Impediment: Nepal PM Prachanda (right) with Ram Chandra Paudel, who took oath as President earlier this week. The court order regarding long-pending cases of war crimes will haunt Prachanda. Reuters

Maj Gen Ashok K Mehta (retd)

Military Commentator

Fortune favours the brave, they say. Civil war-era (1996-2006) leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda displayed high-calibre leadership in orchestrating the insurgency campaign successfully against the state till his commanders fumbled and after India came to assist the Royal Nepal Army in resisting the Maoist challenge.

Shifting from bullet to ballot showed Prachanda’s politico-military acumen that enabled him to win the first post-conflict election. His party captured votes that outnumbered the combined tally of the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) or CPN-UML.

Inexperienced in hardcore politics, Prachanda’s first term as Prime Minister in 2008 was short-lived as he attempted to subvert institutions of the state. For the next decade, Maoists remained in the wilderness as the No. 3 party after the NC and the UML. Prachanda tried every trick to eclipse his Left rival, former PM KP Oli’s UML, but failed as the Maoist decline was in free fall.

Prachanda got his second term as Prime Minister in a power-sharing arrangement with NC’s Sher Bahadur Deuba in 2016. His presumptive third term remained a mirage as Oli refused to honour a power-sharing pact which led to the collapse of the grand Left alliance and a court intervention that ordered that Deuba be appointed Prime Minister. This restored the Democratic Alliance with Prachanda, repeating the trapeze act in realigning with Deuba.

Last November’s elections saw Maoists retain their kingmaker role, but with their lowest tally ever of 32 seats. But Prachanda claimed that he had the winners of 60 seats on his side. When Deuba dithered over the top job, Prachanda immediately jumped ship to join accidental-friend-eternal-foe Oli to become Prime Minister till the inevitable collapse of the government due to differences over the presidential candidate. Prachanda backed NC candidate Ram Chandra Paudel over Oli’s nominee Subas Nembang; the latter was defeated last week. Prachanda has held on to the Prime Minister’s chair, supported by the Deuba alliance. For Prachanda, politics is war by other means.

The developments underline the determination and desperation of Prachanda and the Maoists to stay relevant and claw back to the position of political vantage. India’s twin-pillar policy of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy changed to mainstreaming the Maoists and democratisation of Nepal.

The modus vivendi emerging now is a more stable and battle-hardened alliance of eight parties: NC, Maoists, Madhav Nepal’s CPN (Unified Socialists that split from the UML), Janata Samajwadi Party, Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, Janamat Party and Rashtriya Janamorcha. The Rashtriya Swatantra Party, which voted for Paudel, will likely join the Deuba alliance once the passport/citizenship cases of its leader, former Home Minister Rabi Lamichhane, are resolved and he is re-elected. Oli is left with Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), which stands for restoration of monarchy. It is not clear how the aspirations of Deuba (to become PM for the sixth time) and his ambitious wife Arzu Rana are to be met.

Sources indicate that Prachanda, Madhav Nepal and Deuba are to take turns as Prime Minister. Nepal has witnessed two Prime Ministers in a government, but never three. But as a seasoned Nepali journalist told me: “This is Nepal, anything can happen.”

What will haunt Prachanda is the recent Supreme Court show-cause notice regarding long-pending cases of war crimes against the Maoists. He will have to reactivate the Commission of Truth & Reconciliation and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons to meet the demands of transitional justice. Last month, while Maoists celebrated the 23rd anniversary of People’s War (many are repudiating this appellation), former King Gyanendra Shah issued a long and jumbled declaration on Democracy Day, urging the government to work with the monarchy and restore ‘Hindu Rashtra’. This year’s call is notably strident as it was made in sync with the rise of the RPP. India’s role in helping the King reclaim his aura and image will be discreet as it is beneficial for the BJP’s and RSS’s vision of a Hindu India.

The Vice-President’s election, for which all but one of four candidates are Madhesis, will be held soon, after which the Election Commission’s embargo on cabinet expansion will be lifted. Prachanda is likely to do it after obtaining the vote of confidence in Parliament. He will then reside in Baluwatar, confidently starting a new innings.

The geopolitical contest between the US and China for space in Nepal is prominently visible. US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland met Prachanda in January and praised him. Other US officials who paid visits after she hit the headlines in the Kathmandu media. Prachanda has been invited to speak virtually at the US Democracy Summit in March-end. China’s new Ambassador Chen Song celebrated the new Left alliance of Oli and Prachanda, meeting both leaders several times till the alliance crumbled, which was a big setback for China.

