Dear Veterans,
1. It is regretted that the circulation of Passed resolution on OROP by the Punjab Govt has been done in a hurry and prematurely by Brig Harwant Singh without realising that 80% of the veterans will not understand the Punjabi script.
2. We all veterans must be thankful to honourable Minister (MLA from Gurdaspur constituency) Capt Balbir Singh Bath (Retd) for initiating all the process in the Punjab Assembly and handing over the copy of the resolution to Major SS Dhillon( Chairman Sanjha Morcha) at his residence on 21 Oct 2010. Major SS Dhillon ( 8054687522) is presently recouping from the shoulder operation at his residence.
3. We should not overlook the efforts of Major SS Dhillon ( who at the young age of 82 yrs is still fighting for veterans cause) who has ensured passing of resolution through Capt Balbir Singh Bath, S. Manpreet Singh Badal Ex-Finance Minster and Balbir Singh MLA from Mohali along with Col RS Boparai and Col AS Binder ( President and Joint President Sanjha Morcha) by personally meeting them even in his bad health.
4. All veteran will receive word by word, line by line the Translated copy of the Non-Govt Resolution passed by Punjab Vidhan Sabha within next few Days and it will be uploaded on the Sanjha Morcha Blog Also.
Regards
Col CJS Khera(Retd)
Gen Secy
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
OROP - Resolution by Punjab Assembly
Dear Veterans,
1. It is regretted that the circulation of Passed resolution on OROP by the Punjab Govt has been done in a hurry and prematurely by Brig Harwant Singh without realising that 80% of the veterans will not understand the Punjabi script.
2. We all veterans must be thankful to honourable Minister (MLA from Gurdaspur constituency) Capt Balbir Singh Bath (Retd) for initiating all the process in the Punjab Assembly and handing over the copy of the resolution to Major SS Dhillon( Chairman Sanjha Morcha) at his residence on 21 Oct 2010. Major SS Dhillon ( 8054687522) is presently recouping from the shoulder operation at his residence.
3. We should not overlook the efforts of Major SS Dhillon ( who at the young age of 82 yrs is still fighting for veterans cause) who has ensured passing of resolution through Capt Balbir Singh Bath, S. Manpreet Singh Badal Ex-Finance Minster and Balbir Singh MLA from Mohali along with Col RS Boparai and Col AS Binder ( President and Joint President Sanjha Morcha) by personally meeting them even in his bad health.
4. All veteran will receive word by word, line by line the Translated copy of the Non-Govt Resolution passed by Punjab Vidhan Sabha within next few Days and it will be uploaded on the Sanjha Morcha Blog Also.
Regards
Col CJS Khera(Retd)
Gen Secy
1. It is regretted that the circulation of Passed resolution on OROP by the Punjab Govt has been done in a hurry and prematurely by Brig Harwant Singh without realising that 80% of the veterans will not understand the Punjabi script.
2. We all veterans must be thankful to honourable Minister (MLA from Gurdaspur constituency) Capt Balbir Singh Bath (Retd) for initiating all the process in the Punjab Assembly and handing over the copy of the resolution to Major SS Dhillon( Chairman Sanjha Morcha) at his residence on 21 Oct 2010. Major SS Dhillon ( 8054687522) is presently recouping from the shoulder operation at his residence.
3. We should not overlook the efforts of Major SS Dhillon ( who at the young age of 82 yrs is still fighting for veterans cause) who has ensured passing of resolution through Capt Balbir Singh Bath, S. Manpreet Singh Badal Ex-Finance Minster and Balbir Singh MLA from Mohali along with Col RS Boparai and Col AS Binder ( President and Joint President Sanjha Morcha) by personally meeting them even in his bad health.
4. All veteran will receive word by word, line by line the Translated copy of the Non-Govt Resolution passed by Punjab Vidhan Sabha within next few Days and it will be uploaded on the Sanjha Morcha Blog Also.
Regards
Col CJS Khera(Retd)
Gen Secy
MEETING WTH RM..Col Inderjit Singh
From: Inderjit Singh
Subject: FW: ESM SITREP 25 OCT 10 - "REPORT MY SIGNAL" - EMAIL 500/2010 - (H to Z-3) - 25 OCT 2010 IN RESPONSE TO THE MAIL ON RM' MEETING BY ME
DEAR FRIENDS
I AM SURE BY NOW YOU MUST HAVE GOT MY MAIL ABOUT OUR MEETING WTH RM.
THIS IS THE SITREP THE IESM THE MESSIAHS OF YOUR CAUSE HAVE SENT TO ALL OF US IN RESPONSE TO THAT MAIL..
I HAVE ALSO SENT YOU A MAIL FROM BRIG SUKHDEV SINGH A WELL WISHER AND STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF IESM AND MY REPLY.
TO REFRESH YOU ABOUT THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY NARRATED IN DETAILS I BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THESE.
1) MOVED BY THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY YOU ALL I TOOK UP THE INITIATIVE TO INVITE ALL ORGANIZATIONS FOR WORKING OUT A JOINT MEMO ON 21 OCT.
2) THE IESM PROMPTLY REJECTED THE INVITATION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT NOTICE. I THEN SOUGHT FROM THEM THEIR INPUTS SO THAT THESE COULD BE INCORPORATED..BRIG CHANDER KAMBOJH INFORMED THAT HE WOULD BE ATTENDING IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.
3) SUDDENLY I GOT A MAIL THAT IESM WOULD COME AND GEN SATBIR, BRIG KAMBOJH AND COL JOSHIPURA WOULD ATTEND. THEY INCLUDED BRIG KAMBOJH IN THEIR LIST EVEN THOUGH HE SAID THAT HE WOULD ATTEND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.
4) MEETING WAS HELD AS SCHEDULED. THE DRAFT MEMO PREPARED BY US WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND LOT OF GOOD SUGGESTIONS WERE GIVEN BY THEM ALL
5) AFTER THE MEETING ALL SUGGESTIONS WERE INCORPORATED AND FRESH DRAFT CIRCULATED TO ALL FOR APPROVAL SO THAT IT COULD BE GIVEN JOINTLY ON 23 OCT. DURING THE MEETING COL JOSHIPURA SHOWED KEENNESS TO ACCOMPANY. THE PERMISSION FOR HIM WAS ACCORDINGLY OBTAINED.
6) ON 22 OCT GOT A MAIL FROM GEN SATBIR THAT THE MEMO SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED YET. IT WAS THEREFORE HELD BACK.
7) ON 23 OCT WHEN COL JOSHIPURA WAS CONTACTED TO COME HE SAID THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT THE IESM HAS NOT YET TAKEN THE DECISION SO HE COULD NOT COME. HE DID NOT GET BACK. OBVIOUSLY THEY DECIDED AGAINST GOING TO THE RM WITH US. BRIG KAMBOJH IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WENT ALONG.
8) THE ENTIRE INFORMATION ALONG WITH THE LETTERS GIVEN TO THE RM WERE PUT ON THE INTERNET FOR YOU TO KNOW. IN RESPONSE TO THAT MAIL THE IESM HAS SENT THE FOLLOWING MAIL ASKING EVERY BODY TO COME TO THEM ON 16 NOV FOR WORKING OUT THE COMMON STAND.
I LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DECIDE WHAT WE ARE ALL FISHING FOR? ACHIEVEMENT OF OUR COMMON GOALS OR THE POLITICAL AGENDAS OF SELECT FEW.
FOR DECIDE YOU MUST.
INDERJIT SINGH
Subject: FW: ESM SITREP 25 OCT 10 - "REPORT MY SIGNAL" - EMAIL 500/2010 - (H to Z-3) - 25 OCT 2010 IN RESPONSE TO THE MAIL ON RM' MEETING BY ME
DEAR FRIENDS
I AM SURE BY NOW YOU MUST HAVE GOT MY MAIL ABOUT OUR MEETING WTH RM.
THIS IS THE SITREP THE IESM THE MESSIAHS OF YOUR CAUSE HAVE SENT TO ALL OF US IN RESPONSE TO THAT MAIL..
I HAVE ALSO SENT YOU A MAIL FROM BRIG SUKHDEV SINGH A WELL WISHER AND STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF IESM AND MY REPLY.
TO REFRESH YOU ABOUT THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY NARRATED IN DETAILS I BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THESE.
1) MOVED BY THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY YOU ALL I TOOK UP THE INITIATIVE TO INVITE ALL ORGANIZATIONS FOR WORKING OUT A JOINT MEMO ON 21 OCT.
2) THE IESM PROMPTLY REJECTED THE INVITATION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT NOTICE. I THEN SOUGHT FROM THEM THEIR INPUTS SO THAT THESE COULD BE INCORPORATED..BRIG CHANDER KAMBOJH INFORMED THAT HE WOULD BE ATTENDING IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.
3) SUDDENLY I GOT A MAIL THAT IESM WOULD COME AND GEN SATBIR, BRIG KAMBOJH AND COL JOSHIPURA WOULD ATTEND. THEY INCLUDED BRIG KAMBOJH IN THEIR LIST EVEN THOUGH HE SAID THAT HE WOULD ATTEND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.
4) MEETING WAS HELD AS SCHEDULED. THE DRAFT MEMO PREPARED BY US WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND LOT OF GOOD SUGGESTIONS WERE GIVEN BY THEM ALL
5) AFTER THE MEETING ALL SUGGESTIONS WERE INCORPORATED AND FRESH DRAFT CIRCULATED TO ALL FOR APPROVAL SO THAT IT COULD BE GIVEN JOINTLY ON 23 OCT. DURING THE MEETING COL JOSHIPURA SHOWED KEENNESS TO ACCOMPANY. THE PERMISSION FOR HIM WAS ACCORDINGLY OBTAINED.
6) ON 22 OCT GOT A MAIL FROM GEN SATBIR THAT THE MEMO SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED YET. IT WAS THEREFORE HELD BACK.
7) ON 23 OCT WHEN COL JOSHIPURA WAS CONTACTED TO COME HE SAID THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT THE IESM HAS NOT YET TAKEN THE DECISION SO HE COULD NOT COME. HE DID NOT GET BACK. OBVIOUSLY THEY DECIDED AGAINST GOING TO THE RM WITH US. BRIG KAMBOJH IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WENT ALONG.
8) THE ENTIRE INFORMATION ALONG WITH THE LETTERS GIVEN TO THE RM WERE PUT ON THE INTERNET FOR YOU TO KNOW. IN RESPONSE TO THAT MAIL THE IESM HAS SENT THE FOLLOWING MAIL ASKING EVERY BODY TO COME TO THEM ON 16 NOV FOR WORKING OUT THE COMMON STAND.
I LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DECIDE WHAT WE ARE ALL FISHING FOR? ACHIEVEMENT OF OUR COMMON GOALS OR THE POLITICAL AGENDAS OF SELECT FEW.
FOR DECIDE YOU MUST.
INDERJIT SINGH
ANOTHER CASE OF INCOMPLETE/DISTORTED REPORTING-
From: subhash kapoor [mailto:sckaps@yahoo.co.in]
Sent: 24 October 2010 22:11
To: mytimesmyvoice@timesgroup.com
Cc: IESM MILITARY VETERANS GROUPS
Subject: ANOTHER CASE OF INCOMPLETE/DISTORTED REPORTING--LETTER TO THE EDITOR THE TIMES OF INDIA
WANTED: INFORMATIVE IMPARTIAL INTERACTIVE INDIAN MEDIA (W:IIIIM)
A LETTER TO THE EDITOR THE TIMES OF INDIA*
To:
The Editor
The Times of India
New Delhi
Sir:
Even as thanking you for the one-column news "Defence Secy must spend 10 days in high altitude" (The Times of India, October 19, p. 13) on the anguish expressed by the Supreme Court regarding the apathy on the part of the Government towards the sufferings undergone and injustices heaped on the Armed Forces personnel, one cannot help pointing out that you have not only played down the news by the type of the heading and the space provided but also omitted, inter alia, the following very significant observations made by the Supreme Court Bench:
(1) "... Your bureaucrats are not bothered ... people in the army are returning medals in thousands and some have even burnt their artificial limbs in protest. They get a feeling now that these bureaucrats do not hear them ... ."
(2) "If this was a proposal for the bureaucrats, it would soon be implemented. We do don't expect the bureaucrats to support this proposal ... We need to deal with them (armed forces) separately as a distinct class."
This of course is just one instance among an unending list of acts of omission and commission on the part of The Times of India (TOI) under your stewardship with regard to the material carried in the newspaper on matters of national/Armed Forces importance.
Yet, there is no dearth of news on wags and windbags, wannabes and wasps, wimps and wenches. How impressive! What an array of achievements on the part of a "national" paper!
