From: brigadier ptgangadharan brigadier.ptgangadharan@gmail.com
To: Praveen Davar exservicemen.congress@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, 13 September, 2009 2:10:51 PM
Subject: WELFARE VETERANS &OROP
My Dear Mr Praveen,
1.Thank you for your mail on the welfare issues of Veterans, as approved by the UPA Govt ,on the recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries.
2.It is apparent from your mail, that you and the UPA functionaries are not aware of the concept of OROP.Therefore, the issues addressed are not even remotely touching its fringes.These have been projected unambiguously through various forums,particularly in the recent past, by Veterans.The extension of concessions as announced, has further added insult to the injury.More than anything else,it has hurt the interests of other ranks and junior officers.This award is yet another dexterous acts of self serving bureaucracy in manipulating their interest, both of status and emoluments,at the cost of the self sacrificing soldiers.
3.Downgrading the status of Defence Service personnel and reducing their emoluments vis-a-vis their civilian counterparts ,has been resorted to, for the past 60 years,and mostly under the Congress Govt.The final nail was hammered by the 6CPC,appointed by the UPA Govt.The only willing horse,holding the country together, despite all insults and injustices is being flogged beyond a limit.
A noble profession has no takers now, in the officer cadre.The effect of such neglect on the sovereignty of the Nation is not visualised by the Govt(Politicians),which depend totally on the bureaucracy for resolution of all issues.As perceived by the common citizens, most of the issues in any case are the result of the nexus between some of the unscrupulous politicians and the bureaucracy.
4.You may like to educate yourself and your colleagues on the actual problems and issues of Veterans, by understanding soldiers and their psyche.The present announcement by the UPA Govt has belied all hopes of a fair deal to the Veterans,by the current dispensation.
Yours most sincerely,
Brig PT Gangadharan,
Veteran( War wounded Disabled on Wheel Chair)
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Mail from Cdr R Pathak from pune to Praveen Davar
Dear Mr Praveen Davar
I am very grateful to you for the mail sent to various ESM organizations.It has given us a tremendous opportunity to educate our ESM(Veterans) on the manipulative skills of the INC and the UPA and how the Defence forces are still able to survive despite the very candid view of the First PM of India and a hallowed figure of the INC Mr Jawaharlal Nehru that INDIA DOES NOT NEED ARMED FORCES and ofcourse the valiant effort of INC's most damaging RM Mr Krishna Menon's attempt to convert Defence units into commercial production houses.
Dear Sir,we are thankful to Pakistan and the Chinese that hey have ensured survival of the Armed Forces in India by their actions.
I do not know if you have ever served in the Armed forces since you have not used any rank.But if you had then you should hang your head in shame for being a part of an organization that is bent upon making sure that the Defence forces are down and out in the Indian social milieu.
If you are not a veteran i can only say that this is the only thing we expect out of you mislead and spread wrong information and tell half truths.I am sorry but the INC has wronged the nation for too long with their sustained effort at fooling the gullible poor indian.
Please issue an immediate clarification to your mail clearly stating that OROP is not approved by the UPA and what has been granted as mere concessions and taken credit for is a discreet acceptance of the stand taken by the courts on certain issues.
I hope yoou have the courage to admit falsifying of information.
Brgds
Cdr R W Pathak I.N.(Retd)
Cdr Ravindra Waman Pathak I.N.(Retd)(Mobile 919822329340
I am very grateful to you for the mail sent to various ESM organizations.It has given us a tremendous opportunity to educate our ESM(Veterans) on the manipulative skills of the INC and the UPA and how the Defence forces are still able to survive despite the very candid view of the First PM of India and a hallowed figure of the INC Mr Jawaharlal Nehru that INDIA DOES NOT NEED ARMED FORCES and ofcourse the valiant effort of INC's most damaging RM Mr Krishna Menon's attempt to convert Defence units into commercial production houses.
Dear Sir,we are thankful to Pakistan and the Chinese that hey have ensured survival of the Armed Forces in India by their actions.
I do not know if you have ever served in the Armed forces since you have not used any rank.But if you had then you should hang your head in shame for being a part of an organization that is bent upon making sure that the Defence forces are down and out in the Indian social milieu.