Indian Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra, who was Ambassador to Nepal till last year, was also in Kathmandu and met various leaders. For a change, Nepalese commentators are saying that unlike the US and China, India did not interfere in the elections; the charge of interference is traditionally levelled against it.

Prachanda has emerged as the winner because he had a clear aim: to be the Prime Minister. The lesson was learnt after the failed battle of Khara (2005), which was the turning point of the civil war and his darkest hour. He has risen from the ashes to become a charismatic leader of Nepal, admired by its youth. Prachanda could be destined to lead for full five years in the interests of Nepal’s stability.

The Term OROP is not well known in public space but is a huge matter of expectations and dream among Armed Forces Pensioners. Since, a bench of Honourable Supreme Court of India, headed by the lordship of a CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud, dealt with the subject matter in detail, it is considered that, it will be appropriate to bring these facts to the kind notice and necessary action at his kind end, as prayed by the Senior Citizen veteran.

An open letter regarding justification of implication of OROP at the present secenerio written by Mr Prabhakaran, an ex-serviceman /defence pensioner is reproduced here . The veteran has sound knowledge on OROP and it is an eye opener with the ground reality of OROP. In his petition, the veteran has critically analyse the OROP Scheme when the tax payers hard earned money is wasted on a manipulated scheme – the so called OROP.

According to the physical evidence, there is no evidence of One Rank One Pension (OROP) prior to 1973.

(i) There is a claim that the One Rank One Pension (OROP) was in vogue to defence personnel, prior to 1973 and the same is not supported by any evidence.

(ii) But, as per available data prior to 1973, the rate of pension of Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) who together constitute 92-95% of the total defence pensioners, was 70%, which was reduced to 50% on the recommendations of the third central pay commission. There was also a caveat to it that this rate of pension will apply only if one completes a full service of 33 years.

(iii) The effect of this 20% reduction coupled with the above caveat was so harsh on the NCO community, that, a 33 years old, young soldier who got retired after 15 years of service, received only about 30% of his pay, as pro rata pension. It was a fatal fall from 70% to 30% actual.

(iv) So there was a felt need to take care of this sudden reduction in the pension of NCOs and JCOs in order to keep the moral of these cutting edge soldiers/pensioners high. There arose the demand for, so called OROP.

(v) On the other hand, the pension of the commissioned officers who constitute 5-8% of the total of defence pensioners, was left untouched, by the third CPC.

4. OROP is an inappropriate term, but a deliberately coined phrase

(i) If the OROP scheme is meant to take care of the sudden and shocking reduction in the pension of NCOs and JCOs, then the term OROP is an inappropriate one.

(ii) The term OROP, indeed encompasses and means to include all the defence pensioners, irrespective of their ranks including the Commissioned Officers, who normally retire at 56 – 58 years of age with a spcial provision to continue in service, if they so choose, in the same rank and salary until their actual superannuation. Obviously, the commissioned Officers are not the intended beneficiaries of OROP.

(iii) Therefore this term was deliberately coined to enable the inclusion of commissioned officers, into the scheme. Any other term would have excluded them, because their pension was never reduced at any point of time. Also, they have had no complaint of reduction in their pension unlike NCOs, in 1973.

(iv) As the senior level commissioned officers only used to brief the parliamentarians and other officials connected with the subject, they managed to coin and retain the phrase OROP. They only made us to sit in dharna and participate in relay fast etc. in demand of OROP, by virtue of which, we also have become the party in endorsing the term, unwittingly.They knew that as long as the scheme’s name is OROP, they stand to benefit, by default and if this phrase is changed for any reasons, they are not going to get any benefit. The reason being that they never were the victims of any of the four reasons explained in succeeding paragraphs, for which the OROP was demanded.

(v) If we look back into the history of the so called, OROP, it all began with the idea of mitigating the hardships faced by the Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) of all the three wings of the our defence forces, due to the following four reasons:

5. The Primary reasons for demand of OROP

(a) Non-commissioned officers (NCO) reire at a relatively younger age:
the non-commissioned officers are, retired at an young age of 33-38. To quote para 9(iii) of Koshiyari Committee report on OROP, “nearly 85%of armed forces retire at the age of 38 (should be 33-38) 10% retirements take place at the age of 46 (should be 41-46) and remaining 5% retirements happen at the age of 56 to 58”.
The 5% above, amounts to the normal retirement of commissioned officers and may be a micro percentage of Senior NCOs/JCOs. The remaining 95% amount to the retirement of NCOs.