Why do you do such things, Dear Mr. Editor? What indeed is the compulsion to repeatedly ignore/twist/garble news and events pertaining to the Armed Forces of India? Surely not the space.
Please pull up your socks, Sir--and do it fast. Before you manage to make your newspaper too famous for your comfort!!
(To be continued ... )
TAILPIECE: With reference to the write-up "Kashmir bargain--Should India trade the Valley for a permanent UN Security Council seat?" by one Mr. Jug Suraiya (TOI, October 20), a friend here has asked: "Should TOI trade Jug Suraiya for someone who is more sensitive and responsive to the interests and aspirations of this country and its people?" I do not really know.
Warm regards. And, please do have a nice productive working week ahead, Sir, in the discharge of the job you have set your heart on.
Sincerely,
SC Kapoor
Wing Commander (retd)
E-145, Sector 21
Noida-201 301
Mob: 9810515424
Sent: 24 October 2010 22:11
To: mytimesmyvoice@timesgroup.com
Cc: IESM MILITARY VETERANS GROUPS
Subject: ANOTHER CASE OF INCOMPLETE/DISTORTED REPORTING--LETTER TO THE EDITOR THE TIMES OF INDIA
WANTED: INFORMATIVE IMPARTIAL INTERACTIVE INDIAN MEDIA (W:IIIIM)
A LETTER TO THE EDITOR THE TIMES OF INDIA*
To:
The Editor
The Times of India
New Delhi
Sir:
Even as thanking you for the one-column news "Defence Secy must spend 10 days in high altitude" (The Times of India, October 19, p. 13) on the anguish expressed by the Supreme Court regarding the apathy on the part of the Government towards the sufferings undergone and injustices heaped on the Armed Forces personnel, one cannot help pointing out that you have not only played down the news by the type of the heading and the space provided but also omitted, inter alia, the following very significant observations made by the Supreme Court Bench:
(1) "... Your bureaucrats are not bothered ... people in the army are returning medals in thousands and some have even burnt their artificial limbs in protest. They get a feeling now that these bureaucrats do not hear them ... ."
(2) "If this was a proposal for the bureaucrats, it would soon be implemented. We do don't expect the bureaucrats to support this proposal ... We need to deal with them (armed forces) separately as a distinct class."
This of course is just one instance among an unending list of acts of omission and commission on the part of The Times of India (TOI) under your stewardship with regard to the material carried in the newspaper on matters of national/Armed Forces importance.
Yet, there is no dearth of news on wags and windbags, wannabes and wasps, wimps and wenches. How impressive! What an array of achievements on the part of a "national" paper!
Why do you do such things, Dear Mr. Editor? What indeed is the compulsion to repeatedly ignore/twist/garble news and events pertaining to the Armed Forces of India? Surely not the space.
Please pull up your socks, Sir--and do it fast. Before you manage to make your newspaper too famous for your comfort!!
(To be continued ... )
TAILPIECE: With reference to the write-up "Kashmir bargain--Should India trade the Valley for a permanent UN Security Council seat?" by one Mr. Jug Suraiya (TOI, October 20), a friend here has asked: "Should TOI trade Jug Suraiya for someone who is more sensitive and responsive to the interests and aspirations of this country and its people?" I do not really know.
Warm regards. And, please do have a nice productive working week ahead, Sir, in the discharge of the job you have set your heart on.
Sincerely,
SC Kapoor
Wing Commander (retd)
E-145, Sector 21
Noida-201 301
Mob: 9810515424
IESM AGM and ELECTION 101127/3
From: CK Sharma
Sent: 26 October 2010 16:53
To: iesm_group@googlegroups.com; Lt Col G K Mohan Rao
Subject: IESM AGM and ELECTION 101127/3
To check your personal particulars as members of IESM, pls follow these steps:
Go to: www.iesm.org
Click on LOGIN
If you have already created your login ID, then LOGIN: else, create your own login by filling in all the details. PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR LOGIN ID & PASSWORD.
In the offered menu, click on "Edit Profile"
All your details should appear: please go and correct your personal information and all details.
Make a note of your own Membership No.
Sunshine & Blue Skies!
Wg Cdr CK Sharma (Retd)
Treasurer, IESM
Sent: 26 October 2010 16:53
To: iesm_group@googlegroups.com; Lt Col G K Mohan Rao
Subject: IESM AGM and ELECTION 101127/3
To check your personal particulars as members of IESM, pls follow these steps:
Go to: www.iesm.org
Click on LOGIN
If you have already created your login ID, then LOGIN: else, create your own login by filling in all the details. PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR LOGIN ID & PASSWORD.
In the offered menu, click on "Edit Profile"
All your details should appear: please go and correct your personal information and all details.
Make a note of your own Membership No.
Sunshine & Blue Skies!
Wg Cdr CK Sharma (Retd)
Treasurer, IESM
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Rank Pay Anomaly of Fourth Pay Commission being fixed by Supreme Court
Dear Friends,
Jai Hind.
Reference email received from Retired Defence Officers Association, appended below.
The remarks of Justice MK Katju need careful examination.
I feel that Justice Katju wants to use the Rank Pay case as a lever and push the Government to order a separate Pay Commission for Defence Services at the earliest. Even if the Rank Pay case is delayed a little and a separate Pay Commission is ordered at an early date – it will be good for all the Defence Personnel, serving and retired.
Let us hope and pray that the Supreme Court succeeds in their mission to help the Defence Services.
Kindly help in giving wide publicity to the contents of the email of Retired Defence Officers Association appended below.
In service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj.
From: RDOA India
Sent: 18 October 2010 19:21
To: "REPORT MY SIGNAL" (CS Kamboj
Subject: Rank Pay Anomaly Case: Latest Update
Jai Hind.
Reference email received from Retired Defence Officers Association, appended below.
The remarks of Justice MK Katju need careful examination.
I feel that Justice Katju wants to use the Rank Pay case as a lever and push the Government to order a separate Pay Commission for Defence Services at the earliest. Even if the Rank Pay case is delayed a little and a separate Pay Commission is ordered at an early date – it will be good for all the Defence Personnel, serving and retired.
Let us hope and pray that the Supreme Court succeeds in their mission to help the Defence Services.
Kindly help in giving wide publicity to the contents of the email of Retired Defence Officers Association appended below.
In service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj.
From: RDOA India
Sent: 18 October 2010 19:21
To: "REPORT MY SIGNAL" (CS Kamboj
Subject: Rank Pay Anomaly Case: Latest Update
Bureaucrats and IESL convolute OROP: Politicians remain confused
All India Ex-Services Welfare Association
Lt Col Inderjit Singh (Retd).
Chairman
Member: Standing Committee of Voluntary Agencies, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.
Dear Chander,
I read with much concern the way opinions are being expressed on the definition of OROP. My humble appeal to all the wise men please do not confuse the entire matter by expressing different definitions of the OROP. Well I will give you the definition which was evolved while working out the concept and understanding its intricacies and effects, while also taking into consideration the shenanigans of the bureaucracy for scuttling this issue. It is all pervading and has stood the test of times and is accepted in the official circles also. Well here it is...
Definition
"The pre 01 Jan 2006 retirees got the same pensions as the post 01 Jan 2006 retirees by matching up the three factors that govern the pensions of ex servicemen i.e. the rank, the length of service and the trade (in case of all ranks below officer ranks only). After this was effected any future increases be automatically applied to old pensioners. The family, disability and dependents pensions are included for the purposes of this definition. This however does not mean the grant of pensionary benefits such as DCRG (Death Cum Retirement Gratuity) and additional value of commutation pension."
Perhaps you would recall that in my earlier mail, to Mr Sehrawat, i narrated how i got the high level empowered committee appointed in Sep 1991. After my heated exchanges with the RM in his parliament office, he realized that I was talking sense. He then besides requesting me to put up to him a paper about our discussions in two hours time but also desired that I should meet him in his office on subsequent Monday morning so that if there was any clarification necessary he could speak to me before going and making a statement in Parliament.
After my meeting he had another meeting with the bureaucrats on the subject, where he wanted to discuss my projections. The bureaucrats after seeing my paper misled the RM especially about the expenditure involved by including the cost for paying DCRG and additional commutation value. The last two sentences of the definition above in green were added after this meeting so that leadership could not be misled by them in future.
When I landed in his office and met him, his attitude was again very hostile. As soon as I sat down he shot a question to me.
RM: why should we give you pensionary benefits at new rates. We gave you pensionary benefits at old rates when you retired. With that you made your houses, educated your children, and married them off all at old rates. Since you have already met all your family obligations at old rates why should you be given pensionary benefits at new rates?
Self: You are very right Mr Pawar. You gave us pensionary benefits at old rates. With that we built our houses, educated our children. and then married them off all at old rates. We are not seeking from you the pensionary benefits at new rates, we are seeking monthly pensions at new rates, which is for our survival and not meeting family obligations. This is because when we go to market for buying our requirements, the shop keeper does not look up at us to say oh you are old pensioners, I would therefore charge you less. I have to pay the same rates as new pensioner, I therefore should get the same pension as new pensioner.
The RM thanked me for clarifying his doubts, went to the Parliament and announced the HLEC of which i was made a member. This committee was very inclined to give OROP, but for the very bad economic situation, where we had to send our gold to UK to run the country, could not take the final leap. i was however able to work up a deal which took us almost there. The deal of one time increase (oti) by which the gap of new and old pensioner was reduced ranging from Rs 10 to 46.
I hope after this, the argument about the definition would come to an end and our wise friends would stick to this definition and not concoct fresh ones and offer a convenient handle to the bureaucrats to confuse the issue before scuttling it again.
I have just read Gen RN Radhakrishanan mail which he must have taken great pains to write for our benefit. All his questions are answered by this definition. There is no point in wasting time on going through all the rigmarole stated by him as you would notice from what I narrate below.
When we went on hunger strike in 1990, the next day I was called by the PM Mr VP Singh for a meeting on this matter. The earlier one I took up when he was the defense minister in 1987. he had been totally misled by the bureaucrats. When i met him, the first thing he told me was that old records were not available, they were therefore finding it difficult to give OROP. I told him that his bureaucrats were totally misleading him. All records were available with DPDOS, if not there with the CDA, if not there also then with Record Offices. In any case what do we require for working out OROP, the rank, the length of service and for JCOs, NCOs ans Sepoys, the trade also in which they served. these were all available in the discharge books. He was stunned to hear this.
Then he said that many difficulties were coming up for working out officers pensions. I told him that working out officers pensions was even more easy. Supposing you want to work out the pension of an earlier Major with 28 years service, all that is needed is that you work out what will be the current pension of a Major with 28 years and give it to the earlier pensioner. He was again taken aback and promised to do something about this matter. He went back on his promise that is a different matter. He was misled by our great IESL into giving one time ad hoc increase. This we termed as betrayal of our trust by the PM. The great IESL branded it as OROP. If any body wants to see it I can post the paper clippings of these statements i.e. ours as well as that of IESL.
Best wishes and regards,
Lt Col Inderjit Singh
Chairman
All india Ex Services Welfare Association
Lt Col Inderjit Singh (Retd).
Chairman
Member: Standing Committee of Voluntary Agencies, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.
Dear Chander,
I read with much concern the way opinions are being expressed on the definition of OROP. My humble appeal to all the wise men please do not confuse the entire matter by expressing different definitions of the OROP. Well I will give you the definition which was evolved while working out the concept and understanding its intricacies and effects, while also taking into consideration the shenanigans of the bureaucracy for scuttling this issue. It is all pervading and has stood the test of times and is accepted in the official circles also. Well here it is...
Definition
"The pre 01 Jan 2006 retirees got the same pensions as the post 01 Jan 2006 retirees by matching up the three factors that govern the pensions of ex servicemen i.e. the rank, the length of service and the trade (in case of all ranks below officer ranks only). After this was effected any future increases be automatically applied to old pensioners. The family, disability and dependents pensions are included for the purposes of this definition. This however does not mean the grant of pensionary benefits such as DCRG (Death Cum Retirement Gratuity) and additional value of commutation pension."
Perhaps you would recall that in my earlier mail, to Mr Sehrawat, i narrated how i got the high level empowered committee appointed in Sep 1991. After my heated exchanges with the RM in his parliament office, he realized that I was talking sense. He then besides requesting me to put up to him a paper about our discussions in two hours time but also desired that I should meet him in his office on subsequent Monday morning so that if there was any clarification necessary he could speak to me before going and making a statement in Parliament.
After my meeting he had another meeting with the bureaucrats on the subject, where he wanted to discuss my projections. The bureaucrats after seeing my paper misled the RM especially about the expenditure involved by including the cost for paying DCRG and additional commutation value. The last two sentences of the definition above in green were added after this meeting so that leadership could not be misled by them in future.
