Thursday, 12 January 2017

How & Why Defence Forces Personnel were paid 10% of Sixth CPC Pay + DA @125%



Online RTI Request Form Details
RTI Request Details:-
RTI Request Registration number MODEF/R/2016/53600
Public Authority Department of Defence

Description of Information Sought

1. Please refer to MoD No. 1(11)/2016/D (Pay/Services) dated 10.10.2016 sanctioning pay arrears on ad hoc basis to serving personnel of Indian Armed
Forces i.e Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force.

2. Please provide information as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 including file notings, minutes, or record of discussions and deliberations, OMs, ID Notes, etc leading to the issue of the above-mentioned letter dated 10.10.2016.

3. Further, in pursuance of the directions of the honourable Prime Minister, please enable the function of additional payment online in this website for photocopies of the information instead of requesting payment by IPO/DD.

                                                      Reply by MoD

35(1)/2015/D (Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, dated 2nd January 2017
To

Shri S Y Savur
Subject: Seeking Information under RTI Act, 2005

Sir,

          Reference your RTI application No. MODEF/R/2016/53600 dated 28.11.2016 (received in this section on 09.12.2016) on the above subject.

2.      As requested vide para 1 and 2, the copies of file notings of MoD letter No. 1 (11)/2016/D (Pay/Services) dated 10.10.2016 are enclosed for your information. An amount of Rs 14/- (Rs 2/- per copy) may be sent through any of the mode prescribed under RTI Act, 2005 towards cost of photocopy charges. Regarding reply in respect of para 3, a copy of representation received is being sent to D (RTI) with whom the matter may be taken up.
3.      Shri Preet Pal Singh, Director (AG-I), Ministry of Defence, Room No. 102, “B” Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi is the first appellate authority.    
Yours faithfully,
Sd/---------------2/1/17
(Prashant Rastogi)
CPIO & Under Secretary
Copy for necessary action to: -       D (RTI), MoD w.r.t. their ID No. MODEF/R/2016/53600/D (RTI) dated 05.12.2016 for giving favourable reply to the applicant regarding para 3.

-1-
Receipt………….TRIPAS letter d/d 20/9/16
File No. 1(11)/2016-D(P/S)

          This has reference to Lt Gen Rakesh Sharma’s letter to Defence Secretary, requesting for payment of an Interim Relief (@ 10% of the existing pay and on DA @ 125%) along with arrears on adhoc basis, on the grounds that process to issue Special Army/Navy/Air Force Instructions for implementing the Government Award is time consuming. However, while making this request, Army has linked the matter with revision of 7th CPC Award by proposing that balance adjustment be taken after completion of revision of 7th CPC Award for defence forces. It needs to be pointed out here that vide his letter dated 15 Sept 2016 to Chairman COSC, Defence Secretary had clearly conveyed RM’s direction that all the three Service HQ issue necessary instructions forthwith  for implementation of the Resolution of 5th September 2016.  

2.      Vide the ibid letter, Army has also requested that their concerns (as submitted on 20 Jan 2016), related to pay and allowances be addressed through constitution of an Anomaly Redressal Committee. This issue will be examined separately on file. 

3.      Army has also requested that in the committee formed for Allowances and Pensions, the Pay Cells of the three Services be called in to present their case. Separate file on this issue as regards allowances has already been moved for Defence Secretary’s directions.

4.      It is proposed that after seeking RM’s approval, Defence Secretary may convey the following decision to Chairman COSC vide the draft across: 

(a)     in-principle approval of RM for payment of Interim Award (at the rate mentioned in ibid letter), only on the grounds that issue of Special Army/Navy/Air Force instructions for implementing the MoD’s 5th Sept 2016 Resolution may take some time. The proposal of payment of Interim Award will be further processed on receipt of detailed proposal from Army.

(b)     The detailed proposal for payment of Interim Award should also mention the date by which Special Army/Navy/Air Force instructions shall be furnished to MoD. 

3.                ©The Special Army/Navy/Air Force instructions shall be framed strictly on the basis of MoD’s 5th Sept 2016 Resolution on 7th CPC recommendations without waiting for government’s final decision on pay and allowances related concerns of the Defence Forces.