If you are not a veteran i can only say that this is the only thing we expect out of you mislead and spread wrong information and tell half truths.I am sorry but the INC has wronged the nation for too long with their sustained effort at fooling the gullible poor indian.
Please issue an immediate clarification to your mail clearly stating that OROP is not approved by the UPA and what has been granted as mere concessions and taken credit for is a discreet acceptance of the stand taken by the courts on certain issues.
I hope yoou have the courage to admit falsifying of information.
Brgds
Cdr R W Pathak I.N.(Retd)
Cdr Ravindra Waman Pathak I.N.(Retd)(Mobile 919822329340
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Mail from Orissa...Veteran harish Panda
From: Harish Panda
Subject: thanks you sir
To: jagi_medi@hotmail.com, hrwntsingh@yahoo.co.in
Date: Thursday, 10 September, 2009, 6:25 PM
sir,
I am harish ch.panda ,ex-sm (ex-sigman) from a remotest & rural district Balangir ,ORISSA. We have make a district level association of ex-sm (member registered 185) .
sir, I came to know your mail address from internet & request to send us all recent information /changing in our Defence pensioner caders.
I expect to listen something from you.
--
harish panda.
Subject: thanks you sir
To: jagi_medi@hotmail.com, hrwntsingh@yahoo.co.in
Date: Thursday, 10 September, 2009, 6:25 PM
sir,
I am harish ch.panda ,ex-sm (ex-sigman) from a remotest & rural district Balangir ,ORISSA. We have make a district level association of ex-sm (member registered 185) .
sir, I came to know your mail address from internet & request to send us all recent information /changing in our Defence pensioner caders.
I expect to listen something from you.
--
harish panda.
Friday, September 11, 2009
IESM Members From Doon Valley and also sending Medals for 13 Sep 09
Brij Thapa
to"Brig RS Rawat, VSM"
dateThu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM
subjectIESM Members From Doon Valley and also sending Medals for 13 Sep 09
Dear Brig Rajender,
Cordial Regards.
I had met you in many occasions like during DESL silver Jubilee when honoured the gallantry awardees including Col Rawat (Father) by the Governor and recently I also handed over Telephone Directory 2009 for Defence Personnel to you in UESL/DESL office. Hope you will be to recollect now.
I am indeed proud of you for sending your contribution, donation & medals to IESM which we did long back but sad to say that our State Uttarakhand having full of Faujees with many high ranking officers hardly few have come forward for IESM. We had always full support of Admiral Arun Prakash, Lt Gen M S Gosain, Lt gen G S Negi,Maj Gen Sabharwal, Lt Gen K K Khanna, Maj Gen Chander Nandwani, Brig K G Behl, Col Ganga Singh ,Col T S Payal and many others when IESM displayed excellent dedicated activities against anomalies of 6 CPC in the country during last year hunger strike, subsequently during rally fast at Jantra Mantra also during this year due to which Govt was shaken up to issue so many amendmends on 6CPC letter of 11.11.08. Now also war of IESM is on for OROP or ranked based pension with many more other fruitful activities for welfare of veterans and their families.
Kindly help us in motivating other Uttarakhandees to come forward and volunteer for IESM as this is the only organisation today which is capable of fighting with concern authorities to achieve the desired Mission and to seek justice for the defence services including veterans. Due to exigencies of service I am here in Singapore, I extend my apologies sir.
Brij
to"Brig RS Rawat, VSM"
dateThu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM
subjectIESM Members From Doon Valley and also sending Medals for 13 Sep 09
Dear Brig Rajender,
Cordial Regards.
I had met you in many occasions like during DESL silver Jubilee when honoured the gallantry awardees including Col Rawat (Father) by the Governor and recently I also handed over Telephone Directory 2009 for Defence Personnel to you in UESL/DESL office. Hope you will be to recollect now.