When I landed in his office and met him, his attitude was again very hostile. As soon as I sat down he shot a question to me.
RM: why should we give you pensionary benefits at new rates. We gave you pensionary benefits at old rates when you retired. With that you made your houses, educated your children, and married them off all at old rates. Since you have already met all your family obligations at old rates why should you be given pensionary benefits at new rates?
Self: You are very right Mr Pawar. You gave us pensionary benefits at old rates. With that we built our houses, educated our children. and then married them off all at old rates. We are not seeking from you the pensionary benefits at new rates, we are seeking monthly pensions at new rates, which is for our survival and not meeting family obligations. This is because when we go to market for buying our requirements, the shop keeper does not look up at us to say oh you are old pensioners, I would therefore charge you less. I have to pay the same rates as new pensioner, I therefore should get the same pension as new pensioner.
The RM thanked me for clarifying his doubts, went to the Parliament and announced the HLEC of which i was made a member. This committee was very inclined to give OROP, but for the very bad economic situation, where we had to send our gold to UK to run the country, could not take the final leap. i was however able to work up a deal which took us almost there. The deal of one time increase (oti) by which the gap of new and old pensioner was reduced ranging from Rs 10 to 46.
I hope after this, the argument about the definition would come to an end and our wise friends would stick to this definition and not concoct fresh ones and offer a convenient handle to the bureaucrats to confuse the issue before scuttling it again.
I have just read Gen RN Radhakrishanan mail which he must have taken great pains to write for our benefit. All his questions are answered by this definition. There is no point in wasting time on going through all the rigmarole stated by him as you would notice from what I narrate below.
When we went on hunger strike in 1990, the next day I was called by the PM Mr VP Singh for a meeting on this matter. The earlier one I took up when he was the defense minister in 1987. he had been totally misled by the bureaucrats. When i met him, the first thing he told me was that old records were not available, they were therefore finding it difficult to give OROP. I told him that his bureaucrats were totally misleading him. All records were available with DPDOS, if not there with the CDA, if not there also then with Record Offices. In any case what do we require for working out OROP, the rank, the length of service and for JCOs, NCOs ans Sepoys, the trade also in which they served. these were all available in the discharge books. He was stunned to hear this.
Then he said that many difficulties were coming up for working out officers pensions. I told him that working out officers pensions was even more easy. Supposing you want to work out the pension of an earlier Major with 28 years service, all that is needed is that you work out what will be the current pension of a Major with 28 years and give it to the earlier pensioner. He was again taken aback and promised to do something about this matter. He went back on his promise that is a different matter. He was misled by our great IESL into giving one time ad hoc increase. This we termed as betrayal of our trust by the PM. The great IESL branded it as OROP. If any body wants to see it I can post the paper clippings of these statements i.e. ours as well as that of IESL.
Best wishes and regards,
Lt Col Inderjit Singh
Chairman
All india Ex Services Welfare Association
Send them to High altitude
TIMES OF INDIA
e paper/Indiatimes
Pune City
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-about-spending-10-days-in-high-altitude-Army-posts-SC-asks-defence-secy/articleshow/6770479.cms
How about spending 10 days in high altitude Army posts,
SC asks defence secy
TNN, Oct 19, 2010, 04.11am IST
NEW DELHI: A little over a month ago, the Supreme Court had suggested to the Centre to keep its armed forces personnel happy by providing them with an independent pay tribunal where they could ventilate their grievances instead of returning their medals and burning artificial limbs.
But finding the response lukewarm, a Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur expressed unhappiness in no uncertain terms and termed the bureaucracy in the ministry of defence "insensitively effective".
"Sitting somewhere in a plush office in Delhi and finding fault in each proposal is easy. The defence secretary must be sent for 10 days to the high altitude posts. He will at least see first hand the conditions in which these people serve the country," the Bench said.
To minimise further flow of anguished remarks, solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam, who appeared for the Centre, sought time to respond to the proposal but not before clarifying that the government was getting objections to the proposal for setting up a panel to look into pay-related and pension-related grievances of armed forces personnel.
The Bench reluctantly gave a final opportunity to Subramaniam to come back with a proper response from the government to the suggestion of setting up an independent pay tribunal but also reminded him that on the last two occasions, the government had done nothing better than seeking further time.
"Your bureaucrats are not bothered. People in the Army are returning medals in thousands and some have even burnt their artificial limbs in protest. They get a feeling now that these bureaucrats do not hear them. If you have a commission, at least some steam (anger among the armed forces personnel) will be let out," the Bench reasoned.
Subramaniam said, "I see value in what the court has suggested, but this involves more than one ministry. Even the recurring liability would be high."
The Bench posted the matter to November 8 asking the Centre to respond specifically to the suggestion, setting out the areas and parameters it was willing to consider. The apex court on September 8 had suggested setting up an independent pay tribunal chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge that would be a recommendatory body.
The Bench said, "If this was a proposal for the bureaucrats, it would have been implemented. We don't expect the bureaucracy to support this proposal. We need to deal with them (armed forces) separately as a distinct class."
The court even asked the Centre to consider including the paramilitary forces in the scope of the tribunal as they too have tough assignments, quite similar to the task performed by armed forces.
------------
THE END
e paper/Indiatimes
Pune City
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-about-spending-10-days-in-high-altitude-Army-posts-SC-asks-defence-secy/articleshow/6770479.cms
How about spending 10 days in high altitude Army posts,
SC asks defence secy
TNN, Oct 19, 2010, 04.11am IST
NEW DELHI: A little over a month ago, the Supreme Court had suggested to the Centre to keep its armed forces personnel happy by providing them with an independent pay tribunal where they could ventilate their grievances instead of returning their medals and burning artificial limbs.
But finding the response lukewarm, a Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur expressed unhappiness in no uncertain terms and termed the bureaucracy in the ministry of defence "insensitively effective".
"Sitting somewhere in a plush office in Delhi and finding fault in each proposal is easy. The defence secretary must be sent for 10 days to the high altitude posts. He will at least see first hand the conditions in which these people serve the country," the Bench said.
To minimise further flow of anguished remarks, solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam, who appeared for the Centre, sought time to respond to the proposal but not before clarifying that the government was getting objections to the proposal for setting up a panel to look into pay-related and pension-related grievances of armed forces personnel.
The Bench reluctantly gave a final opportunity to Subramaniam to come back with a proper response from the government to the suggestion of setting up an independent pay tribunal but also reminded him that on the last two occasions, the government had done nothing better than seeking further time.
"Your bureaucrats are not bothered. People in the Army are returning medals in thousands and some have even burnt their artificial limbs in protest. They get a feeling now that these bureaucrats do not hear them. If you have a commission, at least some steam (anger among the armed forces personnel) will be let out," the Bench reasoned.
Subramaniam said, "I see value in what the court has suggested, but this involves more than one ministry. Even the recurring liability would be high."
The Bench posted the matter to November 8 asking the Centre to respond specifically to the suggestion, setting out the areas and parameters it was willing to consider. The apex court on September 8 had suggested setting up an independent pay tribunal chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge that would be a recommendatory body.
The Bench said, "If this was a proposal for the bureaucrats, it would have been implemented. We don't expect the bureaucracy to support this proposal. We need to deal with them (armed forces) separately as a distinct class."
The court even asked the Centre to consider including the paramilitary forces in the scope of the tribunal as they too have tough assignments, quite similar to the task performed by armed forces.
------------
THE END
Rank Pay Inputs
Dear Friends,
Jai Hind.
Reference Rank Pay case hearing in Supreme Court on 18 Oct 10.
Two important inputs are reproduced below.
In service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj.
-----------
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Col NR Kurup wrote:
I doubt whether you had a look at the file notings of the Defence Secretariat file on the issue. Anyway, I had a look at it. In case you have not seen it so far, kindly go through it. If you seek inspection of the file under RTI Act, you will get it. Let me point out
following:
1. As per Defence Ministry's note, dated 22-12-2009 the financial implications were estimated t be Rs.433 cores without taking into account financial implications on pensionary benefits in respect of army and navy officers.
2. It was referred to Legal Adviser (Def)
3. The Legal Advisor was of the opinion that review can be done on following grounds:
a. Discovery of new facts.
b. Mistake or error apparenton face of record and
c. Any other sufficient reason
4. It has gone to the solicitor General
5. The Joint Secretary(L) Anand Misra had pointed out that "In view of the huge financial implications and importance of the case, it is proposed to get it assessed by a High Power Committee consisting of Defence Secretary, Secretary, Dept of Expenditure and Secretary (Defence Finance)
6. The RM has approved constitution of the above Committee
7. This Committee has worked out the expenditure as - Arrears on account of pay and pension to be around Rs.426 crores and Rs.83 crores
respectively. Interest @ 6% per annum on these arrears as ordered by the SC to be Rs.1.114.71 crores and the total financial liability comes to around Rs.1,623.71 crores
8. The case was pursued purely on taking of the above mentioned one-time financial implication and enhanced recurring implication.
9. In nutshell it may be seen that only the financial im0plication was the criteria for the government to seek the review/recall and not the merit of case
10. Now we should recollect following
a. The arrears was resulted due to the misinterpretation of the 4 PC orders by the babus
b. The mistakes were corrected and the correction has been ratified by the HC and SC
c. Now the position is that the above amount is due to officers. ie. amount due to the employees of government. It is legally incumbent on the employer ie. the government to pay this due to its employees.,
d. Government cannot absolve from this liability on a plea that the amount is too high.
e. If the government is not capable of discharging its liability, it has no choice other than declaring itself 'INSOLVENT'. After becoming insolvent, the employees are entitled to seek their dues by REVENUE RECOVERY.
I therefore request the concerned to bear in mind the requirement of the government becoming INSOLVENT to escape the payment and our entitlement to get our dues by REVENUE RECOVERY. I also request the concerned to impress all concerned that the interest of Rs.1,114.71 crores cannot be considered as the expenditure as the entitled interest has always been more than 6% and more than Rs.1114,71 has already gained by government by withholding the dues from us. This is as good as returning our DSOP deposit. This can never be considered as an additional burden. In fact, we should insist payment of interest at market rate from 8-3-2010
Col NR Kurup (Retd)
Jai Hind.
Reference Rank Pay case hearing in Supreme Court on 18 Oct 10.
Two important inputs are reproduced below.
In service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj.
-----------
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Col NR Kurup
I doubt whether you had a look at the file notings of the Defence Secretariat file on the issue. Anyway, I had a look at it. In case you have not seen it so far, kindly go through it. If you seek inspection of the file under RTI Act, you will get it. Let me point out
following:
1. As per Defence Ministry's note, dated 22-12-2009 the financial implications were estimated t be Rs.433 cores without taking into account financial implications on pensionary benefits in respect of army and navy officers.
2. It was referred to Legal Adviser (Def)
3. The Legal Advisor was of the opinion that review can be done on following grounds:
a. Discovery of new facts.
b. Mistake or error apparenton face of record and
c. Any other sufficient reason
4. It has gone to the solicitor General
5. The Joint Secretary(L) Anand Misra had pointed out that "In view of the huge financial implications and importance of the case, it is proposed to get it assessed by a High Power Committee consisting of Defence Secretary, Secretary, Dept of Expenditure and Secretary (Defence Finance)
6. The RM has approved constitution of the above Committee
7. This Committee has worked out the expenditure as - Arrears on account of pay and pension to be around Rs.426 crores and Rs.83 crores
respectively. Interest @ 6% per annum on these arrears as ordered by the SC to be Rs.1.114.71 crores and the total financial liability comes to around Rs.1,623.71 crores
8. The case was pursued purely on taking of the above mentioned one-time financial implication and enhanced recurring implication.
9. In nutshell it may be seen that only the financial im0plication was the criteria for the government to seek the review/recall and not the merit of case
10. Now we should recollect following
a. The arrears was resulted due to the misinterpretation of the 4 PC orders by the babus
b. The mistakes were corrected and the correction has been ratified by the HC and SC
c. Now the position is that the above amount is due to officers. ie. amount due to the employees of government. It is legally incumbent on the employer ie. the government to pay this due to its employees.,
d. Government cannot absolve from this liability on a plea that the amount is too high.
e. If the government is not capable of discharging its liability, it has no choice other than declaring itself 'INSOLVENT'. After becoming insolvent, the employees are entitled to seek their dues by REVENUE RECOVERY.
