Leave Rules amended

Leave Rule 11(a) is reproduced hereunder :

“11(a) : Annual leave is not admissible in any year unless an individual has actually performed duty in that year. ***”


The above Leave Rule stands amended to the effect that the condition of AL not being admissible in any year unless an individual has actually performed duty that year, stands deleted and removed with effect from April 2011.

Juniors getting more pay than seniors : method of resolution

After the 6th CPC, there have been instances wherein many juniors are in receipt of more pay than their seniors.

While the above is impermissible under service jurisprudence since juniors cannot be paid more than seniors, the PCDA(O) has now advised such officers to take up such instances with their office through the MS Branch (and not directly) with full comparative particulars.

A small flash on the subject is available on the official website of PCDA(O) and a circular on the subject (though pertaining to the 4th CPC) can be accessed by clicking here.

The above is only applicable to those who are in service or those who retired after 01-01-2006.

Sad Sign of the Times !

Things have come to a dangerous pass.

Appalling already was the scheme of events in our nation, with veterans and the government in a logjam and protests related to pensionary anomalies reaching the streets.

As most of us know, the Supreme Court had recently recalled its orders related to the constitution of the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission. What follows is this official press release by the Ministry of Defence almost celebrating the recalling of the orders, commemorating the victory of the Ministry of Defence over veterans and stating that the poor widow in the case had ‘incorrectly represented’ facts before the Court, while actually there was no such observation of ‘incorrect representation’ by the Hon’ble Apex Court itself in its orders.

Does an official press release such as this behove a government agency ? Is the recalling of a judicial order official-news material, if that be so, then all departments should regularly issue press releases every single day on the hundreds of cases decided daily involving them, this way or that way.

While on the surface, this press release may seem to be innocuous, but lying beneath is a thought process that is thoroughly and distastefully disgusting – the thought process that defence veterans are adversaries of the MoD. It is an MoD Vs Veterans state of mind. Otherwise, why would there be a celebratory official PIB press release on the recalling of an order that was so dear to the hearts of the defence community ? Can this be expected in any developed democracy ? Can we imagine the Department of Defence of the US or the Ministry of Defence of the UK issuing a press release celebrating the recalling of a Court order favouring veterans ?

This simply shows that the Department of Ex-Servicemen (sic) welfare (sic again) is on an auto-pilot mode with no control of the political executive. A celebration like this shows the sick minds working overtime deriving sadistic pleasure every time a veteran suffers. Though not in favour of the commission from the outset, the Defence Minister would never have allowed a press release like this, even the Secretary Ms Neelam Nath would not allow this – but in all probability they do not know what is happening under their noses since running the roost are lower level officials who continue to be jealous of the Re 1/- discount availed by defence personnel on each Hamam Sabun ki tikki from the CSD. And these are the people who remain faceless but dangerously venomous scuttling each and every move made for the welfare of serving and retired personnel – including ones initiated and approved in principle by the top brass of the Ministry.

Once again, Hail the note maker. Hail the reverse pay commission.

The concept of Area Welfare Officers (AWOs), were you aware of it ?

The central govt has in place a progressive concept called the AWO scheme.

These are officers of the central govt who are tasked with looking after the welfare of central govt employees and their families in designated areas.

More on the concept can be read by perusing this circular issued by the DoPT.

An interesting concept which can prove to be quite beneficial if implemented and executed prudently.

Modalities for grant of monetary allowance related to gallantry awards

Certain queries are time and again raised with respect to gallantry awards, the most common being as to whether the allowance is admissible to heirs on the death of the awardee. Some of the answers to these oft-repeated queries are :-

A. On death of a recipient, the allowance is transferred to the widow.

B. The widow is entitled to receive the allowance till death or re-marriage. The amount however continues to be paid to a widow who remarries the brother of her late husband.

C. In case of a posthumous award to a bachelor, the allowance is payable to father or mother.

D. In case of an awardee being a widower or widow, the amount is to be paid to children below 18 years or unmarried daughters.

E. DA is not admissible on the allowance.

SC recalls order on constitution of Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission

Visitors would recall this blogpost of 13 February 2011 wherein it had been pointed out that the Govt had apprised the Hon’ble SC of steps being taken by it to alleviate the problems of veterans. This was in the ongoing petition in which orders had been passed for constitution of the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission thereby hinting to the Court that the said commission was not required.

In the same very case, the SC has now recalled the directions for constitution of the AFGRC.

The relevant part of the latest order of the SC is reproduced below :


“Learned Solicitor General has also submitted that for looking after the welfare of the ex-servicemen a scheme has been put in place by the Union of India, which has been setout in great detail in the application filed in this Court by the Union of India. Under that scheme nodal officers have been posted all through the country and there are special schemes which have been introduced for the purposes of medical benefits and re-settlement of ex-servicemen. In view of the above, we recall the Order dated 15.11.2010 passed by this Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.”

Revised allowances for Pre-independence awards

The earlier post on this blog on the subject related to Post-independence gallantry awards only.

The allowances for Pre-independence awards have also been revised by the Ministry of Defence as below :

Distinguished Service Order (DSO), Indian Order of Merit (IOM) and Indian Distinguished Service Medal (IDSM) : Rs 4000 per month

Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), Military Cross (MC), Distinguished Flying Cross (Officers) (DFC), Distinguished Service Medal (DSM), Military Medal (MM) and Distinguished Flying Medal (Other Ranks) (DFM) : Rs 2800 per month

Each bar shall carry the same (additional) amount as the original award.

Illegal badges of rank being worn by junior IPS officers of the J&K cadre : Home Ministry takes action

Regular visitors would recall this blogpost of 10 January 2011 wherein it was pointed out as to how officers of the Senior Time Scale (Grade Pay Rs 6600) posted as district police chiefs (SSPs) in the state of J&K were wearing the ‘State Emblem with Two Stars’ with blue gorget patches on their collars which was in contradiction to the IPS Uniform Rules. The military counterparts of such officers (Majors) and also their IPS batchmates in other states are wearing the State Emblem alone. This illegal action was being allowed to flourish by the State Govt ostensibly to ‘boost the morale’ of such young officers and to ‘aid’ their interaction with senior Army officers and those of the CAPFs.

I had taken up the issue at the highest levels of the Home Ministry and have now been apprised that the MHA has already invited the attention of the J&K Govt on the subject and has directed the Chief Secretary of J&K to take action in this regard and ensure that the rules are followed in letter and spirit. It may be recalled that the MHA had earlier confirmed that no such permission had been granted to officers of J&K to wear higher badges of rank than the ones actually admissible under the rules.

The MHA surely deserves kudos for taking a swift and immediate corrective action on the subject when pointed out the above incongruity.