I am indeed proud of you for sending your contribution, donation & medals to IESM which we did long back but sad to say that our State Uttarakhand having full of Faujees with many high ranking officers hardly few have come forward for IESM. We had always full support of Admiral Arun Prakash, Lt Gen M S Gosain, Lt gen G S Negi,Maj Gen Sabharwal, Lt Gen K K Khanna, Maj Gen Chander Nandwani, Brig K G Behl, Col Ganga Singh ,Col T S Payal and many others when IESM displayed excellent dedicated activities against anomalies of 6 CPC in the country during last year hunger strike, subsequently during rally fast at Jantra Mantra also during this year due to which Govt was shaken up to issue so many amendmends on 6CPC letter of 11.11.08. Now also war of IESM is on for OROP or ranked based pension with many more other fruitful activities for welfare of veterans and their families.
Kindly help us in motivating other Uttarakhandees to come forward and volunteer for IESM as this is the only organisation today which is capable of fighting with concern authorities to achieve the desired Mission and to seek justice for the defence services including veterans. Due to exigencies of service I am here in Singapore, I extend my apologies sir.
Brij
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A NEW THOUGHT AND LOGIC ON OROP
From: ramantn sarma colram40@yahoo.com
To: DELETED
Sent: Tuesday, 8 September, 2009 4:45:05 AM
A NEW THOUGHT AND LOGIC ON OROP -
Dear Veterans,
A new thought on OROP, projected by Maj Gen VK Singh is worthy of consideration, by the Armed Forces & the Govt, for the new crop of retirees, post 2006. Our Movement started with the sole aim of protecting the interest of more than 2.5 Million Veterans, who are pre 2006 retirees, who cannot be offered any lateral absorption or promised employment up to the age of 60 years. For them OROP is the best bet, since they have already retired. That also as per the existing definition of equal rank, equal length of service & equal pension.
Pre 1970 Military Personnel were pensioned off based on their Substantive Ranks. There was no worth while compensation for their truncated service. This meagre payment of gratuity was also based on the length of Service physically rendered by them without taking into account the truncated portion of their balance of service. Because the 60 years of age concept for retirement was not there. Further, their pension was rank based & not the length of service, which the author claims the real OROP.
The length of service clause was specifically introduced to ensure a degree of compensation to the loyal military personnel, by the third CPC.From 1970 onwards, the pension for the Armed Forces Personnel have been fixed based on the criteria of Rank cum Length of Service. Three generations have gone through this system & have benefited. To suggest that we should roll back to the 1970 era & discard the Length of Service criteria is like shooting at our own foot.
Notional fixation ordered by the Court in the case of Maj Gens, is a new concept. But no where, any Court has over ruled the concept of OROP. The Court pointed out of creating Class within Class of pensioners when for a group of retirees their pensions were fixed based on the average emoluments of ten months & for others it was worked out on the basis of 36 months. The court had also come down heavily on the petitioners, when they mis- interpreted the earlier ruling given to mean the grant of OROP.
The idea given by the author, as pointed out by me, in the beginning itself, may be explored for those who are in service today & likely to retire 10 years hence.
Veteran Raman
---------
To: DELETED
Sent: Tuesday, 8 September, 2009 4:45:05 AM
A NEW THOUGHT AND LOGIC ON OROP -
Dear Veterans,
A new thought on OROP, projected by Maj Gen VK Singh is worthy of consideration, by the Armed Forces & the Govt, for the new crop of retirees, post 2006. Our Movement started with the sole aim of protecting the interest of more than 2.5 Million Veterans, who are pre 2006 retirees, who cannot be offered any lateral absorption or promised employment up to the age of 60 years. For them OROP is the best bet, since they have already retired. That also as per the existing definition of equal rank, equal length of service & equal pension.
Pre 1970 Military Personnel were pensioned off based on their Substantive Ranks. There was no worth while compensation for their truncated service. This meagre payment of gratuity was also based on the length of Service physically rendered by them without taking into account the truncated portion of their balance of service. Because the 60 years of age concept for retirement was not there. Further, their pension was rank based & not the length of service, which the author claims the real OROP.
The length of service clause was specifically introduced to ensure a degree of compensation to the loyal military personnel, by the third CPC.From 1970 onwards, the pension for the Armed Forces Personnel have been fixed based on the criteria of Rank cum Length of Service. Three generations have gone through this system & have benefited. To suggest that we should roll back to the 1970 era & discard the Length of Service criteria is like shooting at our own foot.