I therefore request the concerned to bear in mind the requirement of the government becoming INSOLVENT to escape the payment and our entitlement to get our dues by REVENUE RECOVERY. I also request the concerned to impress all concerned that the interest of Rs.1,114.71 crores cannot be considered as the expenditure as the entitled interest has always been more than 6% and more than Rs.1114,71 has already gained by government by withholding the dues from us. This is as good as returning our DSOP deposit. This can never be considered as an additional burden. In fact, we should insist payment of interest at market rate from 8-3-2010
Col NR Kurup (Retd)
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Request for Donations: IESM
Dear All
IESM, as you are aware, is a tri-service organization and veterans from Army, Navy and Air Force as members. IESM also has many regional veteran organizations on its membership rolls as Associate Members. As on date, IESM has approximately 8500 Life Members and around 4000 Associate Members.
IESM is a registered society with The Registrar of Societies Gurgaon, Haryana.
By the laws that govern Registered Societies, any money that IESM gets as one-time-lifetime subscription is NOT permitted to be utilised for any expenditure for a period of 5 years (till 2013). The funds received by IESM under the head of Subscription are kept in Fixed Deposit.
A resolution at the AGM may permit usage of 15% of these funds in an emergency. IESM have NOT used this clause so far. Day-to-day expenditure of the organization is to be run from either the donations received or from any interest earned on FDs.
As per the Audited Balance Sheet on 31st August 2010, the present FDs are of Rs 19 lakhs. Interest earned on these FDs was about 1.27 lakhs.
This is the reason why IESM does not incur any expenditure on rent for office, office equipment or furniture. All office bearers are operating from their residences and no emoluments are paid to any office bearer except one clerk.
The only expenditure being incurred is on the meetings and rallies. Each rally requires an expenditure of roughly Rs 2 lakhs.
IESM had received sufficient donations to arrange demonstrations and rallies to press for the demand of OROP in the first two years, ie 2008 and 2009. However, donations for the year 2010 have dwindled and IESM has received only a fraction as compared to last year. IESM is finding it difficult to continue with planned protests without adequate funds. IESM therefore is in need of funds to continue with the fight of the veterans with the Govt.
IESM made a fervent appeal to the veterans for the donations. Following veterans have committed donations in response:
1. Col LK Anand Rs 500/month
2. Col A Mehndiratta Rs 500/month
3. CPO SB Sharma Rs 300/month
4. Col AS Ahluwalia Rs 500/month
5. Veteran Kulvinder Rs 500/month
6. Gp Capt VK Vidyadhar Rs 100/month (Recd Rs 1,500 for 15 months)
7. Wg Cdr Raj Kumar Poonia Rs 500/month
8. Col Navin Chaudhary Rs 100/month (Recd Rs 1,200 for one year)
9. Brig MS Oberoi Rs 100/month
10. Sqn Ldr DK Nangia Rs 100/month (Recd Rs 2,000 for 20 months)
11. Lt Col JP Nauni Rs 200/month
One-Time Donations:
1. Wg Cdr VK Sethi Rs 1,000
2. Maj Gen Anil Sawhney Rs 5,000
3. Brig HS Sandhu Rs 5,000
4. Lt Col Rakesh Sachdev Rs 20,000
5. Gp Capt (anonymous) Rs 5,000
6. Maj Gen IJS Dhillon Rs 5,000
7. Brig CS Kamboj Rs 1,00,000
8. IRB Infra Developers Ltd Rs10,000 courtesy Brig Malik
9. Air Cmde MK Chandrasekhar Rs 1000
IESM welcomes any amount as donation from veterans.
All veterans are requested to come forward and contribute in the struggle for their honor and respect and of course their cherished dream of OROP. A special request is made to the veterans who hold important positions in private companies, to try and ask their companies to donate generously for IESM.
For those who may wish to support IESM, you can give the donation in any one of the following methods that is convenient for you:
· Send a cheque in favour of "Indian Ex Serviceman Movement" at any given periodicity to me at the address given in my signature block below.
· Deposit the Cheque directly to the IESM account and send the Deposit Slip to me.
· Do the transaction over the internet through net-banking and inform me of the details every time you do that OR
· Give standing instructions to your Bank for a fixed date-every-month pay-in into IESM account -- and inform us the exact instructions, to enable keeping track of the funds.
· For EACH Donation, please do fill up the attached form and send to me by email ASAP.
Details of the Bank account are:
Name of Account: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Account No: 06162000001330
Name of Bank: HDFC Bank
Nine Digit MICR Code of Bank: 110240109
IFSC Code No (for e-transfer): HDFC 0000616
Postal Address of Bank: Palam Vihar Branch, SCO 87, Gurgaon
IESM will issue a receipt for all donations under Section 80G, which would afford a set-off against Income Tax payable every year. This receipt would be issued once in a financial year for the sake of administrative convenience.
I am sure all the veterans will come forward and be counted in this, their struggle for honor and the cherished dream of OROP.
Let us all together convert shove into a heave and move the mountain!
__________________
Sunshine & Blue Skies!
Wg Cdr CK Sharma (Retd)
Treasurer, IESM
N-15 1st Floor
Greater Kailash 1
New Delhi – 110 048
INDIA
IESM, as you are aware, is a tri-service organization and veterans from Army, Navy and Air Force as members. IESM also has many regional veteran organizations on its membership rolls as Associate Members. As on date, IESM has approximately 8500 Life Members and around 4000 Associate Members.
IESM is a registered society with The Registrar of Societies Gurgaon, Haryana.
By the laws that govern Registered Societies, any money that IESM gets as one-time-lifetime subscription is NOT permitted to be utilised for any expenditure for a period of 5 years (till 2013). The funds received by IESM under the head of Subscription are kept in Fixed Deposit.
A resolution at the AGM may permit usage of 15% of these funds in an emergency. IESM have NOT used this clause so far. Day-to-day expenditure of the organization is to be run from either the donations received or from any interest earned on FDs.
As per the Audited Balance Sheet on 31st August 2010, the present FDs are of Rs 19 lakhs. Interest earned on these FDs was about 1.27 lakhs.
This is the reason why IESM does not incur any expenditure on rent for office, office equipment or furniture. All office bearers are operating from their residences and no emoluments are paid to any office bearer except one clerk.
The only expenditure being incurred is on the meetings and rallies. Each rally requires an expenditure of roughly Rs 2 lakhs.
IESM had received sufficient donations to arrange demonstrations and rallies to press for the demand of OROP in the first two years, ie 2008 and 2009. However, donations for the year 2010 have dwindled and IESM has received only a fraction as compared to last year. IESM is finding it difficult to continue with planned protests without adequate funds. IESM therefore is in need of funds to continue with the fight of the veterans with the Govt.
IESM made a fervent appeal to the veterans for the donations. Following veterans have committed donations in response:
1. Col LK Anand Rs 500/month
2. Col A Mehndiratta Rs 500/month
3. CPO SB Sharma Rs 300/month
4. Col AS Ahluwalia Rs 500/month
5. Veteran Kulvinder Rs 500/month
6. Gp Capt VK Vidyadhar Rs 100/month (Recd Rs 1,500 for 15 months)
7. Wg Cdr Raj Kumar Poonia Rs 500/month
8. Col Navin Chaudhary Rs 100/month (Recd Rs 1,200 for one year)
9. Brig MS Oberoi Rs 100/month
10. Sqn Ldr DK Nangia Rs 100/month (Recd Rs 2,000 for 20 months)
11. Lt Col JP Nauni Rs 200/month
One-Time Donations:
1. Wg Cdr VK Sethi Rs 1,000
2. Maj Gen Anil Sawhney Rs 5,000
3. Brig HS Sandhu Rs 5,000
4. Lt Col Rakesh Sachdev Rs 20,000
5. Gp Capt (anonymous) Rs 5,000
6. Maj Gen IJS Dhillon Rs 5,000
7. Brig CS Kamboj Rs 1,00,000
8. IRB Infra Developers Ltd Rs10,000 courtesy Brig Malik
9. Air Cmde MK Chandrasekhar Rs 1000
IESM welcomes any amount as donation from veterans.
All veterans are requested to come forward and contribute in the struggle for their honor and respect and of course their cherished dream of OROP. A special request is made to the veterans who hold important positions in private companies, to try and ask their companies to donate generously for IESM.
For those who may wish to support IESM, you can give the donation in any one of the following methods that is convenient for you:
· Send a cheque in favour of "Indian Ex Serviceman Movement" at any given periodicity to me at the address given in my signature block below.
· Deposit the Cheque directly to the IESM account and send the Deposit Slip to me.
· Do the transaction over the internet through net-banking and inform me of the details every time you do that OR
· Give standing instructions to your Bank for a fixed date-every-month pay-in into IESM account -- and inform us the exact instructions, to enable keeping track of the funds.
· For EACH Donation, please do fill up the attached form and send to me by email ASAP.
Details of the Bank account are:
Name of Account: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement
Account No: 06162000001330
Name of Bank: HDFC Bank
Nine Digit MICR Code of Bank: 110240109
IFSC Code No (for e-transfer): HDFC 0000616
Postal Address of Bank: Palam Vihar Branch, SCO 87, Gurgaon
IESM will issue a receipt for all donations under Section 80G, which would afford a set-off against Income Tax payable every year. This receipt would be issued once in a financial year for the sake of administrative convenience.
I am sure all the veterans will come forward and be counted in this, their struggle for honor and the cherished dream of OROP.
Let us all together convert shove into a heave and move the mountain!
__________________
Sunshine & Blue Skies!
Wg Cdr CK Sharma (Retd)
Treasurer, IESM
N-15 1st Floor
Greater Kailash 1
New Delhi – 110 048
INDIA
Sunday, October 10, 2010
A Slipshod Way to Treat Defence Veterans by Col LK anand
Free Press
Indore, Sunday, October 10, 2010
Weekend
EDUTAINMENT
A Slipshod Way to
treat Defence Veterans
By Col LK Anand (Retd)
It has been seen in the past few months that the defence veterans have been protesting do draw attention of this sleeping Government of India, for seeking justice to their legitimate demands for One Rank One Pension (OROP) agreed a number of times by the past ruling governments, by returning their hard earned gallantry medals, as well as signing the protests in their own blood. The protests in the eyes of all citizens of the country are conducted in a most dignified and peaceful manner.
However, a very small fraction of people who look down upon these gallant soldiers as some sort of rivals, unfortunately have remarked this form of protest by them as a new low in the abominable acts, unconventional methods of dissent for communication with the government and of not conducting these activities in a civilized manner. Could anyone in this country suggest a proper form of protest, better than the one adopted by these veterans? Is it by any chance unlawful or unjustified to hold peaceful protests to seek proper justice from their Supreme Commander and their government whose integrity they have upheld all along?
The Government and its worthless, indifferent, incapable and corrupt machinery down the line, which does not allow even the judiciary to carry out its lawful functions, could not be blind to the dignified ways and means adopted by the defence veterans to seek justice from the government. It is most unfortunate, to bring to the kind notice of one and all, that all the previous governments have forgotten the gallantry and sacrifices of its past soldiers, who have exclusively kept the country together in spite of the malafide intentions of many to disintegrate the country. The indifferent attitude of the present UPA Government towards its gallant and dignified defence veterans is yet another example of ignoring the injustices perpetrated upon them.
Is it not a debatable issue that neither Indias so called Supreme Commander, nor anyone else in the Indian Government, has had the time to spare, for these gallant men to listen to their long pending grievances and understand them, leave alone attend to them in a judicious manner. Their signatures in blood and their surrendering gallantry medals have been blatantly ignored and have failed to move anyone including the Supreme Commander. Instead their feelings of disgust and protest have been considered as lacking in dignity. Perhaps, they have forgotten the actions and sacrifices of their forefathers who fought tooth and nail for earning freedom for this country.
There is no doubt that these gallant men are deeply respected and adored from the bottom of their hearts by majority of Indian citizens, who know their capabilities and achievements in all spheres of national activity. They can well understand their pain and unhappiness upon the cognisable neglect shown by the Indian government towards their problems and failing in their responsibility of undoing the injustices heaped upon them. Incidentally, so far Punjab Government is the only State Government in the country whose, all party MLAs have respected and realised their just demands, and passed a resolution unanimously in the Assembly, for grant of OROP to them. Would some other State Governments take the clue of Punjab Government on similar lines.
Is it not improper by the successive governments, to ungratefully deny the gallant, and dependable defence forces of India and their past soldiers, an equally dignified and honourable existence during their retired lives, in return for their unflinching selfless service rendered to the nation, even at the peril of their life. This unjust precedence seems to have become a part and parcel of the government policies towards the defence veterans, and a clear cut example of false promises, wrong announcements (even in Presidential addresses and budget speeches) hoodwinking and total indifference towards upholding their dignity and fulfilling their just needs. The government seems to be lacking a genuine interest towards solving their justified and genuine problems and have closed their eyes completely to the peaceful protests and demands of these gallant men, at the behest of sycophant, lazy, misguiding, highly irresponsible, incapable, corrupt and self serving bureaucracy.
The same government could not oppose the 300% to 500% increase in the salary of the public representatives in less than a week, majority of whom have already amassed unlimited wealth from the citizens of the country. It seems to be the priority of this government to deny, the deserving defence veterans, who have toiled endlessly and have been struggling for this just demand for nearly 26 years. This would at best help in restoring partially their regularly deteriorating honour and dignity, besides an increase of may be 20% to 30% in their pensions to make their life a bit more liveable in the dusk of their lives. The government has been so liberal to grant 3 to 5 folds increments to their already crorepati MPs.
It would be worth mentioning and appreciating the action of only one MP amongst them ie Mr Rajeev Chandrashekhar, in refusing increment in favour of defence veterans cause. It is not only courageous but highly commendable and it is wished that some more who see the defence forces in higher esteem could follow his example.
The government and the bureaucracy who invariably misguides it, seem to be the only set ups within the country, who do not have genuine interests and feelings towards the grievances of the defence forces at heart, because they do not understand high level of their character and their system of functioning. It is done on the premise, that they will as always, take everything offered to them lying down, in view of their disciplined and un protesting approach to Government actions. Their acts in denying what they deserve give a fair indication of the bureaucracys mindset.
I would like to pose a question, whether the role of the governments is to assist their subjects in solving their problems and to ensure their welfare, or to oppose and obstruct their cause, or to harass them by ignoring their genuine grievances, especially even when the courts have ruled in their favour.
To me it appears that the dispassionate ministerial staff and subordinates in the national capital who are never or dare not be moved out of Delhi, are the main accomplices of the bureaucracy and major villains in such matters. Their aim seems only to get everything what they want and to deny all others what they genuinely deserve. Such is the class of people in whose hands destiny of the defence forces and their veterans is entrusted. Unfortunately, this meanest class of people in the ministries exploits the defence services to the core in a manner treating them as national enemies and not those who defend the nation and uphold its integrity. Is it by chance an indication of good governance?
The Rank Pay Case of the 4th Central Pay Commission (4CPC) is a striking example in point, to prove the unsporting behaviour of the ruling government and the bureaucracy to unduly delay/deny the benefits to the affected lot as a result of this anomaly. The defence personnel who have already earned the benefits of the 4CPC way back since, 1 January 1986, have mischievously been denied the benefits all these years and despite a Supreme Court ruling in their favour on 8 March 2010. Unfortunately, the benefits have still been held up because some smart Babu in the concerned Ministry decided to file a petition against this ruling.
Indian government has certainly not become a pauper, that they are unable to disburse these dues to the affected defence personnel, which should have been given to them years back. Can any right thinking person apprehend the reason or compelling circumstances or the mentality to obstruct and deny the benefits already earned by the affected and deserving soldiers, by filing another petition in the Supreme Court. The Government is not poor and can certainly afford to spend over Rs 70,000 Crores for a gigantic show of 12 days duration. Is it really an indication of good governance?
The bureaucracy has always been making attempts to justify the step motherly treatment being given by the government so far to the cause of the defence veterans. Their attitude gives a strong feeling that it may take years before the just demand would ever be fulfilled. Of course by then the government would feel satisfied, relieved and take pleasure in getting the news that most of its gallant warriors of yester years do not now exist in this world and would not be there to demand OROP, which seems to be pinching its soul like no other demand from any other quarters, as also to save a fraction of their meagre finances from giving to the defence veterans. Government is least concerned about the billions of dollars stashed away in foreign banks by its corrupt citizens.
Finally, I would like to submit to the representatives of the Government that if they have even the slightest of respect and a heart to feel for these gallant and brave ex soldiers of this country, they should instead of ignoring their dignified protests, do something worthwhile for them without making unjustified excuses ie to get them the benefits of OROP and solve the anomaly of Rank Pay, resulting after the 4CPC, so that they remember and respect them as their true representatives and not hate them for their mean mentality till posterity.
Jai Hind to one and all
Col LK Anand (Retd)
elkayanand@rediffmail.com
Indore, Sunday, October 10, 2010
Weekend
EDUTAINMENT
A Slipshod Way to
treat Defence Veterans
By Col LK Anand (Retd)
It has been seen in the past few months that the defence veterans have been protesting do draw attention of this sleeping Government of India, for seeking justice to their legitimate demands for One Rank One Pension (OROP) agreed a number of times by the past ruling governments, by returning their hard earned gallantry medals, as well as signing the protests in their own blood. The protests in the eyes of all citizens of the country are conducted in a most dignified and peaceful manner.
However, a very small fraction of people who look down upon these gallant soldiers as some sort of rivals, unfortunately have remarked this form of protest by them as a new low in the abominable acts, unconventional methods of dissent for communication with the government and of not conducting these activities in a civilized manner. Could anyone in this country suggest a proper form of protest, better than the one adopted by these veterans? Is it by any chance unlawful or unjustified to hold peaceful protests to seek proper justice from their Supreme Commander and their government whose integrity they have upheld all along?
The Government and its worthless, indifferent, incapable and corrupt machinery down the line, which does not allow even the judiciary to carry out its lawful functions, could not be blind to the dignified ways and means adopted by the defence veterans to seek justice from the government. It is most unfortunate, to bring to the kind notice of one and all, that all the previous governments have forgotten the gallantry and sacrifices of its past soldiers, who have exclusively kept the country together in spite of the malafide intentions of many to disintegrate the country. The indifferent attitude of the present UPA Government towards its gallant and dignified defence veterans is yet another example of ignoring the injustices perpetrated upon them.
Is it not a debatable issue that neither Indias so called Supreme Commander, nor anyone else in the Indian Government, has had the time to spare, for these gallant men to listen to their long pending grievances and understand them, leave alone attend to them in a judicious manner. Their signatures in blood and their surrendering gallantry medals have been blatantly ignored and have failed to move anyone including the Supreme Commander. Instead their feelings of disgust and protest have been considered as lacking in dignity. Perhaps, they have forgotten the actions and sacrifices of their forefathers who fought tooth and nail for earning freedom for this country.
There is no doubt that these gallant men are deeply respected and adored from the bottom of their hearts by majority of Indian citizens, who know their capabilities and achievements in all spheres of national activity. They can well understand their pain and unhappiness upon the cognisable neglect shown by the Indian government towards their problems and failing in their responsibility of undoing the injustices heaped upon them. Incidentally, so far Punjab Government is the only State Government in the country whose, all party MLAs have respected and realised their just demands, and passed a resolution unanimously in the Assembly, for grant of OROP to them. Would some other State Governments take the clue of Punjab Government on similar lines.
Is it not improper by the successive governments, to ungratefully deny the gallant, and dependable defence forces of India and their past soldiers, an equally dignified and honourable existence during their retired lives, in return for their unflinching selfless service rendered to the nation, even at the peril of their life. This unjust precedence seems to have become a part and parcel of the government policies towards the defence veterans, and a clear cut example of false promises, wrong announcements (even in Presidential addresses and budget speeches) hoodwinking and total indifference towards upholding their dignity and fulfilling their just needs. The government seems to be lacking a genuine interest towards solving their justified and genuine problems and have closed their eyes completely to the peaceful protests and demands of these gallant men, at the behest of sycophant, lazy, misguiding, highly irresponsible, incapable, corrupt and self serving bureaucracy.
The same government could not oppose the 300% to 500% increase in the salary of the public representatives in less than a week, majority of whom have already amassed unlimited wealth from the citizens of the country. It seems to be the priority of this government to deny, the deserving defence veterans, who have toiled endlessly and have been struggling for this just demand for nearly 26 years. This would at best help in restoring partially their regularly deteriorating honour and dignity, besides an increase of may be 20% to 30% in their pensions to make their life a bit more liveable in the dusk of their lives. The government has been so liberal to grant 3 to 5 folds increments to their already crorepati MPs.
It would be worth mentioning and appreciating the action of only one MP amongst them ie Mr Rajeev Chandrashekhar, in refusing increment in favour of defence veterans cause. It is not only courageous but highly commendable and it is wished that some more who see the defence forces in higher esteem could follow his example.
The government and the bureaucracy who invariably misguides it, seem to be the only set ups within the country, who do not have genuine interests and feelings towards the grievances of the defence forces at heart, because they do not understand high level of their character and their system of functioning. It is done on the premise, that they will as always, take everything offered to them lying down, in view of their disciplined and un protesting approach to Government actions. Their acts in denying what they deserve give a fair indication of the bureaucracys mindset.
I would like to pose a question, whether the role of the governments is to assist their subjects in solving their problems and to ensure their welfare, or to oppose and obstruct their cause, or to harass them by ignoring their genuine grievances, especially even when the courts have ruled in their favour.
To me it appears that the dispassionate ministerial staff and subordinates in the national capital who are never or dare not be moved out of Delhi, are the main accomplices of the bureaucracy and major villains in such matters. Their aim seems only to get everything what they want and to deny all others what they genuinely deserve. Such is the class of people in whose hands destiny of the defence forces and their veterans is entrusted. Unfortunately, this meanest class of people in the ministries exploits the defence services to the core in a manner treating them as national enemies and not those who defend the nation and uphold its integrity. Is it by chance an indication of good governance?
The Rank Pay Case of the 4th Central Pay Commission (4CPC) is a striking example in point, to prove the unsporting behaviour of the ruling government and the bureaucracy to unduly delay/deny the benefits to the affected lot as a result of this anomaly. The defence personnel who have already earned the benefits of the 4CPC way back since, 1 January 1986, have mischievously been denied the benefits all these years and despite a Supreme Court ruling in their favour on 8 March 2010. Unfortunately, the benefits have still been held up because some smart Babu in the concerned Ministry decided to file a petition against this ruling.
Indian government has certainly not become a pauper, that they are unable to disburse these dues to the affected defence personnel, which should have been given to them years back. Can any right thinking person apprehend the reason or compelling circumstances or the mentality to obstruct and deny the benefits already earned by the affected and deserving soldiers, by filing another petition in the Supreme Court. The Government is not poor and can certainly afford to spend over Rs 70,000 Crores for a gigantic show of 12 days duration. Is it really an indication of good governance?
The bureaucracy has always been making attempts to justify the step motherly treatment being given by the government so far to the cause of the defence veterans. Their attitude gives a strong feeling that it may take years before the just demand would ever be fulfilled. Of course by then the government would feel satisfied, relieved and take pleasure in getting the news that most of its gallant warriors of yester years do not now exist in this world and would not be there to demand OROP, which seems to be pinching its soul like no other demand from any other quarters, as also to save a fraction of their meagre finances from giving to the defence veterans. Government is least concerned about the billions of dollars stashed away in foreign banks by its corrupt citizens.
Finally, I would like to submit to the representatives of the Government that if they have even the slightest of respect and a heart to feel for these gallant and brave ex soldiers of this country, they should instead of ignoring their dignified protests, do something worthwhile for them without making unjustified excuses ie to get them the benefits of OROP and solve the anomaly of Rank Pay, resulting after the 4CPC, so that they remember and respect them as their true representatives and not hate them for their mean mentality till posterity.
Jai Hind to one and all
Col LK Anand (Retd)
elkayanand@rediffmail.com
Request for Donations
From: Vinod Gandhi [mailto:vk_gandhi@yahoo.com]
Sent: October-10-10 12:44 AM
To: Darshan Nangia; CK Sharma; mil; indianveterans
Cc: Kamboj cs; LALIT KUMAR COL ANAND; ajay Col mehndiratta; Vaidun Gp Capt Vidyadhar; DSOI Canada
Subject: Shortage of Funds. REQUEST FOR DONATIONS
Dear Veteran Nangia sir
I am reproducing my mail to environment about the funds required by IESM to continue with the struggle for OROP. Based on the appeal following veterans have very kindly donated to IESM and more are coming forward.
Col LK Anand 500/per month
Col A Mehnidratta 500/per month
Veteran Kulvinder 500/ per month
Gp Capt V Vidyadhar 100/per month
I thank all of them for this kind gesture and appeal to other veterans to come forward and help IESM. IESM is planning AGM and elections to the Gov Body on 27 Nov 2010 and a rally on the 28 Nov 2010 to press for the demand of OROP. The approximate expenditure for these two events is likely to be around 5 lacs.
Admin arrangement on 27 Nov (Booking chareges for venue and tentage) 50000/
Lunch for participants (expected strenghth 500 lunch Rs 120 per person) 60000/
Arrangements for election on 27 Nov 10000/
Admin arrangements for Rally on 28 Nov 2010 50000/
Part Travel reimbursement for the participants for the rally on 28 Nov 2010 150000/
Lunch for participants (expected strength 5000 lunch at 25 per person) 125000/
Tea and water arrangement at AGM and rally 25000/
---------
Total 470000
IESM is looking for the sponsors who would like to donate for IESM or else would like to sponsor any of the event full or part.