5.                 Para 4 is submitted for RM’s consideration.
Sd/---------------
29/9
(Preet Pal Singh)
Director (AG I)
JS (E)         Sd/-------------- 29/9/16

Defence Secretary
-3-
Ministry of Defence

          The foregoing notes may please be perused. This note is in response to DO letter received from AG, Lt Gen Rakesh Sharma (page 3-5/c). The proposal at para 4 (a), (b) and (c) on pre-page is put up for RM’s orders.

4.                In this context, it may be recalled that the Services had put off the implementation of the resolution dated 5th September 2016 of the Ministry of Defence relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th CPC as applicable to Defence Services. Subsequently, a direction was issued asking all the three Services to implement the orders forthwith without waiting for their grievances to be redressed. Now, the Army has asked for payment of interim award at the rates mentioned in para 1 at 1/N saying that the issue of the relevant orders fixing pay of the officers and Service personnel will take time. While this is acceptable because of the forthcoming festive season, the flip side is that the Services may defer the actual implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations after releasing the interim relief on the plea that the grievances are awaiting redressal. The letter of AG mentions this at para 4 (F/X). This is not acceptable in view of RM’s clear directions. Fixation of the pay has to be done forthwith and it should not be held up till the Government addressed the grievances as this is likely to take quite some time. In view of these, we may communicate the proposal at para 4 (a), (b) & (c). 

5.                 For approval please.
Sd/--------------
(G Mohan Kumar)
Defence Secretary
30.09.2016
RM   Sd/-----30/09

Def Sec       DO issued  Sd/--------- 1/10

JS (E)         Sd/----------- 5/10/16

Dir (AG-I)  Sd/---------- 5/x

US (P/S) On leave
SO (P/S)

-4-

Reference Notes from page 3/n

          The subject matter is regarding a reference received from Lt Gen Rakesh Sharma’s letter to Defence Secretary requesting for payment of an Interim Relief (@ 10% of the existing pay and on DA @ 125%) along with the arrears on adhoc basis, on the grounds that process to issue Special Army/Navy/Air Force instructions for implementing the Government award is time consuming.

Hon’ble Raksha Mantri has give in-principle approval to the Services’ proposal for payment of interim relief on pay along with arrears to pass the benefit of 7th CPC award to Defence Personnel as soon as possible, keeping in view that the issue of Special Army/Navy/Air Force instructions may take some time. However, the views of the Hon’ble RM has been conveyed to Air Chief Marshal vide DO dated 30-9-2016 from the Defence Secretary, that the three Services HQ must prepare the draft SAI/SNI/SAFI strictly as per the Resolution dated 5th September 2016 issued by the Ministry, as early as possible. Hon’ble RM further directed that while sending the detailed proposal for payment of interim relief, the time required to prepare and furnish SAI/SNI/SAFI to the Ministry may also be intimated.    

          In response to the above mentioned DO dated 30-9-2016, we have now received the DGL for payment of interim relief @ 10% of existing Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance (DA @125%) along with arrears. The adhoc payment is proposed to be paid only to those personnel who were in service as on 1-1-2016 and continue to be in service and the amount so paid will be adjusted against the final computation of arrears on the revised pay scales. The pay being drawn as on 1-1-2016 will be reckoned for calculating the arrears.

          In view of the above, we may recommend the proposal to the Defence (Finance) (AG/PA) for their concurrence and countersignature of the draft DGL which is placed opposite. JS (E) may kindly approve before the file is sent to Defence (Finance).
Sd/---------
(Laxmi)
5/10/16
SO (P/S)
US (P/S) on leave
Dir (AG-I)  Sd/--------5/x
JS (E) Sd/------------5/10/16
Dir (AG-I)5/x
AFA (AG/PA)     Sd/---------6/10/16
-5-
Ministry of Defence (Finance)
AG/PA

          Ref: Preceding note No. 4/ante recorded by MOD/D(P/S).

2.      The proposal of MoD pertains to payment of an interim Relief @ 10% of the existing pay and DA @ 125% along with the arrears on adhoc basis, on the ground that process to issue Special Army/Navy/Air Force instructions for implementing the Government 7th CPC Award is time consuming. 

3.      Hon’ble Raksha Mantri has given in-principle approval (Page 7/corr) to the Services proposal for payment of interim relief on pay along with arrears to pass the benefit of 7th CPC award to Defence Personnel as soon as possible, keeping in view that the issue of Special Army/Navy/Air Force instructions based on MoD’s 5th September, 2016 Resolution may take some time. However, the views of the Hon’ble RM have been conveyed to Air Chief Marshal vide DO dated 30.9.2016 from the Defence Secretary, that the three Services HQ must prepare the draft SAI/SNI/SAFI strictly as per the Resolution dated 5th September 2016 issued by the Ministry, as soon as possible.

