(Readers are requested to consider using the “share buttons” at the end of this and other blog-posts in case they feel sharing of the contents could be of interest to others affected. Contents of the post may change in case of new developments or articulation of others’ views)
If it had not been for a chance viewing of another blog some time ago, with a blog-post in it on a different topic and some comments/replies, this particular development would have been missed altogether.
The development is of the negative kind. Some may say that the curse of 16 December 2004 has struck again. But, before those affected give up on the matter as a lost cause, they could consider reviewing some past opinions on this specific issue and matters intimately related to it. Perhaps, what is required is a wider point of view rather than a narrow focus on just one rank.
The development relates to a petition filed by veterans who had retired in the rank of Major with more than 20 years of service before that date. The petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petition had sought parity of the petitioners' pension with pension of Lt Col veterans who retired after 16 Dec 2004 with the same QS as the petitioners.
A copy of the judgement can be viewed on the website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the link placed at the end of this blog-post.
It is not known what the precise submissions of the petitioners were. Text of the judgement states the petition to be,"...for grant of pensionary and other benefits at par with the benefits which accrue as a consequence of the communication dated 21 December 2004 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence" and, I quote again, "....to grant pension equal to the pension of Lt. Col. by applying the principle of “equal pension for equal work” to the petitioners under the provisions of Constitution of India".
The "communication" referred to is, most probably, the one that contained the sanction for implementing, with effect from 16 December 2004, Phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee. In previous tribunal orders and court judgements, policy letters of year 2005 had been mentioned as the ones implementing said recommendations retrospectively from 16 Dec 2004. Till such documents are accessed, it would be imprudent to hold forth on the timeline of that "implementation".
The text of the judgement, quoted above, poses a few questions:
- Did sanction for implementing phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee specifically mention that older pensioners in time-bound ranks would not be entitled to parity of their pensions with those fixed for officers retiring after 16 December 2004 with the same type of commission and equal service?
- Did the petition actually seek "benefits" flowing out of the letter implementing recommendations of AVS Committee wef 16 Dec 2004 or did it seek parity with benefits of the post 16 Dec 2004 rank of Lt Col?
- Is it a matter of "application" per se? Did the petitioners seek that they be promoted retrospectively as per the 2004 order and that too at stages of their former career corresponding to lower QS for promotion than they had actually been promoted at and to be paid arrears on account of enhanced pay and earlier promotions for the years they had been service?
- Wasn’t their petition meant to seek parity of their deferred wage, to be paid in the period after 16 Dec 2004 with the deferred wage of similarly placed Officers who retired after 16 Dec 2004?
- The petitioners had served for 20 years or more as commissioned Officers. Their pension is a deferred wage based on the service they had rendered which can truly be measured only by consideration of their cadre, nature of commission and their qualifying service combined. Their ranks did not have the same attributes after 16 Dec 2004 and, therefore, can the rank be used as measure of entitlement to the deferred wage after 16 Dec 2004 or for establishing parity thereof?
- Can the quantum of their entitlement of their deferred wage vary depending on whether they retired before or after 16 Dec 2004 and can they be given a deferred wage after 16 Dec 2004 which is lower than that of similarly placed Officers retiring with the same QS in a time-bound rank with changed attributes post 16 Dec 2004?
* This may be highlighted once again, that regardless of the specific contents of the petition in question, the principle of parity of pensions for older Maj retirees would have been applicable from whatever retrospective date the recommendations of AV Singh Committee had been implemented. For this pension parity issue, the specificity of that date is immaterial except for the consideration that a disparity exists across the date between pensions of two veterans who had the same type of Commission and had the same QS and retired in time-bound ranks.* However, the selection of the date becomes much more relevant for all the Officers who were in service on the specific date the Government formed the Committee in 2001 when their status got official recognition as members of a uniform group of similarly placed Officers, all suffering from stagnation in their cadre. Is it not true that the benefit of relief from stagnation was not equally applied when the date of implementation, of recommendations of the Committee, was chosen as 16 Dec 2004?* Consider the case of a serving Major with 13 years of service in 2001, when the Committee was formed in recognition of the fact that the serving Major formed part of a homogeneous group suffering from career stagnation. He had to wait till 16 Dec 2004 to pick up the new time bound rank of Lt Col when he attained a QS of 16 years, stagnating for 3 years in the pay-scale without getting the higher pay and allowances, whereas his junior with just 13 years of service as on 16 Dec 2004 picked up the same rank without any delay, suffering no stagnation in the process.* Did these Officers, who were in service at the time of formation of AV Singh Committee in 2001, receive equitable adjustment of their ranks, in-service pay and/allowances as a result of the implementation of AV Singh Committee recommendations even if they continued to serve beyond 16 Dec 2004? But if the Officers serving in 2001 had the bad luck to retire before 16 Dec 2004, then they missed even parity in terms of pension vis-a-vis Officers with the same type of Commission and equal QS retiring after 16 Dec 2004.
* The act of selection of 16 Dec 2004 as the date for implementing phase-I recommendations of AVS Committee was, by itself, discriminatory. The act of selection of that date discriminated not only against many Officer veterans who had been in service when the committee was formed but superannuated before the implementation date but it (the selection of that date) also discriminated against Officers who continued to serve beyond that date. In-service earnings (pay and allowances) of both these sub-sets suffered disparities on account of just selection of that date. The sub-set of Officers who retired prior to date of implementation lost out in terms of parity of their pension as well.
* Regardless of the above, if pension is a deferred wage and the only rational measure of service rendered in the case of time-bound ranks are the type of commission and length of service, then, forequitableparity, pensions for time-bound ranks with the same type of commission and qualifying service would need to be the same across that date for an equitable and fair resolution. Let us not. forget, ranks are not constant standards across the cut-off date and do not serve as a just measure for ensuring parity of deferred wages as a pre 16 Dec 2004 Major or Lt Col rank is not the same as the post 16 Dec 2004 Major or Lt Col rank. The only reliable and logical basis for comparing service rendered, in the case of time-bound ranks, is the type of commission and the QS of retirees before and after the cut off date.
Very informative. Thank you.
ReplyDelete@Unknown You are welcome.
DeleteThe date chosen viz 16 Dec2004 cannot be justified either on legal or moral grounds. It is done due to sadistic minds of some against rank promoted officers to put it in piain words.
ReplyDelete@UnknownThat would, perhaps. be too broad a generalisation.
DeleteIt is hard to see how the selection of that date reflects a special bias against "rank promoted officers".
Selection of the date discriminates more broadly than what you are suggesting.
It discriminated against even a serving Capt with 8 years of service in Dec 2004 who waited 3 years till he was given the rank of Major after 16 Dec 2004 as against an Officer in rank of Captain Junior to him by two years who straightaway got the rank of Major on 16 Dec 2004, having just completed, at that time, a service of 6 years.
Similarly for all other time-bound ranks who were in service in 2001 when AVS Committee was constituted. They were all part of a uniform group of commissioned officers who were suffering from stagnation.
Selection of 16 Dec 2004 as the date of implementation, resulted in discrimination in the extent of relief from stagnation even among Officers who continued to serve beyond 16 Dec 2004.
The Officers who were part of the same uniform group of stagnating officers (as on date of constitution of AVS Committee) and retired in ranks given on time-bound ranks before the date of implementation suffered even more discrimination in terms of pensions.