At the age of 33-38 years,the family responsibilities of the retiree, are at its peak, with aged and ailing parents still alive who need financial, physical and emotional support; he, himself married just a few years ago with one or two small kids to take care of; the siblings are yet dependent and still remain unmarried etc.

However the early retirement of jawans is inevitable and essential to make sure that the forces are young, physically strong, so that they are ready to tackle any evil designs of our enemies and remain operationally fit and capable at all times.
To quote further from Koshiyari Committee report on OROP, “Armed forces have to retire early as a matter of policy of Government which causes loss of earnings to them because the benefits given by successive Pay Commissions which could have accrued to them if they were made to retire at the normal retirement age of sixty”.

Your lordship may kindly notice that extending the same benefit to those who retired early at the age of 33 and those who retired 25 years later at the age of 58, by which period two to three pay commissions would have been constituted and pay scales, basic pay and other allowances must have been revised multiple times. The commissioned officers were already enjoying the benefit of retirement close to 60 years of age like their civilian counter-parts and thereby able to avail the benefits given by successive Pay Commissions. How can they again claim to be part of the scheme that is meant to take care of only those who were denied these benefits?

(b) In 1973, NCOs pension was reduced from 70% to 50%, for 33 years of service:
in 1973, on the recommendations of the 3rd pay commission, the pension of NCOs was equated with the central government civilian employees by reducing their then prevailing pension rate of 70% to 50%.

In hindsight, it might be questioned as to why the same was not taken up, then and there, for a suitable remedy? But the military system and ethos never allowed the NCOs to participate in any discussions, deliberations and decision making process. We had no mechanism to redress our grievances although we constituted about 92-95% of the combatant manpower/defence pensioners . The situation remains so even today and likely to continue in future as well. Sir, we donot think that there is an other institution in any democratic country, wherein the decisions are taken not by the majority stakeholders, (accounting 92-95% of the strength) but by the minority officers of 5-8%, except in the case of NCOs of Indian defence forces.

There is another interesting fact. Since we are large in numbers, almost 2.5 million, even very small tweaking or tinkering of our dues will reduce the financial impact substantially. For example, a small reduction of 100 rupees in our pension will reduce the overall financial impact by
Rs. 25 crores per month and 300 crores per annum. It is a huge saving through an easy but an unethical method. Hence there was, perhaps an irresistible tendency to resort to it quite often in order to show the reduced financial impact of any proposal. We were the victims in the hands of our own people who had the opportunity of briefing the Chairmen and members of various pay commissions and other pay related committees/bodies.

(c) No guaranteed lateral entry or re-employment to those who retire young:
even though NCOs are retired when they were young at the age of 33-38 years, there was no guaranteed lateral entry into Para military or police forces, although many pay commissions strongly recommended for it in their reports.

Of course, there is a reservation of 10% group C vacancies and 20% in group D vacancies, in central and state government departments. There are some laxities in implementing these reservation. There is no ESM National Commission like SC&ST National Commission with the same powers to monitor the ESM reservation provisions. As a result, most of the NCOs, especially those who have retired from the army, out of frustration, took up jobs like chowkidars, security guards and watchmen in private housing societies and personal bungalows, for a paltry salary after swallowing their pride and self respect.

(d) Personnel in Border Security Force etc retire on attaining 58/60 years of age:
On the other hand, the NCO level personnel in paramilitary forces like Border Security Forces (BSF) which is akin to armed forces of India and perform nearly the same duties are allowed to serve upto 58/60 years of age.

