Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.

Language:

Download

Go BackAdd Note

Link

Embed

Save for later

Ref: ESM/GC-M/09/39 Dated: 17 Dec 09

To:1.Sh A K Antony, Defence Minister, Ministry of Defence, South Block, NewDelhi-110 011

Dr M Veerappa Moily, Law Minister, Ministry of Law and Justice, 4

Foor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi- 110 0013.Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi- 110 011

Secretary, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Dept, Ministry of Defence, South Block,New Delhi – 110 011

Secretary to Govt of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, 4

Floor, A-Wing,Shastri Bhawan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – 110 0016.Secretary to Govt of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, A-Wing,Shastri Bhawan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – 110 0017.Solicitor General, Solicitor General’s Office, Supreme Court of India, NewDelhi- 110 0018.Chief of the Army Staff, COAS Secretariat, South Block, New Delhi- 110 011

( Note: I would humbly request all addressees to please go through thispersonally and not merely pass it on to subordinate staff)UNETHICAL, IRRESPONSIBLE AND EGO-BASED LITIGATION & APPEALSINITIATED BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, ESPECIALLY AGAINSTDISABLED SOLDIERS GRANTED DISABILITY PENSION BY HON’BLE COURTS

Sir / Ma’am,1. The statement of Sh Veerapa Moily, seeking to make our government aresponsible and reluctant litigant was much welcomed by the society at large. Whilethe intentions of the government are highly appreciated, it is most definitely requiredto rein in the attitude of officialdom which views all litigants as

Enemies of the State

.Whomsoever is aggrieved by an action of the government is reluctantly forced toknock the doors of our Hon’ble Courts of Law but even in case of favourable verdictswhich are logical, equitable and based on earlier precedents, some of our ministriesand departments make it a point to file frivolous, misleading and unethical appealsnot only leading to a burden on the judiciary but also forcing a waste on theexchequer and putting burden on the earnings of poor litigants.2. A case in point is the vastly favourable verdicts of our Courts in matters involvinggrant of

disability pension

to our disabled soldiers. The Ministry of Defence, morespecifically, the Department of Pensions of the said Ministry and the PersonnelServices Directorate of the Army Headquarters, are making it a point to file appealsagainst almost all decisions of Hon’ble Courts rendered in favour of disabled soldiers.It is not understood as to what harm have these poor disabled soldiers caused to our government that time and again the said Ministry is filing appeals against grant of disability pension. More than the logic behind the decisions, it is the ego of the mightygovernment machinery which swings into action once a verdict is pronounced infavour of a disabled soldier. Specific examples are enclosed which show that theMinistry of Defence had been filing appeals by brushing under the carpet the legalopinion of the office of Solicitor General and verdicts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.The said Ministry continues to file Appeals against the decisions of Single Benchesbefore Division Benches and of Division Benches before the Hon’ble Supreme Courteven when the law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A noting sheetobtained under the RTI Act on one such issue showing that the Ministry of Defence

ignored legal opinion of the office of the Solicitor General is attached with this letter toyou. In fact, in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, most of the Letter PatentsAppeals (LPAs) filed by the Union Government before Division Benches are appealsagainst favourable verdicts granting disability pension to disabled soldiers. Lower staff at the Pension wing of the Defence Ministry is also known to prepare misleadingand deceptive noting sheets which are put up to senior officers and even the RakshaMantri, who in good faith affix their initials leaving the gallery open to such officerswho then flaunt that the said approvals by stating that the same have the sanction of the Defence Minister. It is also learnt that the officers in the Defence Ministry haveasked Govt lawyers in writing to change their legal opinion when such lawyers hadadvised against filing of appeals.3. Firstly, the military authorities and the Ministry of Defence are not sensitive enoughto the needs of disabled personnel and make it a point to mostly refuse disabilitypension claims on the grounds that such disabilities are

‘neither attributable to, nor aggravated by military service’

, not realising the ground realities of the physicaland mental stress and strain of service that our soldiers undergo in both peace andfield areas. The rules in this regard are interpreted in a narrow and negative manner rather than a liberal and compensatory approach for which these are meant.Moreover it is not appreciated by the said Ministry that while civilian employees havethe benefit of the protection of Section 47 of the

People with Disabilities Act 1995

which provides that disabled civil personnel cannot be released from service in caseof disabilities and shall be retained and paid full remuneration till the age of retirement (60 Years), the said luxury is not available to our soldiers. Our soldiers aredischarged and released on medical grounds even because of minor ailments andthat too mostly without pension or even disability pension. So while on the civil side,a disabled employee remains entitled to full pay till the age of 60 years, defencepersonnel are not guaranteed pension or even disability pension even when releasedfrom service due to very minor medical problems. It is also not realised that as ondate after the 6

Pay Commission, the minimum guaranteed disability element of pension admissible to a Sepoy who is 20% disabled is a measly amount just over Rs600/-.4. Another sad precedent is the tendency of some of our Departments to create falseand artificial links between decisions of our Courts and pending cases before theHon’ble Supreme Court and by requesting Hon’ble High Courts and other fora toawait decision of the Supreme Court in ‘similar cases’. It is just like saying that justbecause one remote case involving the issue of say ‘

promotion

’ is pending before theHon’ble Supreme Court and is under an

interim stay

, all courts below should stophearing cases involving the subject of

promotion

of employees and should adjournsuch cases

sine die

.5. Unnecessary litigation against our disabled soldiers not only causes extremefinancial and psychological distress to them but is also against the overall spirit of thepolicy in this regard of the government and the stated position of the Law Ministry.6. I hope that all the esteemed addressees of this letter would be able to instil somesensitivity into the minds of the officers dealing with such issues to go slow on anti-disabled activities and to ensure that the dues of the soldiers are taken care of in thefirst instance.Yours Sincerely,Sd/-(Lt Col SS Sohi, Retd). President,Ex-Servicemen Grievances Cell (Regd).House No 1121, Sector 71,Mohali, Punjab – 160 071