IT IS TIME TO TAKE A STEP FORWARD AND BE COUNTED IN THE STRUGGLE OF VETERANS FOR OROP AND SELF RESPECT
Dear Veteran Kulvinder Singh
Your donation of Rs 500/ per month for two years to IESM is a big help and will harden our resolve to fight for the right of veterans and OROP for all veterans. t\Thankyou very much for the donation. I am sure many more veterans' would follow you and donate generously for the IESM. Earlier also following veterans have donated Rs 500/ per month to IESM.
Col LK Anand Rs 500/per month
Col A Mehnidiratta Rs 500/ per month
I take this opportunity to request all veterans' to kindly open your heart and help IESM to fight for the injustice being meted out to all veterans by the Govt. Veterans can help in volunteering physically to attend all the rallies organized by IESM and most effectively DONATE GENEROUSLY FOR IESM. Treasurer will get touch with you soon on the issue and to streamline the procedure.
IESM is in need of lot of funds to plan larger rallies and demonstrations to press for the demands of veterans'. IT IS ONCE AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT ALL RALLIES PLANNED BY THE IESM WOULD REMAIN NON VIOLENT, PEACEFUL AND WILL BE WITHIN THE LAW OF THE LAND.
VETERANS PLEASE DONATE GENEROUSLY
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
L - 48, Sector - 25,
NOIDA. 201301
Tele no 01204313951
Mobile 09810541222
Sent: October-10-10 12:44 AM
To: Darshan Nangia; CK Sharma; mil; indianveterans
Cc: Kamboj cs; LALIT KUMAR COL ANAND; ajay Col mehndiratta; Vaidun Gp Capt Vidyadhar; DSOI Canada
Subject: Shortage of Funds. REQUEST FOR DONATIONS
Dear Veteran Nangia sir
I am reproducing my mail to environment about the funds required by IESM to continue with the struggle for OROP. Based on the appeal following veterans have very kindly donated to IESM and more are coming forward.
Col LK Anand 500/per month
Col A Mehnidratta 500/per month
Veteran Kulvinder 500/ per month
Gp Capt V Vidyadhar 100/per month
I thank all of them for this kind gesture and appeal to other veterans to come forward and help IESM. IESM is planning AGM and elections to the Gov Body on 27 Nov 2010 and a rally on the 28 Nov 2010 to press for the demand of OROP. The approximate expenditure for these two events is likely to be around 5 lacs.
Admin arrangement on 27 Nov (Booking chareges for venue and tentage) 50000/
Lunch for participants (expected strenghth 500 lunch Rs 120 per person) 60000/
Arrangements for election on 27 Nov 10000/
Admin arrangements for Rally on 28 Nov 2010 50000/
Part Travel reimbursement for the participants for the rally on 28 Nov 2010 150000/
Lunch for participants (expected strength 5000 lunch at 25 per person) 125000/
Tea and water arrangement at AGM and rally 25000/
---------
Total 470000
IESM is looking for the sponsors who would like to donate for IESM or else would like to sponsor any of the event full or part.
IT IS TIME TO TAKE A STEP FORWARD AND BE COUNTED IN THE STRUGGLE OF VETERANS FOR OROP AND SELF RESPECT
Dear Veteran Kulvinder Singh
Your donation of Rs 500/ per month for two years to IESM is a big help and will harden our resolve to fight for the right of veterans and OROP for all veterans. t\Thankyou very much for the donation. I am sure many more veterans' would follow you and donate generously for the IESM. Earlier also following veterans have donated Rs 500/ per month to IESM.
Col LK Anand Rs 500/per month
Col A Mehnidiratta Rs 500/ per month
I take this opportunity to request all veterans' to kindly open your heart and help IESM to fight for the injustice being meted out to all veterans by the Govt. Veterans can help in volunteering physically to attend all the rallies organized by IESM and most effectively DONATE GENEROUSLY FOR IESM. Treasurer will get touch with you soon on the issue and to streamline the procedure.
IESM is in need of lot of funds to plan larger rallies and demonstrations to press for the demands of veterans'. IT IS ONCE AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT ALL RALLIES PLANNED BY THE IESM WOULD REMAIN NON VIOLENT, PEACEFUL AND WILL BE WITHIN THE LAW OF THE LAND.
VETERANS PLEASE DONATE GENEROUSLY
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
L - 48, Sector - 25,
NOIDA. 201301
Tele no 01204313951
Mobile 09810541222
Donation from canada..Veteran Kulvinder singh
From: DSOI Canada
To: Vinod Gandhi
Sent: Mon, 11 October, 2010 2:04:00 AM
Subject: RE: Shortage of Funds. REQUEST FOR DONATIONS
Dear Gp. Capt. Gandhi,
I have asked my friend Col. S.S. Chaudri to send you a cheque for Rs. 12,000.00 to cover the monthly contribution of Rs.500p.m. for the next two years.
Once again I would suggest that this request for contribution should be extended to all the serving officers since you and your Team of Veterans is working for their future too.
Regards.
Kulvinder (Kul) Singh
Col. (Armed Forces Veteran)
Ps
May I request you to not float my e-mail except to the managing committee as I like it that way.
To: Vinod Gandhi
Sent: Mon, 11 October, 2010 2:04:00 AM
Subject: RE: Shortage of Funds. REQUEST FOR DONATIONS
Dear Gp. Capt. Gandhi,
I have asked my friend Col. S.S. Chaudri to send you a cheque for Rs. 12,000.00 to cover the monthly contribution of Rs.500p.m. for the next two years.
Once again I would suggest that this request for contribution should be extended to all the serving officers since you and your Team of Veterans is working for their future too.
Regards.
Kulvinder (Kul) Singh
Col. (Armed Forces Veteran)
Ps
May I request you to not float my e-mail except to the managing committee as I like it that way.
Monday, October 4, 2010
IESM ..AGM on 27 Nov 2010 at AVCC NOIDA..1030 HRS TO 1400 HRS
URGENT
1.NOTICE FOR AGM TO THE OF INDIAN EX-SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT
2.NOTICE FOR THE ELECTION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF IESM
on 27 Nov 2010, Saturday at 1030h at AVCC sector 37 NOIDA
Dear All
AGM of IESM wil be held on 27 Nov 2010 Saturday from 1030 hours to 1400 hours at AVCC, Sector 37 Noida 201301.
Election to the Governing body of the IESM will also be held on 27 Nov 2010 Saturday at AVCC Noida immediately after AGM.
Agenda for the meeting is given below.
Welcome by Gen Sec
Address by Chairman.
To receive, consider and adopt the audited Balance Sheet as on 31 March 2010, Income & Expenditure Account for the period ended on that date and the Auditor’s Report thereon.
To appoint auditors for the year 2010-2011.
Address by the Chairman
Discussion on the points raised by the members if any.
Elections for the Gov Body of IESM
Closing address by the new Chairman
Vote of thanks.
All members are requested to attend the meeting and send their confirmation of attendance to the Gen Sec at the earliest.
All members are requested to make own arrangement for travel and stay at Noida/Delhi. Members are requested to forward their points for inclusion in the agenda.
Duly audited account statement of year 09-10 will be forwarded to all as soon as it is cleared by the auditors.
Guidelines with a guide map to reach AVCC Noida is attached for the convenience of all members.
PROGRAM OF ELECTION OF GOVERNING BODY OF IESM
The existing governing body of IESM has completed two years in the office. As per MOA term of the Governing Body is due to be completed in Dec 2010, It has been therefore decided that the election to the Governing Body of IESM will be held immediately after the AGM on 27 Nov 2010 by the General body of IESM.
Independent Chief election officer will be nominated. He would choose his team of election officers to conduct free and fair elections. Name of the Chief election officer and his team would be announced soon to the environment.
Schedule for the election is given below. All members of the IESM are eligible to contest the election. A fee of Rs 100 is fixed to file members' name for election. Election will be held for 17 posts of the Governing body. Elected members of the GOV body will then choose the Chairman, VC, Treasurer, Gen Sec and Jt sec with in one week of the elections.
Eligibility criteria for the elections; All members of the IESM are eligible to contest elections
Notice for the election 30 Sep 2010 (Email) to 7 Oct 2010 (By post)
Filing of nomination papers 1 Nov 2010
Checking of nomination papers 4 Nov 2010
Withdrawal of names 4 Nov 2010
Circulation of names of candidates 10 Nov 2010
Election to the Governing body 27 Nov 2010
Declaration of the result 1700h on 27 Nov 2010
Nomination form will be sent to the memberes interested to contest elections.
All members are requested to inform other members of IESM who do not have access to internet. Please spread the message to all veterans'.
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
L - 48, Sector - 25,
NOIDA. 201301
Tele no 01204313951
Mobile 09810541222
1.NOTICE FOR AGM TO THE OF INDIAN EX-SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT
2.NOTICE FOR THE ELECTION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF IESM
on 27 Nov 2010, Saturday at 1030h at AVCC sector 37 NOIDA
Dear All
AGM of IESM wil be held on 27 Nov 2010 Saturday from 1030 hours to 1400 hours at AVCC, Sector 37 Noida 201301.
Election to the Governing body of the IESM will also be held on 27 Nov 2010 Saturday at AVCC Noida immediately after AGM.
Agenda for the meeting is given below.
Welcome by Gen Sec
Address by Chairman.
To receive, consider and adopt the audited Balance Sheet as on 31 March 2010, Income & Expenditure Account for the period ended on that date and the Auditor’s Report thereon.
To appoint auditors for the year 2010-2011.
Address by the Chairman
Discussion on the points raised by the members if any.
Elections for the Gov Body of IESM
Closing address by the new Chairman
Vote of thanks.
All members are requested to attend the meeting and send their confirmation of attendance to the Gen Sec at the earliest.
All members are requested to make own arrangement for travel and stay at Noida/Delhi. Members are requested to forward their points for inclusion in the agenda.
Duly audited account statement of year 09-10 will be forwarded to all as soon as it is cleared by the auditors.
Guidelines with a guide map to reach AVCC Noida is attached for the convenience of all members.
PROGRAM OF ELECTION OF GOVERNING BODY OF IESM
The existing governing body of IESM has completed two years in the office. As per MOA term of the Governing Body is due to be completed in Dec 2010, It has been therefore decided that the election to the Governing Body of IESM will be held immediately after the AGM on 27 Nov 2010 by the General body of IESM.
Independent Chief election officer will be nominated. He would choose his team of election officers to conduct free and fair elections. Name of the Chief election officer and his team would be announced soon to the environment.
Schedule for the election is given below. All members of the IESM are eligible to contest the election. A fee of Rs 100 is fixed to file members' name for election. Election will be held for 17 posts of the Governing body. Elected members of the GOV body will then choose the Chairman, VC, Treasurer, Gen Sec and Jt sec with in one week of the elections.
Eligibility criteria for the elections; All members of the IESM are eligible to contest elections
Notice for the election 30 Sep 2010 (Email) to 7 Oct 2010 (By post)
Filing of nomination papers 1 Nov 2010
Checking of nomination papers 4 Nov 2010
Withdrawal of names 4 Nov 2010
Circulation of names of candidates 10 Nov 2010
Election to the Governing body 27 Nov 2010
Declaration of the result 1700h on 27 Nov 2010
Nomination form will be sent to the memberes interested to contest elections.
All members are requested to inform other members of IESM who do not have access to internet. Please spread the message to all veterans'.
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
L - 48, Sector - 25,
NOIDA. 201301
Tele no 01204313951
Mobile 09810541222
Views of AVM RP Mishra
From: RP Mishra [mailto:avmrpm@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 September 2010 10:21
To: Radha Krishnan RN; Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri; Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: Re: 20100926(1) – AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
Hello Radha,
I fully agree with you with what you have written in the mail referred to..I do hope that MoD issues a letter refixing pensions based on the judgement of AFT. Earlier, IESL had sent a mail that MoD is likely to issue such a letter as per their information.
As far as role of IESL and IESM are concerned, both are required. Their mission is same. While one is applying pressure by going to media, organising peaceful protests etc, the other is trying to achieve same thing diplomatically. It is said that even mother gives milk when child cries. Child has started crying. I feel IESL and IESM are complementary to each other, if ego does not come in the way, they can really look after the welfare of ESM.
I am pasting text of a mail I had forwarded to Air Force friends of mine.
"Hello Friends, I am attaching the judgement delivered by AFT in Majors case. Operative part is on page 29-30 which reads,"For all pre retirees of Lt Cdr and other ranks, their minimum of pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006i.e.Rs. 23810. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of pay in the pay band, i.e. Rs. 23810 with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months."