Notional fixation ordered by the Court in the case of Maj Gens, is a new concept. But no where, any Court has over ruled the concept of OROP. The Court pointed out of creating Class within Class of pensioners when for a group of retirees their pensions were fixed based on the average emoluments of ten months & for others it was worked out on the basis of 36 months. The court had also come down heavily on the petitioners, when they mis- interpreted the earlier ruling given to mean the grant of OROP.
The idea given by the author, as pointed out by me, in the beginning itself, may be explored for those who are in service today & likely to retire 10 years hence.
Veteran Raman
---------
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
OROP: Legal angle lightened up by Lt Col MG Kapoor
OROP: Legal angle lightened up
Date: Sunday, 6 September, 2009, 2:03 PM
My Dear VK,
I have gone through your write up on 'OROP'. It made an interesting reading. But permit me to say that your conclusions from the Apex Court judgments are not correct.
Firstly, the question before the Constitunal Bench of the Apex Court in Nakra's case was not that of 'OROP'.The question was whether it was proper to lay down a cut-off date and say that the liberalised pension formula for a retired Goverment employee would be applicable only to those who retired after the cut-off date and and not to those retired prior to the cut off date. The Apex Court replied in the negative. Earlier, the pension was worked out on the bases of the average pay drawn by a Govt empolyee in the last 36 months of service. The liberalised formula reduced the period from last 36 months to last 10 months of service but laid down that this would be applicable only to those retired after the cut-off date. The Apex Court directed the Govt to make it applicable to all Govt employees irrespective of their date of retirement. The famous quote from the said judgment was "Govt cannot pick up a date from the hat to say those retiring after the date would get the benefit and those retiring before it won't".
The last statement from the Apex Court judgment was misunderstood by many, including IESL (Indian Ex-Servicemen League) and they thought the judgement propagated 'OROP'. It did not. IESL on such misconception moved the Apex Court and instead of building up its case with regard to 'OROP' on its own merit, sought directions to the Government for 'OROP' on the basis of Nakra's judgment.
Another Constitutional Bench of five judges deciding IESL case (judgment by JS Verma CJI) then threadbare analysed Nakra's judgment and concluded that Nakra's judgment did not lay down such proposition and dismissed IESL writ petition.
In the latest case of Major Generals decided by two judges (Vains case) the question before the Apex Court was whether it was rational that pension of a Major General retiring before 1.1.1996 (i.e. even on 31.12.1995) is lower than that of a Brigadier retiring on or after 1.1.1996. Taking cue from and Nakra's judgment "Govt cannot pick up a date from the hat to say those retiring after the date would get the benefit and those retiring before it won't" and relyning upon the said judgment, the two-judges Bench decided it was not rational that the pension of a Major General retiring before 1.1.1996 (i.e. even on 31.12.1995) is lower than that of a Brigadier retiring on or after 1.1.1996. The Court (two judges) then directed the Govt to fix the pensions of all Major Generals who retired before 1.1.1996 at par with the pension of similar officers who retired on or after 1.1.1996.
This too does not lay down OROP proposition. In any case, IESL case decided by five-judges Constitutional Bench was not referred to the two-judges Bench in Vains case (Major General's case). Two-judges Bench naturally cannot decide against what a five-judges Constitutional Bench has held.
In this context your quoting a part only of the judgment and analysing the complete law on the subject is not correct. You thus have quoted the following out of context:
"This also contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of 17 December 1982 that stated: “by introducing an arbitrary eligibility, being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date, or being eligible for the regularised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, these classifications being not based on any discernible rational principle ... are unconstitutional and are struck down."
In my view the whole subject calls for a 'Review' by the Apex Court by a seven-judges Constitutional Bench.
With best wishes,
MG
(Lt Col MG Kapoor, Practising Law in Delhi High
Date: Sunday, 6 September, 2009, 2:03 PM
My Dear VK,
I have gone through your write up on 'OROP'. It made an interesting reading. But permit me to say that your conclusions from the Apex Court judgments are not correct.