4.      Accordingly, MoD has proposed a DGL (proposed by COSC Secretariat) for payment of interim relief @10% of existing Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance (DA 125%) along with arrears. The adhoc payment is proposed to be paid only to those personnel who were in service as on 1.1.2016 and continue to be in service and the amount so paid will be adjusted against the final computation of arrears on the revised pay scales. The pay being drawn as on 1.1.2016 will be reckoned for calculating arrears. The proposal has been approved by JS (E). 

6.                In view of the above, the proposal of MoD/D (P/S) is submitted for consideration and approval of Secretary (Defence/Finance)/FA (DS).
Sd/-----------------
DFA (AG)            Sd/----------6/10/16
Addl FA (RS) & JS       on leave
Addl FA (AN) & JS L.O.I on leave
Secy (D.F)/FA (DS)
-6-
From pre-page

1.       Reference preceding notes

2.      Hon’ble RM has already approved ‘in principle’ the proposal for adhoc release of arrears after issue of Resolution d/t 5th Sept 2016 pending issue of SAI/SNI/SAFI. The approval was subject to fulfilling conditions at Para 4 © on N-1.

3.      In response to Def Sec DO at CP-6 opposite, Chairman COSC & CAS responded on 3rd Oct 2016 (CP-9 opp) along with detailed proposal for payment which is not enclosed/placed on file.

7.                 Def Sec may kindly see. If conditions are fulfilled/formal approval may kindly be accorded so that DGL can be concurred.
Sd/-------------6/10
FADS
 Def Secy    RM may kindly approve                  Sd/--------------7/x
RM             Sd/-----------7/10
Def Sec Sd/------------- 8/10
FA (DS) Pl ref the DGL (indecipherable) today
Addl FA (RS)       Sd/----------10/10
DFA (AG)            Sd/----------- 10/10/16
US (P/S) MoD
-7-
Reference preceding notes.

As approved by Hon’ble RM vide note on page-6, the letter of payment of arrears on adhoc basis of pay to Defence Forces Personnel pending issuance of Notification accepting 7th CPC award may be issued as per Fair letter placed opposite.
 SO on leave
US (P/S)    Sd/---------10.10.16
Dir (AG)     Sd/--------10/x
US (P/S)    Sd/---------10.10
Please issue urgently
Issued letter dated 10/x/16
/////////TYPED TRUE COPY\\\\\\\\\\

Sunday, 1 January 2017

Wish You a Happy New Year

Best Wishes for a 2017 filled with happiness, good health, more prosperity, ability to understand and bear with fortitude what is beyond our control, and above all the peace of mind to you and your family.

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Is it time for the Army to stop basking in ‘political’ limelight



The present COAS and Army HQ are aware that there have been retaliatory attacks across the LoC in the past. (I will not denigrate them by terming them ‘surgical strikes,’ now common term for anything and almost everything!). That retaliatory attacks have taken place in the past has been confirmed by a former Foreign Secretary-NSA, and also the present Foreign Secretary.

It was simply the Army going about its duty that it knows best, with the quiet efficiency it is renowned for, but minimal fuss. Those days there was no chest thumping by the Army or requirement for others to hold up for display, the actions as acts of patriotism for ordinary, patriotic but grumbling (about something else) citizens of India.

The narrative appears to have changed in recent months. We have had a former Army officer, who knows better, telling the world about a retaliatory attack across the IB of an eastern neighbour, much to the chagrin of that Government! Diplomats of that country are still murmuring about that embarrassment.

As if that was not enough, we had the DGMO go about speaking of the retaliatory attack as if it was a new invention of the Indian Army of 2016! Knowledgeable and discerning viewers and readers were aghast at “we were there” type accounts of the attack by sundry politicians, spokespersons, even retired Army officers and media anchors giving us PowerPoint presentation and all. 