For Majors and equivalent, total pay works out to 23810+6600 (grade pay) +6000 (MSP)=36410. Pension would be 18205 and family pension 10923. Present take home pension would be 26398 and 15839 (including DA @ 45%) respectively.
With the input from IESL (which is quite authentic) that pensions of all ranks will be re-fixed on this basis, GoI may not go for appeal against AFT judgement.
I am giving below, in the bracket, existing pension, amount if the pension is re-fixed, total take home pension after re-fixation with 45% DA and arrears expected for the duration Jan 06 to Dec 2010 for ranks of Major to Major General.
Major (14464, 18205,26398,263340), Lt Col (25700,26265,38085,39810), Col (26050,27795,40303,122916), Brigadier (26150,29145,42260,210964) and AVM (26700,30350,44008,257118)"'
Regards
AVM RP Mishra (Vice President IESL)
Sent: 27 September 2010 10:21
To: Radha Krishnan RN; Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri; Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: Re: 20100926(1) – AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
Hello Radha,
I fully agree with you with what you have written in the mail referred to..I do hope that MoD issues a letter refixing pensions based on the judgement of AFT. Earlier, IESL had sent a mail that MoD is likely to issue such a letter as per their information.
As far as role of IESL and IESM are concerned, both are required. Their mission is same. While one is applying pressure by going to media, organising peaceful protests etc, the other is trying to achieve same thing diplomatically. It is said that even mother gives milk when child cries. Child has started crying. I feel IESL and IESM are complementary to each other, if ego does not come in the way, they can really look after the welfare of ESM.
I am pasting text of a mail I had forwarded to Air Force friends of mine.
"Hello Friends, I am attaching the judgement delivered by AFT in Majors case. Operative part is on page 29-30 which reads,"For all pre retirees of Lt Cdr and other ranks, their minimum of pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006i.e.Rs. 23810. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of pay in the pay band, i.e. Rs. 23810 with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months."
For Majors and equivalent, total pay works out to 23810+6600 (grade pay) +6000 (MSP)=36410. Pension would be 18205 and family pension 10923. Present take home pension would be 26398 and 15839 (including DA @ 45%) respectively.
With the input from IESL (which is quite authentic) that pensions of all ranks will be re-fixed on this basis, GoI may not go for appeal against AFT judgement.
I am giving below, in the bracket, existing pension, amount if the pension is re-fixed, total take home pension after re-fixation with 45% DA and arrears expected for the duration Jan 06 to Dec 2010 for ranks of Major to Major General.
Major (14464, 18205,26398,263340), Lt Col (25700,26265,38085,39810), Col (26050,27795,40303,122916), Brigadier (26150,29145,42260,210964) and AVM (26700,30350,44008,257118)"'
Regards
AVM RP Mishra (Vice President IESL)
Letter By Maj Gen RN Radhakrishnan
“AMCHINARANGAM”,
193, Vira Ma Munivar St,
Bastin Ngr, Madurai-625016.
Date: 2009-01-28
To,
The Secretary,
Dept of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
Ministry of Defence, GOI,
198 B, South Block, New Delhi-110011
Dear Sir,
Sub: Anomaly in Revision of Pension wrt to Officers Retired on or before 31Dec2005
Ref: Your office letter # 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pens/Policy) dated 11 Nov 2008 duly amended on 11 Dec 2008 and my letter on this aspect dated 24 Dec 2008 and 02 Jan 2009.
Thank you very much for your prompt action to set right the anomaly in fixing the pension of Major General and Lieutenant General, through the corrigendum dated 20 Jan 2009. Encouraged by your response, I take the liberty to point out that in my letter dated 02 Jan 2009, I had highlighted not only the anomaly in the pension of the General Officers that rose due to not accounting the MSP, but also the anomaly in all ranks of the Commissioned Officers due to misinterpretation of the phrase ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ in paragraph 5 of your policy letter dated 11 Nov 2008.
This aspect is perhaps under study by your officials. I have not received any communication from your office acknowledging the receipt of my letters. I shall feel more confident if an acknowledgement is posted to me.
I am enclosing as Appendix ‘A’ giving a detailed analysis that covers the anomaly in pension of the officers of the rank from Captain to Lieutenant General and their equivalent in the Air Force and Navy on account of the misinterpretation of the phrase mentioned above.
I am confident you would do the needful and at an early date, and restore the confidence of all Ex-servicemen in the fairness of the Government.
Thanking you
Yours truly,
Sd RN Radhakrishnan
Appendix ‘A’
Anomaly of the Revised Pension of Officers of the Rank of Captain to Lieutenant General Drawing Pension As On 31 Dec 2008
By
RN Radhakrishnan (Retd Major General)
Ref MOD letter # 17(4)/2008(1)/D (Pen/Policy) dated 11Nov08, 11Dec08 and Annexure II (Revised) to the letter dated 20Jan09
The revised pension for commissioned officers of the rank of Captain to Lieutenant General (please note the points analyzed are equally applicable to the Air Force and Naval equivalent officers as well) has been worked out much lower than what is due to them. The reason for such incorrect revision is the misinterpretation of the policy by the concerned officials. The table at annexure ii has been drawn taking the minimum figure
· 15600 of the Pay Band 3 for all officers from Lieutenant to Lieutenant Colonel
· 37400 of the Pay Band 4 for all officers from Colonel to Lieutenant General
Simplification of the many existing pay scales into just two for Class A officers necessarily leads to a figure for the minimum of each band. But that minimum figure can in no way be equated to the minimum pay which is applicable to each of the higher ranks.
Here the words ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ has to be interpreted correctly. Minimum pay of these senior ranks has to, perforce, be much higher than the minimum of the pay band. The event of the officers of higher ranks getting pay at the minimum of pay band is unlikely. Promotion is in accordance with a policy and a minimum service is stipulated for promotion to each of the higher rank. Therefore, the minimum pay applicable to higher ranks will invariably be higher than that of the lower rank.
6CPC acknowledges this fact. Now let us see the comments made by the 6CPC regarding the minimum pay. Under the comments for paragraph 5.1.47 in page 251 it says ‘The condition that revised pension may not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay band is based on minimum of the lowest scale in that band. And is not equal to the presumed minimum had a separate revised scale been recommended for each case’. SAI 2/S/2008 dated 14 Oct 2008 has done just that. Each rank has a specific pay scale. Can one justify using the minimum of the pay band, not minimum stipulated pay of the rank as given in SAI 2/S/2008 dated 14 Oct 2008 for fixing the pension for the existing pensioners?
And if that minimum pay, the one arrived at through correct interpretation, is used, this anomaly in fixing the pension shall vanish. Please see the table below.
Rank Min figure in PBMin Pay in SAI2/S/2008Correct PensionWrong Pension
Lt 15600 15600 13500 13500
Capt 15600 18600 15350 13850
Maj 15600 23810 18205 14100
Lt Col15600 28090 20845* 14600
Col 37400 40890 27795 26050
Brig 37400 43390 29145 26150
Maj Gen37400 44700 30350 26700
Lt Gen 37400 51850 34925 27700
* for Lt Col the pension shall go up to 25500 as and when they are placed at Pay Band 4
Thus it leads to the reasonable conclusion that the revised annexure referred above is based on wrong interpretation of the principles of revision of pension and must be treated as null and void. Hence, the department must take immediate action to withdraw this annexure with necessary announcement in the leading newspapers to that effect for the information of all the pensioners across the country.
It is worth giving a thought on the effect, the present policy has on some of the officers who retired on 31Dec08 and due for retirement subsequently. A matter of few minutes of time difference in the birth makes a difference in pension to the extent of near about ten thousand. The following questions are pertinent:
· Is such a policy is drawn in accordance with the law of natural justice?
· Is arbitrariness of the date 01Jan06 not the cause for creating such an injustice?
· Can there not be a better and a fairer way of distribution of the resources, conceding the constraint of the National Economy?
· Is that not the area where the financial wizards show their innovative skill?
---------
From: RP Mishra [mailto:avmrpm@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 September 2010 10:21
To: Radha Krishnan RN; Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri; Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: Re: 20100926(1) – AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
Hello Radha,
I fully agree with you with what you have written in the mail referred to..I do hope that MoD issues a letter refixing pensions based on the judgement of AFT. Earlier, IESL had sent a mail that MoD is likely to issue such a letter as per their information.
As far as role of IESL and IESM are concerned, both are required. Their mission is same. While one is applying pressure by going to media, organising peaceful protests etc, the other is trying to achieve same thing diplomatically. It is said that even mother gives milk when child cries. Child has started crying. I feel IESL and IESM are complementary to each other, if ego does not come in the way, they can really look after the welfare of ESM.
I am pasting text of a mail I had forwarded to Air Force friends of mine.
"Hello Friends, I am attaching the judgement delivered by AFT in Majors case. Operative part is on page 29-30 which reads,"For all pre retirees of Lt Cdr and other ranks, their minimum of pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006i.e.Rs. 23810. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of pay in the pay band, i.e. Rs. 23810 with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months."
For Majors and equivalent, total pay works out to 23810+6600 (grade pay) +6000 (MSP)=36410. Pension would be 18205 and family pension 10923. Present take home pension would be 26398 and 15839 (including DA @ 45%) respectively.
With the input from IESL (which is quite authentic) that pensions of all ranks will be re-fixed on this basis, GoI may not go for appeal against AFT judgement.
I am giving below, in the bracket, existing pension, amount if the pension is re-fixed, total take home pension after re-fixation with 45% DA and arrears expected for the duration Jan 06 to Dec 2010 for ranks of Major to Major General.
Major (14464, 18205,26398,263340), Lt Col (25700,26265,38085,39810), Col (26050,27795,40303,122916), Brigadier (26150,29145,42260,210964) and AVM (26700,30350,44008,257118)"'
Regards
AVM RP Mishra (Vice President IESL)
In tabular form – Chander Kamboj à
RankPresent
PensionLikely Revised
PensionRevised
Pension
Plus 45% DAArrears
Jan 2006
to Dec 2010
Major144641820526398263340
Lt Col25700262653808539810 Error
Col260502779540303122916
Brig261502914542260210964
Maj Gen267003035044008257118
------------
THE END
Military Pay and Pension by Maj Gen Radha Krishnan RN
From: Radha Krishnan RN [mailto:rnrkrish@yahoo.com]
Sent: 26 September 2010 19:50
To: Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: CS Kamboj Brigadier; Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; RP Mishra; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri
Subject: AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
SOVEREIGNTY & SERVICES
by
Major General (Emeritus) RN Radhakrishnan
Part -9
Where Do We Go?
Section 10
AFT Defines Minimum Pay
AFT has ruled in favour of the petitioners of the rank of Lt Cdr and Sq Ldr. The ruling is that the minimum pension for these ranks and Equivalents has to be based on the minimum of the pay that is indicated in the relevant Service Instructions, not the minimum of the pay band, as interpreted by the CDA/ PDA. Thus, the minimum pension of these ranks amounts to Rs 18205/= (50% of the sum of 23810+6600+6000). Immediately on issue of the pension policy dated 11-11-2008 and as early as Jan 2009, this misinterpretation was brought to the notice of the PM, RM, Secretary ESW, and the three Chiefs, requesting to apply the correct interpretation as the ‘minimum of the pay in the pay scale carved out of the Pay Bands and accepted through relevant Service Instructions. (Please refer to the attachment and my mail numbered 20090124(1) sent in Jan 2009 addressed to Military Veterans.) Approximately 100 odd officers of various ranks sent out letters demanding for correct interpretation, while implementing the pension policy dated 11-11-2008.
The reaction from the Ministry was, as expected, reiteration of their interpretation. What frustrated was the stand taken by our Service HQrs, trying to educate how to interpret the policy letters, as if on having retired from the Services we have lost our appreciation skill and analytical capability in formulation and interpretation of the policy letters.
Now that the AFT has upheld this correct interpretation, let us see what the reaction of the Government is likely to be. The Government took the task of bridging the gap in the pension quite seriously by enhancing the pensions and adopting the concept of ‘modified parity’, which strictly means parity limited to only the pensioner of pre 2006 vintage. Pensions of the Personnel other than the Commissioned Officers, Lt Cols and Lt Gens have been enhanced, no doubt. Left are only the Majors, Colonels, Brigadiers and Major Generals. Government is not at convinced that here exists an ethical obligation on their part to establish parity among all pensioners across the board with no regard to the date of retirement.
The present ruling by AFT has come as a face saving measure to the Government. Hence, there is a distinct possibility of the Government accepting the verdict and implement it quite soon for Majors and the equivalents. It is also possible that the Government chooses to show an extent of magnanimity by extending the ruling to the other three ranks, though I won’t be surprised if they wait until similar verdict is obtained by going to the court by some of these ranks. An efficient attempt to compromise and thwart confrontation!
