Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Rank Pay Matter Relating To IV CPC{ continued :-) }

As had been suspected, pre-mature self-congratulations in some sections of the affected populace notwithstanding, the Government has indeed succeeded in delaying a resolution of the matter by clubbing all manners of subjects with the clear and distinct issue of the rank pay arrears of IV CPC. A final verdict has now been put off till such time the Hon'ble Chief Justice is presented with the matter and then, if it is so decided, the case would have to be referred to another bench. It is anybody's guess as to what sort of timeline could be assigned to the legal process. One can only look forward to updates in the media like this one .

Edit 1: The Record of Proceedings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has now been updated

Edit 2: The Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed 24 February 2011 as the date of "final disposal", as seen from the Record Of Proceedings.

Edit 3: The next hearing is on the 8th March. Full details here.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Legal Notices To CSD And Army

The Armed Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh will now examine the matter of non processing by CSD of requisitions of "high value items", including motor cars, through dealers at Chandigarh and at VAT rates applicable in that Union Territory. It was only a matter of time before someone was forced to take up the matter of the insensitivity shown to entitled armed forces personnel and veterans residing at Chandigarh. The saddest aspect is the total disinterest exhibited by the Service Headquarters in prevailing upon the CSD to resolve the matter in a more urgent fashion. How could the CSD succeed in subjecting the entitled personnel at Chandigarh to this prolonged denial of delivery of service?

It would be interesting to examine whether the personnel and veterans, who are residents of Chandigarh and had to pay the higher VAT for purchases made through CSD in the states of Haryana or Punjab, would now be able to claim refunds on account of the excess amount they were forced to pay. After all, they were compelled to make the purchases as a result of the questionable decision by CSD to deny them an entitled service at Chandigarh.

Anyhow, one salutes the sagacity and true leadership of the exemplary senior who has now set the legal wheels in motion.

Update: Finally, a judgement! Now to see if those denied the service at Chandigarh would be able to recover the differential paid out by them. Full details here .

Saturday, November 13, 2010

OROP {continued :-)}

As the issue remains unresolved, one gets to read fresh "updates" and opinions on the matter every other day. There is a noticeable lack of clarity, however, as to what sort of structure "One Rank One Pension" is eventually intended to assume. It is time for the ESMs, currently in the forefront on the matter, to give some formal shape to the desired outcome.

For instance, the following aspects have never been fully explained:

*How do the proponents of OROP propose to take the length of service in a retiree's last rank into account for the calculation of pension? As an example, would a Lt Col (Retd.) who superannuated in 2001 with, say, 10 years of service as Lt Col, be entitled to the same pension as a Lt Col who superannuated in 2007 with just 3 years of service in the same rank?

*Would the proposed OROP take into account the change in rank structures pre and post AV Singh Phase I implementation. As an example, how would the pension of a Lt Col(TS) (Retd.) who super annuated on 30 Nov 2004, before the implementation date of AV Singh Committee, with, say, 29 years of service be treated vis-a-vis the pension of a Col(TS) who super-annuated, with the same sort of commission and an equivalent length of service, on 30 Nov 2007 after the date of implementation of AV Singh Phase I? Or would the non-retrospective implementation of AV Singh Phase-I cast a shadow on OROP as well, especially for Officer retirees.

*Why are ESMs not countering the repeated assertion by the political classes that OROP would be required to be extended to all Govt employees and hence would be prohibitively expensive? After all, civilian employees do not have to bear the burden of a truncated career and there is very little justification for a universal OROP as has been explained previously.

But, the continued thrust on the matter is indeed heartening. Till such time some positive official development is forthcoming, occasional updates do serve an important function, viz., of keeping all concerned abreast of the situation.