Another instance of politicisation of the Army is the unedifying spectacle of counting vehicles at toll gates for updating mobilisation plans! The usual (past?) practice for updating mobilisation plans is for the Command HQ to write to the Transport Secretaries of the States and GMs of the zonal Railways within their AoR, requesting an estimate of different type of good vehicles and railway rakes/wagons that could be made available in 24, 48 and 72 hours after the call for mobilisation. That/those figures are then factored into the annual update and plans revised. It also places complete responsibility for those States and Railways to make available the resources. 

Why would Army personnel stand and count vehicles at toll gates and across highways all over the North east? And how come the Navy and Air Force did not count vehicles? After all mobilisation would be for all three Defence Forces!

There has been excessive politicisation of the Army in recent times and probably now the Ashoka lion, stars and crossed batons & swords have come to roost!

So, in the matter of selecting the next COAS, what is surprising if this Govt does what the Congress Govt did (by selecting Lt Gen Vaidya for appointment as COAS by superseding Lt Gen S K Sinha)? Nothing different, for a Govt with a difference! Why should there be indignation on the Rawat appointment? Only because it was done by the Govt giving the seniority principle the go by?

Why was there a muted (or little) reaction from ex-Servicemen to a former COAS making his displeasure over the appointment of the incumbent COAS obvious (to his favourite whipping boys/girls, the ‘presstitutes’)?

Why has MoD not provided information requested vide MODEF/R/2015/60647 dated 13.3.2015 on the promotion policy promulgated by MoD vide No. 7 (1)/79/D (Air –III) dated 30.8.1986, as amended?

What was the reaction when Govt’s attention was drawn to a policy that only those who have commanded South Western Air Command (SWAC) or Western Air Command (WAC) or been the Vice Chief of Air Staff (VCAS), for are eligible to be considered fro promotion to CAS? (MoD letter No, Air HQ/S.18172/22/3/Plans/3750/D (Air-III)/62 dated 15.5.1974 and MoD No. 5 (6)/86/US-D (Air-III) dated 9.10.1987 refer).

There was no clamour on the denial of promotion to AOC-in-C to a Flying Branch (Navigator sub-stream) quoting some policy that is heavily weighed in favour of pilots, in particular fighter pilots? (MoD letter No. Air HQ/S.24702/2/(PP(O)/PC-3/471/UD/S (Air –III) dated 18.11.1992 refers).

[Note: RTI request MODEF/R/2015/60588 dated 6.3.2015 transferred by MoD was transferred to Air HQ. There has been no reply till date.]

Or an undeclared policy (covert reservation?) that there can be only two AOsC-in-C from transport/helicopter stream and that the No. 2 in Trg Comd/EAC/SAC/CAC HQ has to be a fighter pilot, if the No. 1 is a transport/helicopter pilot?    

What is the policy for appointments of Army Commander and equivalents other than the two years residual service rule? Why is the policy ‘SECRET’ or ‘CONFIDENTIAL’?

In conclusion, I draw attention to certain paragraphs of the Honourable Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3208 of 2015 in UoI & Others Vs Lt Col P K Choudhary & Others: - 

39. It was contended that the policy decision taken by Government of India was in the larger interest of national security and for making the Army more efficient and that the same did not violate any right of the respondents much less any fundamental right. The plea of legitimate expectation raised on their behalf was in that view futile for there was neither any basis for such a plea in the pleadings nor was the plea tenable in law especially when the policy change was in public interest.

40. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I (I) 151 explains the meaning of “Legitimate Expectation” in the following words:

“81. Legitimate expectations. A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice.

The existence of a legitimate expectation may have a number of different consequences; it may give locus standi to seek leave to apply for judicial review; it may mean that the authority ought not to act so as to defeat the expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so; or it may mean that, if the authority proposes to defeat a person’s legitimate expectation, it must afford him an opportunity to make representations on the matter. The courts also distinguish, for example in licensing cases, between original applications, applications to renew and revocations; a party who has been granted a licence may have a legitimate expectation that it will be renewed unless there is some good reason not to do so, and may therefore be entitled to greater procedural protection than a mere applicant for a grant.”

41. Legitimate expectation as a concept has engaged the attention of this Court in several earlier decisions to which we shall presently refer. But before we do so we need only to say that the concept arises out of what may be described as a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though the person who has such an expectation has no right in law to receive the benefit expected by him. Any such expectation can arise from an “express promise” or a “consistent course of practice or procedure” which the person claiming the benefit may reasonably expect to continue. The question of redress which the person in whom the legitimate expectation arises can seek and the approach to be adopted while resolving a conflict between any such expectation, on the one hand, and a public policy in general public interest on the other, present distinct dimensions every time the plea of legitimate expectation is raised in a case.