Now a few of us are apprehensive of possible setback. Will our quest for Parity in Pension (termed ‘OROP’ by IESM) be affected due to this verdict? My impression is that it cannot. The ruling of AFT is limited to the interpretation of the phrase ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ of the policy letter with reference to revising the pension of pensioner, pre 2006. On the contrary our demand is questioning the very logic of revising the pension with incorrect relation to the revised pay structure. Our demand is for establishing equality with an equal with no regard to the date of retiring.
But the question is how we are setting about it, reason with the Government through IESL or coerce them through peaceful demonstration promoted by IESM.
Whatever be the path, we have to be clear on one aspect. What defines equality? If you analyse the pension pattern of those retiring after 01-01-2006, an alarming fact shall glare at you. Pensioners post 2006 stand to get different pension even if they are equal in rank and the number years of service, total or in that particular rank. Pension cell of IESM should collect data from those who have retired since Jan 2006 and verify my statement. If that is the case, what kind of equation we are planning on to ask for equal pension?
I suggest that a few of us get together with neither any affinity nor any enmity to any organization (above all no ‘I know all or more than you’ attitude), analyse the issue of equality which is crucial. We have to have a clear idea of what we want from the Government or from the court. Leaving it either to the court or the Government to work it out for us based on our over simplified definition of our demand phrased as “any two pensioners of the same rank and same number of years of service must get the same pension” can lead to disaster.
Attached is Pension – Letter to Secretary 090128
End Section 10
------------
Major General RN RADHAKRISHNAN (Retd)
Tele- 0452-2389989
Email: rnrkrish@yahoo.com
Sent: 26 September 2010 19:50
To: Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: CS Kamboj Brigadier; Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; RP Mishra; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri
Subject: AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
SOVEREIGNTY & SERVICES
by
Major General (Emeritus) RN Radhakrishnan
Part -9
Where Do We Go?
Section 10
AFT Defines Minimum Pay
AFT has ruled in favour of the petitioners of the rank of Lt Cdr and Sq Ldr. The ruling is that the minimum pension for these ranks and Equivalents has to be based on the minimum of the pay that is indicated in the relevant Service Instructions, not the minimum of the pay band, as interpreted by the CDA/ PDA. Thus, the minimum pension of these ranks amounts to Rs 18205/= (50% of the sum of 23810+6600+6000). Immediately on issue of the pension policy dated 11-11-2008 and as early as Jan 2009, this misinterpretation was brought to the notice of the PM, RM, Secretary ESW, and the three Chiefs, requesting to apply the correct interpretation as the ‘minimum of the pay in the pay scale carved out of the Pay Bands and accepted through relevant Service Instructions. (Please refer to the attachment and my mail numbered 20090124(1) sent in Jan 2009 addressed to Military Veterans.) Approximately 100 odd officers of various ranks sent out letters demanding for correct interpretation, while implementing the pension policy dated 11-11-2008.
The reaction from the Ministry was, as expected, reiteration of their interpretation. What frustrated was the stand taken by our Service HQrs, trying to educate how to interpret the policy letters, as if on having retired from the Services we have lost our appreciation skill and analytical capability in formulation and interpretation of the policy letters.
Now that the AFT has upheld this correct interpretation, let us see what the reaction of the Government is likely to be. The Government took the task of bridging the gap in the pension quite seriously by enhancing the pensions and adopting the concept of ‘modified parity’, which strictly means parity limited to only the pensioner of pre 2006 vintage. Pensions of the Personnel other than the Commissioned Officers, Lt Cols and Lt Gens have been enhanced, no doubt. Left are only the Majors, Colonels, Brigadiers and Major Generals. Government is not at convinced that here exists an ethical obligation on their part to establish parity among all pensioners across the board with no regard to the date of retirement.
The present ruling by AFT has come as a face saving measure to the Government. Hence, there is a distinct possibility of the Government accepting the verdict and implement it quite soon for Majors and the equivalents. It is also possible that the Government chooses to show an extent of magnanimity by extending the ruling to the other three ranks, though I won’t be surprised if they wait until similar verdict is obtained by going to the court by some of these ranks. An efficient attempt to compromise and thwart confrontation!
Now a few of us are apprehensive of possible setback. Will our quest for Parity in Pension (termed ‘OROP’ by IESM) be affected due to this verdict? My impression is that it cannot. The ruling of AFT is limited to the interpretation of the phrase ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ of the policy letter with reference to revising the pension of pensioner, pre 2006. On the contrary our demand is questioning the very logic of revising the pension with incorrect relation to the revised pay structure. Our demand is for establishing equality with an equal with no regard to the date of retiring.
But the question is how we are setting about it, reason with the Government through IESL or coerce them through peaceful demonstration promoted by IESM.
Whatever be the path, we have to be clear on one aspect. What defines equality? If you analyse the pension pattern of those retiring after 01-01-2006, an alarming fact shall glare at you. Pensioners post 2006 stand to get different pension even if they are equal in rank and the number years of service, total or in that particular rank. Pension cell of IESM should collect data from those who have retired since Jan 2006 and verify my statement. If that is the case, what kind of equation we are planning on to ask for equal pension?
I suggest that a few of us get together with neither any affinity nor any enmity to any organization (above all no ‘I know all or more than you’ attitude), analyse the issue of equality which is crucial. We have to have a clear idea of what we want from the Government or from the court. Leaving it either to the court or the Government to work it out for us based on our over simplified definition of our demand phrased as “any two pensioners of the same rank and same number of years of service must get the same pension” can lead to disaster.
Attached is Pension – Letter to Secretary 090128
End Section 10
------------
Major General RN RADHAKRISHNAN (Retd)
Tele- 0452-2389989
Email: rnrkrish@yahoo.com
Friday, October 1, 2010
Punjab Vidhan Sabha passes OROP resolution
Chandigarh, September 30
The Punjab Vidhan Sabha today unanimously passed a resolution supporting one rank, one pension for ex-servicemen. In another resolution that was passed today, ... edited ...
FROM DAINIK BHASKAR
-- चंडीगढ़ . पूर्व सैनिकों को वन रैंक, वन पेंशन का प्रस्ताव वीरवार को पंजाब विधानसभा में सर्वसम्मति से पारित हुआ। विधायक बलबीर सिंह बाठ ने प्रस्ताव पेश करते हुए कहा कि पंजाब में पूर्व सैनिकों की स्थिति काफी खराब है।खरड़ के विधायक बलबीर सिंह सिद्धू, जालंधर कैंट के विधायक जगबीर सिंह बराड़, अजायब सिंह भट्टी और विपक्ष की नेता राजिंदर कौर भट्ठल ने उनका पूरा समर्थन करते हुए कहा कि सरकार इस प्रस्ताव को पारित कर केंद्र सरकार को भेजे। बाद में स्पीकर ने सर्वसम्मति से इस प्रस्ताव को पारित किया। इन्होंने भी उठाए मुद्दे शून्यकाल के दौरान ही कांग्रेस विधायक मक्खन ¨सह ने मालवा में कैंसर के प्रकोप का मुद्दा उठाया। उन्होंने कहा, फरीदकोट इलाके के पानी में यूरेनियम की मात्रा काफी अधिक है। भाभा अटोमिक रिसर्च सेंटर की रिपोर्ट में इसकी पुष्टि हुई है। संगरूर के विधायक सुरिंदर पाल सिंह सिबिया ने डेलीवेज पर काम कर रहे कर्मचारियों का मामला सदन में रखा धूरी से विधायक इकबाल सिंह झूंदा ने चौकीदारों का मामला उठाया। अजीत सिंह मोफर ने ट्रैफिक नियमों को सख्त करने की मांग की।
COMMENTS BY VETERANS ON THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY Pb VIDHAN SABHA
-------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT-1------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,
A Great Day for `Sanjha Morcha`. Multi-pronged `attacks` by senior veterans have carried the day for us for now. Tally Ho to the Parliament Session with all `guns blazing`.
Expose the `unscrupulous netas & babus` of the MOD. The spectators galleries must be filled with war veterans/disabledsoldiers/widows when the OROP issue is raised in Parliament. We have been taken for a ride for too long - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!
Why is the IESL silent ? They promised to give feedback of their meetings with COAS etc
ref Col Bhag Singh`s pts in meeting held in office of RSB, Chandigarh which I also attended
& specifically asked him to give feedback on IESL`s efforts on OROP/other issues.
UNITED WE STAND - DIVIDED WE ATTEMPT TO REUNITE & STAND TO FIGHT !!!
Brig SS Jaswal, Veteran Madras Sapper,
IESM, Panchkula.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT-2--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All.
We must all congratulate General Vijay Oberoi,Brig Harwant Singh and Brig Ghuman .
Last evening Gen Oberoi sent a brief to CM Punjab,Brig Harwant sent brief to Finance Minister Punjab and Brig Ghuman and self briefed MLA Sidhu who in turn briefed Capt Amarinder.
The same has resulted in Punjab Assembly passing resolution for grant of OROP unanimously.
We will request other states to follow suit.
We have also prepared a brief for MP,s which will be given to Punjab MP,s and and with the request that other states MP,s must also be contacted by Veterans so that they are sensitised before winter session startting on 7 Nov.
Regards,
Nawab
The Punjab Vidhan Sabha today unanimously passed a resolution supporting one rank, one pension for ex-servicemen. In another resolution that was passed today, ... edited ...
FROM DAINIK BHASKAR
-- चंडीगढ़ . पूर्व सैनिकों को वन रैंक, वन पेंशन का प्रस्ताव वीरवार को पंजाब विधानसभा में सर्वसम्मति से पारित हुआ। विधायक बलबीर सिंह बाठ ने प्रस्ताव पेश करते हुए कहा कि पंजाब में पूर्व सैनिकों की स्थिति काफी खराब है।खरड़ के विधायक बलबीर सिंह सिद्धू, जालंधर कैंट के विधायक जगबीर सिंह बराड़, अजायब सिंह भट्टी और विपक्ष की नेता राजिंदर कौर भट्ठल ने उनका पूरा समर्थन करते हुए कहा कि सरकार इस प्रस्ताव को पारित कर केंद्र सरकार को भेजे। बाद में स्पीकर ने सर्वसम्मति से इस प्रस्ताव को पारित किया। इन्होंने भी उठाए मुद्दे शून्यकाल के दौरान ही कांग्रेस विधायक मक्खन ¨सह ने मालवा में कैंसर के प्रकोप का मुद्दा उठाया। उन्होंने कहा, फरीदकोट इलाके के पानी में यूरेनियम की मात्रा काफी अधिक है। भाभा अटोमिक रिसर्च सेंटर की रिपोर्ट में इसकी पुष्टि हुई है। संगरूर के विधायक सुरिंदर पाल सिंह सिबिया ने डेलीवेज पर काम कर रहे कर्मचारियों का मामला सदन में रखा धूरी से विधायक इकबाल सिंह झूंदा ने चौकीदारों का मामला उठाया। अजीत सिंह मोफर ने ट्रैफिक नियमों को सख्त करने की मांग की।
COMMENTS BY VETERANS ON THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY Pb VIDHAN SABHA
-------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT-1------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,
A Great Day for `Sanjha Morcha`. Multi-pronged `attacks` by senior veterans have carried the day for us for now. Tally Ho to the Parliament Session with all `guns blazing`.
Expose the `unscrupulous netas & babus` of the MOD. The spectators galleries must be filled with war veterans/disabledsoldiers/widows when the OROP issue is raised in Parliament. We have been taken for a ride for too long - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!
Why is the IESL silent ? They promised to give feedback of their meetings with COAS etc
ref Col Bhag Singh`s pts in meeting held in office of RSB, Chandigarh which I also attended
& specifically asked him to give feedback on IESL`s efforts on OROP/other issues.
UNITED WE STAND - DIVIDED WE ATTEMPT TO REUNITE & STAND TO FIGHT !!!
Brig SS Jaswal, Veteran Madras Sapper,
IESM, Panchkula.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT-2--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All.
We must all congratulate General Vijay Oberoi,Brig Harwant Singh and Brig Ghuman .
Last evening Gen Oberoi sent a brief to CM Punjab,Brig Harwant sent brief to Finance Minister Punjab and Brig Ghuman and self briefed MLA Sidhu who in turn briefed Capt Amarinder.
The same has resulted in Punjab Assembly passing resolution for grant of OROP unanimously.
We will request other states to follow suit.
We have also prepared a brief for MP,s which will be given to Punjab MP,s and and with the request that other states MP,s must also be contacted by Veterans so that they are sensitised before winter session startting on 7 Nov.
Regards,
Nawab
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)