6. All the above statements can be verified and authenticated from a number of TV debates and discussions that took place during the period of OROP agitation, in which many retired senior officers have participated and articulated their demand of OROP, solely on the basis of the above four grounds. Many articles were also written and published in the leading newspapers, justifying the demand of OROP exclusively on the above grounds. In short, they have kept the guns on the solders of NCOs and fired.
7. Of course there were some passing remarks, stating that the senior officers who had retired years ago are not able to maintain the same standard of living as that of the senior officers who retire now. This is no reason at all and defies logic. How can the government of India be responsible to make sure that the standard of living of two senior officers, one, retired 30 years ago and the other one retiring now, be the same? It sounds impractical. It’s for the retirees to find ways and means to invest the retirement benefits wisely so that they have a comparable standard of living throughout. Therefore this cannot be construed as a valid reason for demanding OROP at all.
8. In order to mitigate the hardship of NCOs, due to all the above adverse situations, initially, Government of India, tried to bridge the gap in the pension of the past pensioners by increasing the weightage of qualifying service, applicable upto the ranks of Havildars, twice in the past. The very fact that NCOs, upto only Havildar and equivalent ranks were considered for bridging the gap, is proof enough that all others were not adversely affected to entail them for such consideration and consequently for the benefit of OROP too.
9. In the meanwhile there was an agitation organized by the Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (IESM), an association of Ex servicemen, at Jantar Mantir. As the agitation gained momentum, the then UPA government hurriedly accepted the OROP demand and allocated a sum of Rs.500 crores for its implementation. Thereafter there was a change of guard in the union government and the government formed by the NDA in May 2014, formally notified OROP on 07/11/2015.
10. This notification resulted in substantial reverse benefit, to those who have served for longer and until superannuation and those who held/promoted to higher ranks. The NCOs who were retired early and young, have hardly got any benefit. This has defeated the very purpose for which OROP was demanded. It, indeed killed the very spirit of the OROP scheme. It benefitted the commissioned officers, who are not the actual indented beneficiaries, with windfall increase in their pensions.
11. Since unintended beneficiaries were included into the scheme, as explained above, there was a huge drain from the public exchequer as well. The burden of footing this unintended expenditure fell on the solders of honest tax paying citizens. Moreover this is a recurring expense and the outlay could keep growing after every five yearly revision. Hence it’s continuation and sustainability itself can become doubtful over a period of time, unless some urgent remedial measures are taken at the earliest.
12. Public money can only be spent wisely and properly for which purpose it was to be spent. Any extravaganza out of public fund is unconstitutional as the constitution of India has an implied and inbuilt provision to ensure government accountability for how and where it spends taxpayer money.
    The maxim that “you cannot spend your way to prosperity” is now widely accepted. Fiscal policies must therefore be embedded in caution than exuberance. In restraint than profligacy.

This very principle was violated when the non eligible Commissioned officers were included in the OROP scheme. On this reason alone the scheme qualifies to be challenged under Public Interest Litigation (PIL) category.

13. Proposed alternate scheme-Early Retirement Equalisation Pension (EREP)

Then there arises a question as to what is the alternate scheme available to ensure that the grievances and hardship, the NCOs are facing due to the four reasons given above, are effectively addressed and redressed in a fair and just manner. At the same time the claim of other pensioners who have retired late and continued in service till superannuation for pension, in proportion to the length of service rendered by them also need to be taken into account, while formulating any alternate scheme and there is no wasteful expenditure from public exchequer so that the scheme is sustainable.

14. This proposed alternate scheme is called Early Retirement Equalisation Pension (EREP). The methodology of the scheme is as detailed below:-
    
    A Sepoy/NCO who retires after 15 years of service will be entitled to 70% of his Last Pay Drawn (LPD), as service pension. This was the rate of pension NCOs were getting prior to 1973. The same shall be reduced by 1.25% for every additional year of service, as computed hereunder:

15 years – 70.00% 24 years – 58.75%
16 years – 68.75% 25 years – 57.50%
17 years – 67.50% 26 years – 56.25%
18 years – 66.25% 27 years – 55.00%
19 years – 65.00% 28 years – 53.75%
20 years – 63.75% 29 years – 52.50%
21 years – 62.50% 30 years – 51.25%
22 years – 61.25% 31 years – 50.00%
23 years – 60.00% & above – 50.00%

The most important feature of EREP scheme is that at no point of time, a senior will draw less pension than the juniors.

15. The EREP scheme will apply equally to both Commissioned officers and NCOs. There is no need for periodic review and there would be lots of saving to public exchequer. While the Last Pay Drawn will be revised on the recommendations of each future pay commissions, the rate of pension as above will remain the same. There will not be any undue benefit or wind fall increase in pension to anyone. There will be an uniformly controlled pension benefit to all. The scheme is more just, scientific and fair. It ensures equity and justice.Its a win-win to all.

The Indian Navy has announced instituting two awards in the memory of India’s first Chief of Defence Staff Gen Bipin Rawat.

The Navy made the announcement on the eve of the late General’s 65th birth anniversary on Thursday.Advertisement

The first trophy would be Gen Bipin Rawat rolling trophy for the ‘Women Agniveer Trainee standing first in overall order of merit’.

Indian Navy spokesperson Commander Vivek Madhwal on Wednesday said the trophy for the current year will be presented by Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral R Hari Kumar during the ‘Passing Out Parade’ of the first batch of Navy Agniveers on March 28 at the Navy’s premier sailors training centre INS Chilka.