47. That apart, legitimate expectation as an argument cannot prevail over a policy introduced by the Government which does not suffer from any perversity, unfairness, or unreasonableness or which does not violate any fundamental or other enforceable rights vested in the respondents. …………… We have in the earlier part of the judgment dealt with the recommendations made by the Committees and the objectives sought to be achieved by the policy decisions of the Government. There is nothing perverse, unreasonable, or unfair about the policy……... In the absence of any perversity, unreasonableness, or unfairness in the policy so introduced, we see no reason to allow the argument based on legitimate expectation to unsettle or undo the policy which is otherwise laudable and intended to render the Indian Army more efficient and better equipped for combat situations…..”

Quad Erat Demonstrandum!

Thursday, 15 December 2016

And disclosing file notings on SAI/SNI/SAFI 1/S/2008, 2/S/2008 and 3/S/2008 will be prejudicial to security of India!



RTI Matter
By Regd Post
No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 18th November 2016
To,
Shri S Y Savur


Subject: Seeking Information Under RTI Act - 2005

          Reference MoD ID No. MODEF/R/2016/52881/D (RTI) dated 20.10.2014 (sic) recd on 24.10.16 by the CPIO forwarding therewith your RTI application dated 19.9.2016 on the above subject. 

2.      The information/notings in the MoD file on pay and allowances of the Armed Forces cannot be provided because the information can be used to create dissatisfaction/unrest in Defence Forces which will prejudicially affect the security of the country. The information can, therefore, not be furnished as provided under Section 8 (1) (a) of RTI Act, 2005.

3.      The Appellate Authority is Shri Preet Pal Singh, Director (AG-I), Ministry of Defence, Room No 102, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.    

Sd/------------
18/11/16
(Prashant Rastogi)
Under Secretary & CPIO


BY REGISTERED POST – ACK DUE
RK362496906IN dated 15/12/2016 at 10:47 am


S. Y. Savur                                                                    141, Jal Vayu Towers,
Cell: +91 9688782227                                                 N G E F Layout,
          +91 8762617278                                                 Indira Nagar (PO)),
Email: sharad10525@gmail.com                                Bengaluru – 560038

FA/RTI/MODEF-52881/2016                                    15th December, 2016


To,

Shri Preet Pal Singh,
Director AG (I) & First Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Defence,
Room No. 102, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 011

First Appeal against order of CPIO and Under Secretary, D (Pay/Services) vide MoD letter No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) dated 18 Nov 2016
Received by Speed Post on 14 Dec 2016

Sir,

I file this First Appeal as I am aggrieved by order of CPIO & Under Secretary, D (Pay/Services) who has not provided information that I requested for vide MODEF/R/2016/52881 i.e a photocopy file notings that were issued in September 2008 i.e 8 years ago in respect of Special Army/Navy/Air Force Instructions 1/S/2008 for PBOR, 2/S/2008 for Officers and 3/S/2008 on placing Lt Cols (and equivalents) in PB-4 and Grade Pay of Rs 8000/-.

2.      The subject matter, other than complete file notings, has been disclosed quite extensively, amongst others, in the following replies to requests for information under the RTI Act, 2005: -

(a)     MoD letter No. 237/RTI/D (P/P) dated 30.11.2015,

(b)     MoD letter No. 21(1)/2015 – D (PCC) dated 8.12.2015 requesting payment of Rs 130/- for 65 pages of information pertaining to MoD’s comments for 7 CPC,

(b)     MoD letter No. 237/RTI/S (P/P) dated 16.5.2016 requesting payment of Rs 84/- towards photocopying charges for 42 pages of information regarding CSC – 2009 and CSC - 2012.

(b)     MoD ID No. PC-237/RTI/D (P/P)/2014 dated 13.06.2016

(b)     File notings etc of MoD File No. 10 (1)/2009/D (Pen/Pol) processing the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) Recommendations of 2009,

(c)     File notings etc of MoD File No. 12 (11)/2012/D (Pen/Pol) processing the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) Recommendations of 2012,

(d)     File notings etc of MoD File No. 21 (1)/2015- D (PCC) on Note 26 dated 08 May 2015 processing comments for the Seventh Central Pay Commission,

(e)     Photocopy of MoD ID No. 22/S/2014 – D (PCC) addressed to Shri D K Rai, Director, Seventh Central Pay Commission of same date.

