Police and equivalent civilian officers affected by grant of higher pension may be informed for each category separately.
2. Para 6.10. Financial implications on recurring expenditure for each category mentioned above may be informed.
3.. Para 9. Financial implications on account of arrears due to bringing Lt Generals and equivalent to grade 67000-79000 may be provided separately for all categories mentioned above.
I have also asked how many Major Generals and there equivalents in the other two services, Joint Secretaries and equivalent of categories mentioned above were drawing pension as on 31 Dec 1995.
I have also enquired as to the pension fixation formula for Defence officers and civil services officers in 1960? How was it related to maximum pay of the rank? Was pension of civil services officers also fixed based on maximum of pay or as a percentage of pay at the time of retirement.
My application was addressed to CPIO Cabinet Secretariat as the Committee was headed by Cabinet Secretary. He forwarded the same to CPIO Deptt of ESW and Deptt of Expenditure. Deptt of Expenditure referred it back to Deptt of ESW stating that they did not provided Secretariat to the Committee. Deptt of ESW again referred it back to Deptt of Expenditure who have again sent it back to Deptt of ESW.
Only Deptt of Pension and Pension Welfare, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, to whom query was referred to by Deptt of ESW, has provided information for civil service officers. As per the information, with effect from 22 April 1960, those who had completed 10 years or more of service were entitled for pension. Pension was 10/60 of average emoluments but not exceeding 2000 a year, after completion of 10 years of service, 24.5/60 of average emoluments but not exceeding 4900 a year on completion of 24.5 years of service, going up to 30/60 of average emoluments but not exceeding 5000 a year for those retiring after 25 or more years of service. Other Departments to whom Deptt of ESW had transferred the points raised by me, have either referred it back to them or given insufficient information. For example, PCDA Allahabad has said they do not have any information about number of Major Generals and equivalent.
I have already preferred first appeal to the Appellate Authorities of CGDA and Deptt of ESW.
AVM RP Mishra