The second award would be Gen Bipin Rawat rolling trophy for the ‘Most Spirited Officer’ undergoing the Naval higher command course at Naval War College (NWC) in Goa, he said.

Gen Rawat, his wife Madhulika Rawat and 12 other military personnel were killed in a helicopter crash near Coonoor in Tamil Nadu on December 8, 2021.

It described Gen Rawat as a “visionary” leader and a “military reformer” and said he was known for his professionalism, principles, conviction and decisiveness. “In a distinguished carrier spanning over four decades, Gen Rawat’s achievements were remarkable in all spheres of military and national security affairs,” the Navy said.

It said as India’s first Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Rawat, rallied for organisational and structural reforms to integrate the armed forces. 

“Path-breaking transformational initiatives and civil-military synergy will remain his legacy. General Rawat’s enthusiasm lead the Armed Forces to turn Agnipath — the biggest HR transformation by the armed forces since Independence, from an idea to reality,” the Navy said in a statement.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.

Adjutant General’s Branch, Officers’ Record Office (ORO) has launched “AGRIM – Automated Grievance Redressal and Information Management” system which has automated the complete process of Grievances/Request Registration, Processing and Resolution including online transmission to PCDA(O) and PCDA(P). Veteran officers/ Nexts of Kin (NsoK) may register their grievances online in RODRA after login. Grievances received through other modes like emails, telephone calls, SMS, WhatsApp & visits etc are also converged and recorded in the Customised Resource Management (CRM) Software. Veterans & NsoK will be kept informed through periodic SMS on registration, process/ observation and resolution of their grievance. The upgradation in the Grievance Module will be beneficial to veterans/ NsoK by making the process of redressal transparent and providing real-time update wrt their service request/grievances. A Digitized Call Centre with 10 Channel Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Line has also been established at ORO to address the issue of connectivity being faced by veterans & NsoK. The Call Centre Number is 011-26757700. Veterans/NsoK are requested to make maximum calls on the given number for registration of their grievances on AGRIM for better management. However, existing and other new Helpline Nos i.e 011-20863044, 8130591689, 7683004983 and 8800352938 would also remain functional.

Amid the hardening of battle lines in the one-year-old Ukraine war, which has snowballed into a West-vs-Russia conflict, the crash of a US spy drone into the Black Sea marks a regrettable escalation in hostilities. According to the US military, two Russian Su-27 jets not only carried out a ‘reckless intercept’ of the MQ-9 drone while it was in international airspace but also dumped fuel on it and flew in front of it in ‘unsafe manoeuvres’. Denying that its aircraft came into contact with the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Russia has stated that the drone, which was detected near the Crimean peninsula, crashed after ‘sharp manoeuvring’. Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov has alleged that the UAV deliberately moved towards Russian territory with its transponders turned off.

The direct confrontation between Washington and Moscow comes during a critical stage of the war. With both sides accusing each other of provocation, the threat of mutual retaliation looms large. The geopolitical polarisation is so acute that the possibility of initiating an independent probe into the drone case and working out a mechanism to prevent recurrence of such happenings appears remote. This is another perilous situation that has arisen due to rivalry between the big powers. Early last month, a Chinese surveillance balloon was shot down by the US after it made an incursion into American airspace. Tensions were eventually reduced, but the incident cast a shadow on the already strained US-China relations, prompting Secretary of State Antony Blinken to call off his Beijing trip.

The prevailing mistrust and insecurity have been aggravated by the deal that the US, UK and Australia have sealed to create a fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines. The move is ostensibly aimed at ensuring that the strategic Indo-Pacific region remains ‘free and open’, but the objective of countering China’s assertiveness is an open secret. No wonder Beijing has warned that the three countries are travelling ‘further down the dangerous and wrong path’. The onus is on the major players to exercise restraint and not resort to provocative moves that could trigger an even more devastating war than the one dragging on in eastern Europe.

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 16

The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), the apex decision-making body of the Ministry of Defence, has approved the “need to procure” a new artillery gun, long-range weapons for Sukhoi 30 MKI jets and marine diesel engines.

Adding firepower

Rs 70,500 cr worth of equipment to be bought

All platforms and weapons systems are being procured from domestic sources

Rs 56,000 cr Navy’s proposals

This includes indigenous BrahMos missiles, Shakti Electronic Warfare systems, maritime utility copters

The “need to procure” is termed Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) for the defence equipment. It is the first step in the acquisition process of the MoD and is like a green light to the armed forces to frame tenders for procurement.