3.      The above (MoD) disclosed information is already in the public domain at Aerial View blog (URL: sharad10525.blogspot.in). There has been no dissatisfaction or unrest in the Defence Forces with respect to the ibid SAI/SNI/SAFI. The so called dissatisfaction, if any, has been addressed by two Cabinet Secretary Committees (CSCs) whose reports have already been disclosed by MoD.

4.      Therefore, the CPIO & US D-Pay/Services is not being truthful and is resorting to a blatant attempt to conceal information requested for by the indiscriminate use of Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005.

5.       Being aggrieved, it is requested that the First Appellate Authority may order CPIO & US D (Pay/Services) to provide the information.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-

(S Y Savur)

Imagine the MoD does not have the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report that it quotes extensively!



RTI Matter
By Regd Post
No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 18th November 2016
To,
Shri S Y Savur


Subject: Seeking Information Under RTI Act - 2005

          Reference MoD OM of even number vide which your RTI application dated 20.5.2016 was forwarded to RTI Cell of Ministry of External Affairs as the Pranab Mukherjee Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of then Minister of External Affairs. Now RTI Cell of Ministry of External Affairs vide their OM No. RTI/551/1679/2016 dated 14.10.2016 has returned the application stating that no papers/files on the subject is available with them (copy enclosed).

2.      In this connection it is stated that this section is not in possession of the notings and deliberations, discussion in meetings relating to the above said Report as sought vide application dated 20.5.2016. As regards copy of the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report, it is stated that this section is not the custodian of original record as sought by you and, in vies of this, are unable to furnish to you the same. 

3.      The Appellate Authority is Shri Preet Pal Singh, Director (AG-I), Ministry of Defence, Room No 102, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.    

Sd/------------
18/11/16
(Prashant Rastogi)
Under Secretary & CPIO


BY REGISTERED POST – ACK DUE
RK362496906IN dated 15/12/2016 at 10:47 am

S. Y. Savur                                                                    141, Jal Vayu Towers,
Cell: +91 9688782227                                                 N G E F Layout,
          +91 8762617278                                                 Indira Nagar (PO)),
Email: sharad10525@gmail.com                                Bengaluru – 560038

FA/RTI/PMCR/2016                                                  15th December, 2016


To,

Shri Preet Pal Singh,
Director AG (I) & First Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Defence,
Room No. 102, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 011

First Appeal against order of CPIO and Under Secretary, D (Pay/Services) Under RTI Act, 2005 vide MoD letter No. 35 (1)/2015/D (Pay/Services) dated 18 Nov 2016
Received by Speed Post on 13 Dec 2016

Sir,

I file this First Appeal as I am aggrieved by CPIO & Under Secretary, D (Pay/Services) who has not provided information vide abovementioned letter that I requested for i.e a photocopy of the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report on Pay & Allowances of serving Armed Forces personnel and Pension, including One Rank One Pension (OROP) of Ex-Servicemen.   

The Pranab Mukherjee Committee was constituted by the Govt of India/MoD to examine and prepare a Report on the subject matter referred to in Para 1 above, for the consideration of the Govt. References to the above Report are available, amongst other files of MoD in the following files of MoD: -

(a)     MoD File No. 10 (1)/2009/D (Pen/Pol) processing the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) Recommendations of 2009,

(b)     MoD File No. 12 (11)/2012/D (Pen/Pol) processing the Cabinet Secretary Committee (CSC) Recommendations of 2012,

(c)     CSC Report of 30 Jun 2009 and CSC Report of 18 Aug 2012 forwarded vide No. 237/RTI/D (P/P) dated 30 Nov 2015,

(d)     MoD File No. 21 (1)/2015- D (PCC) on Note 26 dated 08 May 2015 processing comments for the Seventh Central Pay Commission,

(e)     MoD ID No. 22/S/2014 – D (PCC) addressed to Shri D K Rai, Director, Seventh Central Pay Commission of same date.

          It has been quoted by MoD, including D – Pay/Services, as recently as August 2015 in comments prepared for the Director, Seventh Central Pay Commission. It is therefore, impossible that such an important Report is not available in the Ministry of Defence.

          I appeal for an order that a copy of the report be made available to me.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(S Y Savur)