Firstly, the question before the Constitunal Bench of the Apex Court in Nakra's case was not that of 'OROP'.The question was whether it was proper to lay down a cut-off date and say that the liberalised pension formula for a retired Goverment employee would be applicable only to those who retired after the cut-off date and and not to those retired prior to the cut off date. The Apex Court replied in the negative. Earlier, the pension was worked out on the bases of the average pay drawn by a Govt empolyee in the last 36 months of service. The liberalised formula reduced the period from last 36 months to last 10 months of service but laid down that this would be applicable only to those retired after the cut-off date. The Apex Court directed the Govt to make it applicable to all Govt employees irrespective of their date of retirement. The famous quote from the said judgment was "Govt cannot pick up a date from the hat to say those retiring after the date would get the benefit and those retiring before it won't".
The last statement from the Apex Court judgment was misunderstood by many, including IESL (Indian Ex-Servicemen League) and they thought the judgement propagated 'OROP'. It did not. IESL on such misconception moved the Apex Court and instead of building up its case with regard to 'OROP' on its own merit, sought directions to the Government for 'OROP' on the basis of Nakra's judgment.
Another Constitutional Bench of five judges deciding IESL case (judgment by JS Verma CJI) then threadbare analysed Nakra's judgment and concluded that Nakra's judgment did not lay down such proposition and dismissed IESL writ petition.
In the latest case of Major Generals decided by two judges (Vains case) the question before the Apex Court was whether it was rational that pension of a Major General retiring before 1.1.1996 (i.e. even on 31.12.1995) is lower than that of a Brigadier retiring on or after 1.1.1996. Taking cue from and Nakra's judgment "Govt cannot pick up a date from the hat to say those retiring after the date would get the benefit and those retiring before it won't" and relyning upon the said judgment, the two-judges Bench decided it was not rational that the pension of a Major General retiring before 1.1.1996 (i.e. even on 31.12.1995) is lower than that of a Brigadier retiring on or after 1.1.1996. The Court (two judges) then directed the Govt to fix the pensions of all Major Generals who retired before 1.1.1996 at par with the pension of similar officers who retired on or after 1.1.1996.
This too does not lay down OROP proposition. In any case, IESL case decided by five-judges Constitutional Bench was not referred to the two-judges Bench in Vains case (Major General's case). Two-judges Bench naturally cannot decide against what a five-judges Constitutional Bench has held.
In this context your quoting a part only of the judgment and analysing the complete law on the subject is not correct. You thus have quoted the following out of context:
"This also contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of 17 December 1982 that stated: “by introducing an arbitrary eligibility, being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date, or being eligible for the regularised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, these classifications being not based on any discernible rational principle ... are unconstitutional and are struck down."
In my view the whole subject calls for a 'Review' by the Apex Court by a seven-judges Constitutional Bench.
With best wishes,
MG
(Lt Col MG Kapoor, Practising Law in Delhi High
National Commission for Ex Servicemen by Veteran Karan Kharb
From: Karan Kharb
To: DELETED
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: National Commission for Ex Servicemen
The purpose and desirability of a National Ex-servicemen Commission is not to have an extended arm of the government to rehabilitate and placate some pleasing judges and pliable bureaucrats. The need is to serve the genuine interests of over two million veterans of the Armed Forces of the country.
Therefore there is no question of accepting in its composition anyone who has not served and experienced the unique conditions of service and hazards. We have precedence where Commissions are constituted wholly of the people of eminence from the very community or group they are supposed to serve.
Here are the live examples how other similar Commissions are composed:
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
It is headed by a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. National Commission is presently headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as President and having eight Members, viz. Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Mr. B.K. Taimni, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. S. Gupta, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Kapoor, Dr. P. D. Shenoy, Mr. Anupam Dasgupta, Mr. S. K. Naik & Hon'ble Justice R.C. Jain.
2. National Commission for Scheduled Castes:
Chairman - Shri Buta Singh
Vice Chairman - Prof NM kamble
Members (4 - all from affected Castes/Class; no judge, no bureaucrat)
3. National Commission for Women:
Chairperson - Dr Girija Vyas
Members (3 - all women)
Member Secretary
(All Women; no judge, no bureaucrat.)
4. National Commission for Backward Castes:
Chairperson: Justice (Retd.) S. Ratnavel Pandian
Member-Secretary: Shri Lakshmi Chand
Member Dr. Subba Somu
Member Shri Ram Awadhesh Singh
Member Shri. Abdul Ali Azizi
(All from affected Castes; no judge, no bureaucrat.)
5. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes:
Chairperson: Smt. Urmila Singh
Vice Chairperson; Shri Maurice Kujur
Member; Shri Tsering Samphel
Member: Shri Oris Syiem Myriaw
Member (Vacant)
(All from affected tribes; no judge, no bureaucrat)
The following composition is but one suggestion that comes to mind after surveying other Commissions:-
(a) Chairman - One of the retired Chiefs of Staff (Army, Navy, or Air Force).
(b) President/Chairman of an ESM Organisation registered and representing the ESM community at National level, eg: IESL or any other Org with widest acceptance/representative nature.
(c) A highly decorated, war veteran Sub Maj from Infantry, Armd Corps, Arty or Engrs.
(d) A senior representative each from veterans of Navy and IAF.
(e) A war widow (preferably wife of the highest decorated martyr).
(f) AG or DGR (as Member Secretary).
Total: 7
Member Secretary's role can also be assigned to the serial (b) if AG/DGR not available/acceptable.
Arbitrary composition imposed by the Government not giving total representation to the ESM community must be rejected by one and all because such body will turn out to be yet another white elephant rehabilitating some babus and judges at the cost of ESM like the department of 'Welfare' that exists for itself and not for the soldiers/ESM.
Regards,
Karan
----------
To: DELETED
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: National Commission for Ex Servicemen
The purpose and desirability of a National Ex-servicemen Commission is not to have an extended arm of the government to rehabilitate and placate some pleasing judges and pliable bureaucrats. The need is to serve the genuine interests of over two million veterans of the Armed Forces of the country.
Therefore there is no question of accepting in its composition anyone who has not served and experienced the unique conditions of service and hazards. We have precedence where Commissions are constituted wholly of the people of eminence from the very community or group they are supposed to serve.
Here are the live examples how other similar Commissions are composed:
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
It is headed by a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. National Commission is presently headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as President and having eight Members, viz. Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Mr. B.K. Taimni, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. S. Gupta, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Kapoor, Dr. P. D. Shenoy, Mr. Anupam Dasgupta, Mr. S. K. Naik & Hon'ble Justice R.C. Jain.
2. National Commission for Scheduled Castes:
Chairman - Shri Buta Singh
Vice Chairman - Prof NM kamble
Members (4 - all from affected Castes/Class; no judge, no bureaucrat)
3. National Commission for Women:
Chairperson - Dr Girija Vyas
Members (3 - all women)
Member Secretary
(All Women; no judge, no bureaucrat.)
4. National Commission for Backward Castes:
Chairperson: Justice (Retd.) S. Ratnavel Pandian
Member-Secretary: Shri Lakshmi Chand
Member Dr. Subba Somu
Member Shri Ram Awadhesh Singh
Member Shri. Abdul Ali Azizi
(All from affected Castes; no judge, no bureaucrat.)
5. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes:
Chairperson: Smt. Urmila Singh
Vice Chairperson; Shri Maurice Kujur
Member; Shri Tsering Samphel
Member: Shri Oris Syiem Myriaw
Member (Vacant)
(All from affected tribes; no judge, no bureaucrat)
The following composition is but one suggestion that comes to mind after surveying other Commissions:-
(a) Chairman - One of the retired Chiefs of Staff (Army, Navy, or Air Force).
(b) President/Chairman of an ESM Organisation registered and representing the ESM community at National level, eg: IESL or any other Org with widest acceptance/representative nature.
(c) A highly decorated, war veteran Sub Maj from Infantry, Armd Corps, Arty or Engrs.
(d) A senior representative each from veterans of Navy and IAF.
(e) A war widow (preferably wife of the highest decorated martyr).
(f) AG or DGR (as Member Secretary).
Total: 7
Member Secretary's role can also be assigned to the serial (b) if AG/DGR not available/acceptable.
Arbitrary composition imposed by the Government not giving total representation to the ESM community must be rejected by one and all because such body will turn out to be yet another white elephant rehabilitating some babus and judges at the cost of ESM like the department of 'Welfare' that exists for itself and not for the soldiers/ESM.
Regards,
Karan
----------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)