The DAC accorded approval to the procurement proposals at a meeting chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh here on Thursday, the ministry said.

The DAC accorded AoN for capital acquisition amounting to more than Rs 70,500 crore and these will be under the “indigenously designed, developed and manufactured” category of procurement.

Of the total proposals, Navy’s proposals constitute more than Rs 56,000 crore, which largely includes indigenous BrahMos missiles, Shakti Electronic Warfare systems and maritime utility helicopters.

The additional procurement of BrahMos missile system will enhance the maritime strike capabilities and anti-surface warfare operations.

For the Coast Guard, the DAC approved Advanced Light Helicopter MK-III from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The helicopter will carry a suite of surveillance sensors.

Tribune News Service

Faridkot, March 16

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, today allowed anticipatory bail to former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal in the Kotkapura police firing case, but denied the relief to Sukhbir Badal.

Sacrilege incidents

• June 1, 2015: ‘Bir’ stolen from Burj Jawahar Singh Wala gurdwara
• Sept 24: Sacrilegious posters found at gurdwaras in Burj Jawahar Singh Wala and Bargari
• Oct 12: Torn pages of Guru Granth Sahib found in a street opposite Gurdwara Sahib at Bargari
• Oct 14: Police, Sikh protesters clash at Kotkapura during a protest against sacrilege incidents
• April 14, 2017: Govt sets up commission of inquiry, headed by Justice (retd) Ranjit Singh
• August 7, 2018: FIR registered

In his order, Judge Rajiv Kalra asserted that there was no legal impediment in extending the benefit of bail to the senior Badal, having regard to his age and medical condition. While denying the relief to Sukhbir, the court relied upon the SIT investigation report, according to which three sacrilege incidents were not “properly and professionally investigated with an intent to screen guilty dera premis from possible criminal action owing to clandestine inaction by the then Home Minister”. Sukhbir’s direct link and personal relationship with dera head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and his personal aspirations to garner and secure votes of dera followers had the potential to put the state into turmoil of sectarian clash. The court, as such, did not deem it a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to Sukhbir, Kalra asserted.

In his detailed order, Kalra also referred to the SIT report, which among other things, said Sukhbir had intentionally abandoned the law and order of the state on October 12, 2015, and left for Gurugram despite having knowledge of a third incident of sacrilege and the growing resentment among the Sikh sangat at Bargari and Kotkapura with an intention to use his absence as an excuse to evade responsibility of illegal action of the police under Sumedh Singh Saini.

“Having regard to such nature and gravity of offence, which had the potential to put the state into turmoil of sectarian clash, this court does not deem it a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail”, reads the order.

Granting relief to the senior Badal, the court directed the former CM to surrender before the ilaqa magistrate, Faridkot, within 15 days, and in the event of his arrest, it was stated that he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh with one surety in the like amount. The court said he would not leave India without the permission of the court.

The court also denied the anticipatory bail relief to Sukhminder Singh Mann, then SSP, Faridkot.

The court asserted that the SIT conclusion in its report appeared to be based upon various factors such as eyewitness account, CCTV footage and communication among the state machinery, apart from scientific investigation. It was not liable to be discarded outright.

“The political rhetoric of the present CM or his Cabinet colleagues spread over Twitter handles does not give credibility to the allegations of hobnobbing of the present SIT with the political dispensation. It does not entail to draw an inference that the SIT conclusion was overshadowed or influenced by the present political dispensation”, the court observed.

Good morning.

Number of Veterans Migrated to SPARSH, have been enquiring from us, why they have not been paid 1st Installment of OROP-2 Arrears. While Non Migrated to SPARSH Pensioners are being paid. 15 Mar 23 have already passed.

Today morning I did speak to Lt Col Ranjan Kumar, OIC DPCC Prayagraj, seeking Clarification. He has confirmed that Work of Revision of Pension of Migrated Pensioners is being carried out on war footing. Due to more number of Pensioners being Migrated, it is taking time. All the Migrated Pensioners would surely get their 1st Installment of Arrears before 31 Mar 23.

Any one who has not got first installment of OROP II pls Email to Bank with copy to Gp Capt VK Gandhi Founder Member IESM vk_gandhi@yahoo.com, This will built up case against GOI statement on payments of first installment paid.

Cdr Ravindra Waman Pathak

THE EXPRESS INDIA NEWS : NEWSPAPER