Of Swallows And Summer

After the passage of a significant portion of the remainder of their lifetimes, veteran Officers who had held regular commissions and retired as Major and Lt Col prior to 16 Dec 2004, implementation date of Phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee, can, perhaps begin to see some rays of hope on the distant horizon for the righting of a wrong in having been denied pensionary benefits of the next higher time bound ranks viz., Lt Col and Col (TS) respectively.

The hope comes in the dismissal by Hon'ble Supreme Court of a Civil Appeal (Diary Number 31788/2022) filed by the Union of India against judgment Of Armed Forces Tribunal Chennai in case OA 268 of 2018 that had ruled in favour of  application of Cdr SP Ilangovan (Retired) who had sought pensionary benefits at par with those applicable to veterans retiring in the rank of Capt TS (IN) from 16 Dec 2004.

Judgement of the Armed Forces Tribunal is embedded below:

 

Though the applicant chose, as is apparent from text of the judgment, to stress upon his rank of Cdr (SG) being superior to that of a Cdr (TS), the judgement itself is the voice of rationality itself in recognising the need to accord pensionary benefits of the next higher time-bound ranks to pre 16 Dec 2004 retirees if they had retired with requisite service.

Having been a Lt Col of select grade or time-scale is actually no grounds for discrimination against the latter as Officers with both kinds of Lt Col ranks were given rank of Col (TS) if they continued to serve after 16 Dec 2004 and earned pensions of Col(TS) on their retirement

By dismissing the Civil Appeal of Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opened up prospects for rationalising of pensions as ruled in the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal. Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the case needs ro be examined under legal advice to be able to understand its applicability.

But then, this is just one hopeful sign. Whether or not it leads to a full resolution is something time alone will tell. 

As to how and when this will translate into relief for pre 16 Dec 2004 pensioners/family pensioners in ranks of Maj and Lt Col, remains to be seen.

Most veterans won't have forgotten the tortuous course of the Rank Pay litigation years ago.

This event, however, does mark an update to concerns expressed on this blog many moons ago. Please read  🠊🠊 This Blog Post

Postscript: This Tweet should address queries, if any on the probable future outcomes:

Anybody’s guess whether respondents will comply with para 17b of judgement of AFT Chennai or go in for a review petition in Hon’ble Supreme Court after dismissal of their leave to appeal. Would it be too much to expect that respondents accept opinion of AFT in para 16 of order? https://t.co/BjF2iuLcKV

— Sunlit_Tweets (@Sunlit_Tweets) October 3, 2024

EXTENDING THE WG CDR VS TOMAR (RETD) LITIGATION TO OTHER ISSUES

{Edit: A brief chronology of the matter has been added at the end of the blog post}

Issues do not exist in water-tight compartments, nor can principles that apply in one case be automatically extended by rule of thumb to another.

But recent blog-posts connected with the issue of OROP opened up a train of thought based on related judgements and judicial pronouncements. But then, trains of thought can be runaway trains, going downhill at break-neck speed , inviting a derailment at every curve. There is nothing like the blogosphere for obtaining requisite braking in the shape of comments and counter-views to keep the train on track.

The case of Wg Cdr VS Tomar vs UOI led to this train of thought getting onto a branch line. Para 25 of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs SR Dhingra and Ors (2008) 2 SCC 209, as quoted in AFT judgement on OA 106/2009, would seem to bar an employer from fixing a retrospective date of implementation of a benefit arbitrarily. Now, though the AFT judgement relates to parity of the pro-rata clause related to pensionary benefits for pre and post VI CPC retirees, it could have wider ramifications.

A lay person's appreciation could be the same principle, as enunciated in the judgement, applies to the implementation of phase I recommendations of AV Singh Committee. It needs to be emphasized here, the application would seem to extend to the entire implementation of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee and not in respect of just the pensionary aspects.

Let us consider this:

*The implementation of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee was retrospective.

*The Govt fixed the retrospective date as 16 Dec 2004.

*This retrospective date divided a homogeneous group into two not only for the benefit of pensions but also in respect of benefits of faster promotions AND consequently higher pay and allowances of those who were in service.

This needs to be considered independently of the issue of parity of pensions of pre AVS-I Lt Col/post AVS-I Col(TS) which I had sought to highlight earlier.( <—- Click link to view )

A simple example would be a Captain who had 6 years of service on 01 January 2002. He picked up the promotion to rank of Major wef 16 Dec 2004 when the AVS-I recommendations were implemented in 2005 retrospectively. Whereas another Officer who completed the same service of 6 years on 30 Dec 2004, immediately received the benefit of the promotion, including the higher pay and allowances, also retrospectively. The former would appear to have a case for arrears of a kind different from the Rank Pay arrears that we're all so focused on.

Now just consider the arrears that could arise for all who continued in service, forgetting for the time being the pensionary issue related to Lt Col/Col(TS). 

Depending on a legally correct retrospective date of implementation, Officers, both serving and retired, could be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances on account of promotions and increments extending back several years from Dec 2004.

This matter needs to be examined in relation to my previous blog post wherein it had been suggested ( <—— Click link to view ) there is a strong possibility

of a homogeneous group having been sub-divided in two, though the word "set" had been used at that time in place of "homogeneous group". The homogeneous group would have been the one that required to receive the benefits the Govt. itself had decided were required to be given when it formed the AV Singh Committee.

So what should have been the legally correct retrospective date for implementing phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee? It would have to be a date that defined a homogeneous group for the purpose of receiving benefits that the Govt intended to bestow.

*It could have been 01 Jan 96 for Officers in service as on that date as it was V CPC which first postulated the requirement of ACP which the AVS-I recommendations were an extension of, even though it had been represented at an AFT that there was no nexus.

*It could have been the date on which the terms of reference were given to the Committee.

*It could have been the date the Committee finalised it's recommendations.

*It could have been the date on which the Govt accepted "in-principle" the recommendations of the Committee.

But the concepts of arbitrariness and sub-division of a homogeneous group seem to apply in retrospective selection of 16 Dec 2004 as the date of implementation for passing on benefits of phase-I recommendations of AV Singh Committee.

Whether or not there are sufficient grounds for individuals and/or groups to contemplate further investigative exploration, followed by attempts at a resolution of the matter, would depend on guided collective reasoning being applied to the subject.

{Edit 1} : This issue re-surfaces every now and then, as it did about four months ago.(<——- Click link to view )
{Edit 2} : In order to fully comprehend the manner in which the sub-division of a homogeneous group occurred by selection of the implementation date, here is a brief time line, each date being a point in time where a case exists for a sub-division having taken place, resulting in discrimination:

*Jul 2001 : AV Singh Committee ordered.
*Sometime in July 2002 : Committee recommendations submitted to Govt.
*Sometime in 2003: Govt announced acceptance "in principle" of recommendations.
*December 2004: Govt. Announced acceptance of recommendations.
*March 2015: Implementation notified retrospectively from 16 Dec 2004.

A news item from the era gives a brief outline of the chronology: